Sitting of 17 March 2003

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

    New Deal 50-Plus
    Jon Trickett: If he will make a statement on the impact of new deal 50-plus on getting older people back into work. [102943]
    The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Andrew Smith): New deal 50-plus has been a success, and nearly 92,000 people have moved into work while claiming employment credit. Evaluation has shown that it is also helping people by giving them the increased motivation and confidence they need to find jobs. New deal 50-plus is also making a good contribution to our wider campaign to tackle age discrimination and improve the prospects of older people.
    Jon Trickett: I congratulate the Government on their work in this difficult area, but is my right hon. Friend aware of the acute problems in former coalfield areas such as my constituency, where one household in four still has no one in work? That is a frightening statistic. Many are older people, former miners who were thrown on the scrap heap by the Tories when the pits were closed. Will my right hon. Friend pay particular attention in any further rolling out of the new deal to blackspots such as the one I represent?
    Mr. Smith: Yes indeed. New deal 50-plus and the Government's other programmes, including the excellent work done by the coalfields taskforce in partnership with local communities, is making headway in tackling pressing social concerns. The gap between the employment rate among those over 50 and the average rate has been narrowing as fast in the more deprived regions as in the less deprived, if not faster. There is more to be done, but we are determined to build on the progress that has been made.
    Mr. Nigel Waterson: When will the Government do something to help people such as my constituent Jill Lambard-Brown, who has been sacked from her job as a swimming teacher by Eastbourne
    610
    borough council simply because she is approaching the age of 65—although she is as fit as a fiddle, popular with families and children and very keen to carry on?
    Mr. Smith: I have a great deal of sympathy for people like the hon. Gentleman's constituent. That is why we are committed to legislating to outlaw age discrimination, and why the Department of Trade and Industry is consulting on the ending of mandatory retirement ages. An important aim of our Green Paper is to encourage people who want to continue working for longer. We should make the most of the talents of all in our community, regardless of their age, and that includes the hon. Gentleman's constituent.

    Pension Credit
    Helen Jones: What assessment he has made of the impact of the pension credit on the incomes of the poorest pensioners. [102945]
    The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Andrew Smith): Around half of all pensioner households will be eligible for pension credit, and, on average, stand to gain around £400 a year. In total, as a result of the Government's tax and benefit changes, the poorest third of pensioner households will be on average £1,500 a year better off than in 1997, with pensioner households as a whole better off by an average of £1,150.
    Helen Jones: As my right hon. Friend will know, many constituents like mine whose incomes are just above the income support level will benefit greatly from pension credit. Sadly, however, many are still unaware that they can claim it and of how much it would be worth. What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to ensure that all pensioners who are entitled to the credit know of their right to claim, and are helped to do so? Many are put off by the need to fill in forms and so forth.
    Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend makes a good point. That is exactly why we are introducing pension credit—to help those who previously just lost out because of modest occupational pension or savings income. We will make claiming simple and straightforward. Only a telephone call will be necessary: all the information is provided for the claimants, and they will not have to complete complicated forms. The forms will be sent to them to be signed. Moreover, those already receiving the minimum income guarantee will automatically be passported on to pension credit.
    As for my hon. Friend's important point about take-up, since we launched our take-up campaign in May 2000, over 150,000 more people have received the minimum income guarantee, and have benefited by an average of £20 a week. We need to build on that.
    Mr. James Arbuthnot: The Institute for Fiscal Studies has calculated that about 1.6 million pensioner families will be floated on to benefit entitlement by pension credit, and therefore lose their incentive to save. About a month ago, however, the

    611
    Minister of State said that there was no inherent disincentive. Is the institute right, or the Minister of State?
    Mr. Smith: That is a very easy question. The Minister of State is right. I heard what he said. He pointed out that, with the introduction of the pension credit, we reward saving where previously it was penalised. In opposing the pension credit, Conservative Members should open their eyes to the fact that they are committing to going back to 100 per cent. rates of withdrawal, which penalise saving and thrift and hit those on modest incomes hard.
    James Purnell: When parents take time off work to look after their children, they get home responsibilities protection and, therefore, contributions towards their pension. When foster carers do the same, they do not get HRP, so they lose those contributions towards their pension. Foster carers do extremely important work. Often, they are struggling on low incomes. Can my right hon. Friend do anything to put that right and give them the right to the basic state pension and therefore to full pension credit entitlement?
    Mr. Smith: There is widespread support in the House for what my hon. Friend says. I pay tribute to the energy and persistence with which he has campaigned on that issue. I can announce that we shall extend home responsibilities protection to foster carers, so that those years of caring count towards their pension entitlement. They do an invaluable job for this country. It is time that that contribution was recognised in the way they build up their pensions. I am pleased to give my hon. Friend the good news that we shall go ahead with that.
    Mr. Oliver Heald: Is it not wrong that so many of the poorest pensioners, particularly women, will miss out on pension credit through low take-up? Can the Secretary of State confirm that his projection is that only two thirds of those entitled will receive it in the first year, and that the target that he has agreed with the Treasury for 2006 means that 1 million pensioner households will still not receive pension credit? Is that the best he can do for our poorest pensioners, and how does he justify a benefit that was set up on the basis that millions of pensioners would not receive it for many years?
    Mr. Smith: It is extraordinary that the hon. Gentleman should seek to berate us when we are trying to maximise take-up. The approach of the Conservative party is to take pension credit away from those people altogether. On the projections for future years, it of course depends on the numbers who will be eligible at that time but I am confident that it will be more than the 67 per cent.; that figure is purely a planning assumption. We will do everything that we can to ensure that everyone entitled to the pension credit receives it. I hope that Conservative Members will join us in campaigning for that, and not get on their high horse about abolishing it.
    Andy Burnham: In my constituency at least, pension credit has universal backing. I pay tribute to the Secretary of State and the Minister for Pensions for
    612
    developing an excellent policy. Many people in Leigh have small works pensions. Many of those are former miners or their widows. They may have just received, or be about to receive, a lump sum compensation from the coal health compensation scheme. It would be unfair if those payments in respect of ill health affected eligibility for pension credit or the level at which it is paid. Will the Secretary of State assure me that such payments will be disregarded when calculating pension credit?
    Mr. Smith: I can indeed confirm that such payments, which are important for the reasons that my hon. Friend gave, will be disregarded in the calculation of pension credit.

    Child Support Agency
    Mr. Andrew Turner: If he will make a statement on the effectiveness of the Child Support Agency. [102947]
    The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions(Mr. Andrew Smith): The Child Support Agency has steadily increased its effectiveness since the mid-1990s. In 1995–96, the amount of money going to parents with care was only £300 million. By 2001–02, it was around £770 million. The new CSA system for new cases has got off to a smooth start.
    Mr. Turner: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. Were the new system applied to all cases simultaneously, how many parents with care would gain, and what proportion would that be?
    Mr. Smith: Around 60 per cent.
    Mr. Peter Pike: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that one of the biggest categories of complaints from people trying to get payments due to them under the CSA involves men who are self-employed, who can give the system the run-around and who avoid declaring the money and income that they have. Is my right hon. Friend sure that steps are being taken to ensure that the mother gets what she is entitled to in those cases?
    Mr. Smith: Yes. That is a very important purpose of the reform and the introduction of the new system. Because the new system is much simpler, it will enable us to spend far fewer resources on assessing and perpetually reassessing cases. It will thereby enable us to put a lot more effort into ensuring compliance, and making sure that people pay the assessments that they are supposed to be paying. As I have told the House before, particular effort will be made in relation to the self-employed, whose compliance rates are significantly below the average.
    Mr. Steve Webb:The Government's intention was that, in cases where CSA assessment under the new system is very different from that under the old system, change can be phased in over a period of up to five years. A month ago, I drew the Secretary of State's attention to the fact that some people are circumventing that principle by opting out of the CSA and turning up three months later as brand new cases,

    613
    thereby getting the entire five-year increase in one go. Has he done anything about that problem since I raised it, and given that, as my experience shows, such cases do exist, what will he do to prevent the Government's and Parliament's intention from being thwarted?
    Mr. Smith:As I have explained to the hon. Gentleman before, rules have been put in place—in particular, the 13-week provision. We must have a practical way of operating that minimises the incentive for people to try to work the new system to get on to it, but which enables its operation without the addition of yet further bureaucracy and complexity—the very problems that brought the old system into such disrepute and made it so difficult to get the standards of effectiveness that are now being achieved. People on the new assessment are assessed on the much more simple, straightforward basis that we have set out: 15 per cent. for one child, 20 per cent. for two children, and 25 per cent. for additional children. That is accepted by hon. Members and by the country, on the basis of consultation, as a fair method of payment. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and his party will join us in supporting the principle that money that is due to children ought to be paid, and that they will support the new system, which will ensure that more children benefit.
    Mr. Julian Brazier:The Government originally promised the new system by October 2001, and then by April 2002, but we now have this half-baked arrangement whereby new and recycled cases are handled under the new system, while existing ones continue under the old one. When will existing cases move to the new system? Is the five-year transition that the Secretary of State has talked about actually going to happen, and how will it work? There are both winners and losers out there who face great uncertainty as a result of continuing delay.
    Mr. Smith: It is rich for the hon. Gentleman to accuse us of implementing a half-baked system, given that we have had to work so very hard to put right the utter shambles of a system, for which everyone knows the Conservatives were responsible. On reflection, he will surely accept that it is very sensible indeed to ensure that the system works with new cases before switching over existing ones. I will announce the date for doing that when we know that it can sensibly be planned for, and not before. On the five-year transition, yes, it will operate.

    Means-tested Benefits
    Mr. Gary Streeter: What percentage of the population are in receipt of means-tested benefits. [102948]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Malcolm Wicks): About 17 per cent. of individuals in Great Britain over the age of 16 are in receipt of one or more income-related benefits. This Government are committed to targeting help at those who need it most, while putting in place a range of initiatives to help people back into work, such as new
    614
    deals, improvements in child care, the national minimum wage and our new tax credits. All are about making work possible, but also about making work pay.
    Mr. Streeter: Once the changes in April and October come into play, will not some 40 per cent. of the population—about 20 million Britons, according to House of Commons Library figures—be subject to means-tested benefits? Does that not horrify the Minister? Rather than luring more and more people into the sticky and complicated web of welfare dependency, would it not be better to reduce the burden of tax on hard-working families and set them free to make their own choices?
    Malcolm Wicks: The reality is that we are seeking successfully to get people out of benefit dependency and into work. The number of people receiving income-based jobseeker's allowance, for example, fell from 1.2 million to 600,000 between 1997 and 2002. It is wholly appropriate, however, that we support children and work, so that when people make the often difficult transition into work, we can guarantee that it pays. That is the purpose of the tax credit system.
    Mr. David Willetts: Has the Minister seen today's powerful report from the Association of British Insurers, which says that eventually 80 per cent. of pensioners could be on means-tested benefits and that
    "today's state pension system won't work tomorrow"?
    The association joins a long list of organisations—the National Association of Pension Funds, Help the Aged and many others—that have warned about the spread of means-testing under this Government. Instead of reforming benefits and making them simpler, all Ministers do is to introduce yet more means-testing. Why will not the Government join the growing consensus that benefits for pensioners need to be made simpler, instead of introducing ever more means-testing and complexity?
    Malcolm Wicks: We have published our proposals in our Green Paper on pensions. Our strategy—to reduce means-tested dependency for those who are out of work by providing them with work—is the right one. However, it is wholly appropriate that we have a strategy, for both pensioners and those of working age, to support savings and to support those who are in work, but often on low wages, through the tax credit regime. It is an appropriate and consistent strategy to attack poverty in this country.
    Mr. Willetts: It is not a strategy at all. The Minister spoke of means-testing dependency for the unemployed, but it is the same for pensioners. Why will not the Minister listen to what so many outside groups are saying? Why are the Government so confident that they have got it right when everybody else is warning about the implications of their system? More means-testing means weaker incentives to work and save and a system that is so complicated that fewer and fewer people get

    615
    the benefits to which they are entitled. Why will the Minister not listen to those powerful warnings from everyone else?
    Malcolm Wicks: We listen to many groups. In opposition, we listened to the oldest and poorest, whom the last Tory Government did so little to support. Our targeted strategy has brought huge gains to some of the poorest and most deserving among our elders. The Opposition need to explain why they would take away pension credit from many hundreds of thousands of people who need and deserve it.

    Contaminated Blood Products (Compensation)
    Annabelle Ewing: When he will reach a conclusion as to the impact on the payment of social security benefit of the Scottish Executive's proposals to compensate people who have contracted hepatitis C from contaminated blood products. [102949]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Malcolm Wicks): Discussions about those proposals and their impact on the payment of social security benefits are still ongoing. No conclusions have yet been reached and it would not be appropriate for me to comment further.
    Annabelle Ewing: I thank the Minister for his answer, which I find deeply disappointing. He will be aware that the Scottish Parliament and Executive have made clear their wish to compensate hepatitis C sufferers. As there is already a precedent for exempting similar payments from the operation of the clawback system, why will not the Minister today confirm that Westminster will not frustrate the will of the Scottish Parliament to pay compensation to hepatitis C sufferers?
    Malcolm Wicks: Although suffering from hepatitis C is a serious matter, the hon. Lady's question raises a number of complex issues, not least to do with the legal competence of the Scottish Executive. That point has been acknowledged by the Scottish Minister for Health and Community Care. We need to consider advice carefully and I am not yet in a position to make a decision.

    Child Support Agency
    Mr. Bill O'Brien: How many Child Support Agency cases of arrears of maintenance payment were taken to court in each of the past five years; and if he will make a statement. [102950]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Malcolm Wicks): The total number of cases taken to court in the past five years has ranged from approximately 2,800 per annum to more than 4,600 per annum. I will send my hon. Friend the precise figures.
    Mr.O'Brien: My question concerns the procedure that the Secretary of State has set out on deduction of earnings orders. We are advised that. before a case goes to court, the Child Support Agency, following the directions of the Secretary of State, should ask the
    616
    absent parent if a deduction of earnings order would be applicable. How many cases have been taken to court without the deduction of earnings order having been applied in the first instance? if that is happening, what will the Minister do to ensure that the regulations that have been set out by Parliament, through the Secretary of State, will be adhered to, ensuring that attachment of earnings orders are applied before cases go to court?
    Malcolm Wicks: Whenever possible, it is sensible to use methods such as deduction of earnings orders before resorting to going to court. Going to court is the last resort. We have used more than 100,000 deduction of earnings orders. I know that my hon. Friend has a constituency case in mind. Obviously, I will not comment on that case now. When someone changes employer, it can be difficult to use a deduction of earnings order. In such cases, on behalf of the parent with care, we have to go to court, but we do that only as the last resort. Outside the Chamber, I will be happy to discuss particular cases with my hon. Friend.
    Andrew Selous: Hon. Members in all parts of the House are concerned about a minority of parents who persistently and deliberately refuse to pay child support that they are able to pay. In extreme cases, the CSA has the power to remove driving licences, but it has done so in only two cases. Will the Minister seek to ensure that that happens more frequently?
    Malcolm Wicks: The purpose of the new powers is to deter. Nine people have gone to prison as a result. Others, when threatened with the loss of their driving licence, have paid up. That is the whole purpose of the policy. It is one of the weapons in our armoury to ensure that absent parents recognise their responsibilities towards their children.
    David Taylor: Is it not the case that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) mentioned a moment ago, there are serious flaws in the CSA's recovery process in relation to self-employed people? Would closer co-operation and co-ordination between the Department for Work and Pensions, the CSA, the Inland Revenue and others not lead to more certainty in the contacting of non-resident parents who are clever at avoiding paying what they should be paying?
    Malcolm Wicks: I have considerable sympathy with that point. We all have cases in our constituencies where fathers—it is normally fathers—have not paid up. Many of those people are self-employed. We are doing what my hon. Friend suggests: we now have close working relations with the Inland Revenue. It is, after all, up to the Revenue to determine the income of a self-employed person. However, in cases where there are grounds for thinking that the lifestyle of the man—or, sometimes, the woman—is inconsistent with their reported earnings, we can pursue the matter using the new powers. We have to ensure that all parents, whatever their employment status, acknowledge their responsibilities to their children.

    Lone Parents (Workless Households)
    Mr. Andrew Mitchell: If he will make a statement on the number of lone parent workless households. [102951]
    The Minister for Work (Mr. Nicholas Brown): In autumn 2002, there were 707,000 workless lone parent households in the UK. Since 1997, the lone parent employment rate has increased by almost one fifth. For the first time, it is over 50 per cent. Recent independent evaluation by the National Centre for Social Research has shown that the new deal for lone parents more than doubles lone parents' chances of finding a job.
    Mr. Mitchell: Why does the Minister not come clean with the House and admit that, over the past year, there has been an increase of 55,000 in the number of children in workless households? Is that not a savage indictment of the Government's failure to tackle poverty in the way that they promised—quite apart from being a breach of the solemn undertakings that were given by his party at the general election?
    Mr. Brown: No, it is not. I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's interest in these matters and I know that he serves on the Select Committee on Work and Pensions. However, he has a pretty grudging way of looking at the issues. By far and away the best way in which to help the poorest households is to ensure that a member of such households gets into work that pays and that the jobs are available. That is the direction in which we are moving and, frankly, the results speak for themselves.
    Mr. Barry Gardiner: Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to confirm that 250,000 fewer children are in workless households than in 1997? Indeed, will he confirm that up to 1 million children stand to benefit from the changes to child maintenance premium to the tune of up to £10 per week as a result of the Government's recent initiative?
    Mr. Brown: Of course, my hon. Friend is right. One would pay more attention to the representations of the Opposition if they could set out their alternative policies clearly. Do they want to go back to 3 million unemployed, and the 15 per cent. interest rates and 10 per cent. inflation rates that they visited on the country? People very quickly forget what happened.

    Long-term Unemployment
    Chris Ruane: What further steps he will take to help people into work in communities with high levels of long-term unemployment. [102952]
    The Minister for Work (Mr. Nicholas Brown): In areas with high levels of long-term unemployment, we have introduced initiatives such as action teams for jobs and employment zones. The north-west Wales action team and employment zone, which works in my hon. Friend's constituency, has helped more than 1,100 people into work. In addition, we are building on the new deal by providing transitional jobs, through the StepUp pilots, to act as a stepping-stone for long-term unemployed people moving from benefits into work. Further action
    618
    in areas with the highest concentrations of worklessness was announced in the pre-Budget report. The Government's active labour market policies have played an important part in reducing long-term unemployment by more than three quarters and youth unemployment by 88 per cent. since 1997 in my hon. Friend's constituency.
    Chris Ruane: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. The unemployment rate in my constituency is 3.1 per cent., so unemployment has virtually disappeared. However, 44 per cent. of the unemployment is concentrated in only two wards. More than 2,500 jobs are being created six miles away on the St. Asaph business park, and excellent initiatives such as the working links car loans scheme are having an impact on transport. What additional transport initiatives can the Government take to connect the jobless with the jobs?
    Mr. Brown: There are two great advantages of the action team approach. First, it is proactive and can go out and help unemployed people, rather than requiring those people to seek help. The second great advantage is flexibility, which includes underpinning transport schemes such as the one that my hon. Friend mentioned, with which he is familiar from his constituency, and more generally. I understand that the car leasing scheme is to be expanded and that, in his constituency, it will be extended to a scooter leasing scheme in April.
    David Cairns: When can my right hon. Friend announce the areas chosen to pilot the Government's new pathways into work programmes? If one of those areas turns out to be in Scotland, will he assure me that he will liaise closely with the Minister for Health and Community Care in the Scottish Executive so that if unemployed people required a rehabilitation course, for example, they would be able to access one as easily in my constituency as in his?
    Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend makes his representations very well, as ever. We shall make the announcement as soon as we can. I had the opportunity to visit Scotland recently and saw at first hand the good rehabilitation work that is being undertaken locally.

    Pension Payments (Hospital Patients)
    Mr. Laurence Robertson: If he will pay full pensions to people who are in hospital for longer than six weeks; and if he will make a statement.[102953]
    The Minister for Pensions (Mr. Ian McCartney): We have already announced that we are increasing the period to 13 weeks from this October. We estimate that at any point in time some 26,000 people will benefit from the change, of whom some 18,000 will be people receiving state pension and 2,000 will be people receiving pension credit. By contrast, when the Conservative Government reviewed the rules, they introduced a standard six-week period for all benefits,

    619
    including some that had previously had an eight-week rule, which meant that many people suffered detriment under that Government.
    Mr. Robertson: I am grateful to the Minister for that response, but does he recognise that the problem is bigger when people have to stay in hospital much longer because of bed blocking? Is it not also a problem that other benefits, such as the disability living allowance and the carer's allowance, make it increasingly difficult for people to leave hospital? I welcome the change of the six-week rule to 13 weeks, but will the Minister review other benefits and ensure that people are not kept in hospital when they should not be there?
    Mr. McCartney: Some 95 per cent. of hospital admissions for older people last less than six weeks, thank goodness, while the figure for the general population is 97 per cent. The Government are investing hugely in carers and people in the community through intermediate care, as well as funding the biggest ever investment in primary and acute care in the NHS. The hon. Gentleman's party opposes such investment and wants to make a 20 per cent. cut., so I will take no lessons from him on downrating or on investment in public services.
    Claire Ward: I welcome the extension by my right hon. Friend of the number of weeks during which pensioners are still entitled to payment while in hospital. However, the payment of council tax is an important issue, particularly for pensioners in my area, who face higher payments as a result of the decision by Liberal Democrats in borough and district councils significantly to increase council tax. In addition, Conservative-controlled Hertfordshire county council is significantly increasing council tax, despite the fact that the Government have given it an above-inflation funding increase. What assistance can my right hon. Friend provide for all pensioners, as it is clear that neither the Conservatives nor the Liberal Democrats care about them?
    Mr. McCartney: When I announced those changes in the State Pension Credit Bill, I made it clear that they not only applied to those who receive the basic state pension but extended to people who receive housing benefit and invalidity benefit.
    As my hon. Friend says, Liberal Democrat councillors throughout the country are penalising pensioners and others by making draconian increases in council tax despite the record amount of money that they are receiving from the Government to improve and modernise services.
    Mr. Tim Boswell: Is not one of the problems when Ministers make concessions—as all parties are pleased that they have in this case—that it tends to leave unfinished business? Will the Minister consider seriously those benefits that have not been improved as a result of his alleged generosity? I think particularly of attendance allowance and associated carers' benefits. The rules are still very tight, with a limit of four weeks, I think. Does the Minister appreciate that, when an elderly person is taken into hospital, the last thing that they or their family are thinking about is
    620
    whether their benefits may be clawed back? Will he reconsider whether that nasty shock may be avoided, and administrative feasibility improved?
    Mr. McCartney: The change was not a concession. One of the first things I did when I was appointed Minister for Pensions was to make it clear to the organisations representing older people that I wanted to make changes in this area. I made a promise, and I kept that promise. The issues that the hon. Gentleman raises are separate. He asks about the rules on benefits that are related to people's disability and intended to contribute to their everyday living costs when they are in the community. Those costs are transferred when they have long-term illness as a result of their disability and are in hospital.
    I am aware of the need to review these matters, but I make it clear that the change that has been made benefits 97 per cent. of individuals who go into hospital. Other changes, such as the increases to benefits that we made in the uprating statement, assist the different beneficiaries mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.

    Disabled People (Pension Payments)
    Mr. Jim Cunningham: What plans he has to assist disabled people with access to pension payments. [102954]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Eagle): For convenience and safety, many disabled people and pensioners already have their money paid straight into a bank or building society account, and others will want to have their money paid into an account that they can use at the Post Office. I was disappointed therefore to note that the Post Office's new PIN pad is not as user friendly as it should be. We are working closely with the Post Office and customer organisations to ensure that the new arrangements fully meet the needs of all our customers, particularly those of disabled people and pensioners.
    Mr. Cunningham: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Which disabled groups did she consult prior to the introduction of the smart card?
    Maria Eagle: The Department for Work and Pensions, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Post Office consulted the usual disability organisations, including the Royal National Institute of the Blind. Today, I am laying before Parliament the Visually Impaired (Blind and Partially Sighted) Regulations 2003, which automatically include more blind and partially sighted people in the definition of disability in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 without them having to prove that they fit the definition. That should make it clear that under the DDA there are legal obligations on service providers such as the Post Office to make their services accessible to disabled people, including those with a visual impairment, and not to ignore them. All customers with a disability will still be able to access their payments at a post office, if that is what they want.
    Mr. Paul Burstow: Can the Minister explain what happens in circumstances where a disabled pensioner becomes ill and has not previously nominated somebody to operate their Post Office card account, and thus cannot attend in person to enter their number? Will pensioners in those circumstances be able to gain access to their pension? What is the arrangement? At present, it is not clear whether the exemption scheme will cover that situation. It is not clear how people will get their pensions in such circumstances.
    Maria Eagle: The Post Office has admitted that it needs to examine more closely the way in which the PIN pad works. It is examining how to make it more user friendly, and other ways of accessing the Post Office card account without a PIN pad. The circumstances that the hon. Gentleman has described are no different from those that currently apply when a pensioner cannot get to the post office: they are able to nominate someone else to get their money for them.

    Children's Centres
    Ms Ann Coffey: What assessment he has made of the future impact of the new children's centres on supporting parents in work. [102955]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Eagle): Local authorities are just beginning their strategic planning for children's centres, so it is too early for such an assessment to have been made. However, we are expecting them to make a significant impact. Every children's centre must provide day care suitable for working parents, five days a week, 10 hours a day, for a minimum of 48 weeks a year. They will also act as service hubs for providers of child care services for children of all ages, linking to Jobcentre Plus offices, and offer support to parents who wish to consider training options.
    Ms Coffey: I welcome the funding for the new children's centres, which for the first time will enable child care, early-years education and support for parents to be provided in the same place. Such children's centres will be especially welcome in Brinnington in my constituency, which has the highest number of parents on income support and the lowest number of childminders. There are jobs available, but child care continues to be an issue. Can my hon. Friend say when decisions are likely to be made about where the children's centres will be? When she makes the decisions, will she bear Brinnington in mind?
    Maria Eagle: As usual, my hon. Friend has been early in the queue of hon. Members to see my noble Friend Baroness Ashton of Upholland, who is responsible for those matters, to make representations to us. We expect local authority proposals to be with us by October, and we shall make decisions shortly thereafter. My hon. Friend's council, Stockport, has already had an indicative allocation of more than £1 million to make the children's centres work in her constituency. I am sure that both the council and my noble Friend will
    622
    consider the Brinnington ward when the decisions come to be made, especially in view of what my hon. Friend has said today.

    Child Care
    Ms Dari Taylor:What role Jobcentre Plus has in ensuring that advice and information on child care is available to parents looking for work. [102956]
    The Minister for Work (Mr. Nicholas Brown): Child care partnership managers are being introduced to all Jobcentre Plus districts from April 2003 to ensure that parents are provided with the advice and information that they need on child care. In Stockton, South, that means that parents moving into work will be able to take advantage of nearly 700 new child care places created in the past three years, providing care for more than 1,100 children in my hon. Friend's constituency.
    Ms Taylor: I thank my right hon. Friend for that thoughtful and valuable response, especially his reference to my constituency. Will he comment further about affordability and quality, which are two of the most crucial features that persuade parents that they can leave their children to seek work further away from home? Has any research been conducted to assess the impact of child care provision in terms of the numbers of people getting back to work?
    Mr. Nicholas Brown: My hon. Friend is right to raise that issue, and I acknowledge that she is a long-standing campaigner on those issues. This is an important labour market issue—child care must be affordable, which is why the child tax credit, which is available both to employed and self-employed people, pays up to 70 per cent. of eligible child care costs.
    Hywel Williams: What steps are the Government taking to make child care more accessible in rural areas, where there are particular problems with the provision and accessibility of child care, and where there is certainly not equity of provision?
    Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman is right to raise that matter. There are obviously difficulties with child care provision in rural areas, but he will know that the Government are proposing a substantial expansion in the number of places. We aim to increase help so that it covers 2 million children by 2006. The hon. Gentleman is of course right that that expansion should encompass rural areas as well.

    Pensions/Benefits (Uprating)
    Mr. David Heath: What account is taken of the average level of council tax for the purposes of calculating pensions and benefit uprating. [102957]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Malcolm Wicks): The retail prices index, by which most non income-related benefits are uprated, takes account of rises in council tax. Other income-related benefits are uprated by the Rossi index, which

    623
    excludes housing costs and local taxes. That is because those costs are met through separate benefits—for example, housing benefit for rent and council tax benefit.
    Mr. Heath: Is the Minister aware that the average council tax increase for councils of all political persuasions across the country is likely to be about 14 per cent. this year, which is very hard indeed for people living on fixed incomes such as state pensions? The Office for National Statistics announced today that it is changing the basis on which inflation is calculated for pensions purposes—not to give a greater weighting to council tax, but to include takeaway latte coffee, kebabs and hair gel, none of which, I suspect, figure highly in a pensioner's average weekly budget. When will we get a price index that deals with the real expenditure of real pensioners?
    Malcolm Wicks: It is not for my Department but for the ONS to alter or possibly kebab the index according to its own criteria. Council tax is set by individual councils of all political colours, not by central Government. Council funding has gone up by 25 per cent. in real terms in the past six years, whereas in the four years before 1997 it was cut by 7 per cent. Also, as a result of the interaction between pension credit and the applicable amounts for housing benefit and council tax benefit, we estimate that about 700,000 pensioner households who will not get pension credit itself in future will gain from the changes, which is welcome news.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: While I understand the problems that would arise if pensions and benefits had to be adjusted simply on the basis of council tax, does the Minister nevertheless agree that it is unfair to have a national level of pensions and benefits in particularly high-cost areas? London weighting, however ham-fisted it is, is now evident in virtually every job in our capital city, so should not that principle be looked at and perhaps extended to pensions?
    Malcolm Wicks: I do not know whether that is an announcement of a new policy, but the index is not a matter for us. It is based on precedent, and historians in the Opposition will remember Hugh Rossi, the ministerial author of the index. On the point made by the hon. Gentleman, council tax benefit goes to 4.6 million recipients, is worth on average £11 a week, and is a particularly important benefit at this time.

    Means-tested Benefits
    Chris Grayling: What percentage of pensioners are dependent on means-tested support. [102958]
    The Minister for Pensions (Mr. Ian McCartney):About 30 per cent. of pensioner families are in receipt of income-related benefits. Our priority has always been to focus help on those who need it most, which is why we introduced the minimum income guarantee. Almost 2 million people are benefiting from the guarantee, and the take-up campaign has put an extra £20 a week on average in the pockets of 149,000 people who would not
    624
    have received it otherwise. In the hon. Gentleman's constituency, around 1,500 people are in receipt of the minimum income guarantee. We are now going a step further and introducing pension credit, which will reward—not penalise—saving. As a consequence of that change, the poorest pensioners will receive an average extra income of £400 a year.
    Chris Grayling: Does the Minister not realise the disservice that the Government are doing to pensioners in my constituency and elsewhere? Through their new credits they are creating a complicated mechanism for pensioners to get some money back from the Government, but extra taxation, particularly the council tax, is taking much more out of pensioners' pockets. Will the Government adjust means-tested benefits to make them simpler to access and to make them reflect the huge extra cost of living that pensioners are absorbing this year because of the tax rises?
    Mr. McCartney: The Government have swept away the Tories' means-tested, mean-minded approach to pensioners' income. Consequently, come October this year, a pensioner in the hon. Gentleman's constituency can make one phone call, complete an application with a civil servant trained to act as their advocate, sign a commitment that the information given is correct, and receive pension credit. In addition, we have changed the rules with regard to council tax and housing benefit, so unlike the situation under the Conservatives, who gave benefit with one hand and took it away with the other, pensioners will qualify for housing benefit and council tax benefit as well.
    Mr. George Mudie: Will my right hon. Friend pay no attention to Opposition Members' hypocrisy in respect of targeted benefits? Can he confirm that as a result of the targeted benefits and the minimum income guarantee, the poorest pensioners have received weekly increases of up to £30 a week? Can he also confirm that the poorest pensioners are on average 30 per cent. per year better off?
    Mr. McCartney: My hon. Friend is correct. Opposition Members, both the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives, must explain in the next few months why the Conservatives have a secret plan to privatise the basic state pension, and why the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) has a Mickey Mouse Budget under which the youngest pensioners, who he says are the poorest, will lose about £30 a week in benefit to pay for his mad-cap idea of simply increasing pensions for people over the age of 75.

    Benefits Sanctions (Antisocial Behaviour)
    Bob Spink: What plans he has to link benefits to the behaviour of recipients. [102960]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Malcolm Wicks): The Government have previously recognised the case for a role for housing benefit sanctions in tackling bad neighbour nuisance. Many of us have constituents who have suffered from the so-called neighbour from hell. However, sanctions need to be workable and capable of being applied

    625
    decisively—[Laughter.] Our constituents who suffer from antisocial behaviour do not find it a laughing matter. Sanctions need to be workable and capable of being applied decisively in response to antisocial acts in the local community. They must act as a deterrent, not simply as a punishment after the event, and they must not be so cumbersome to administer that the costs outweigh the benefits. We intend to consult on a proposal to sanction housing benefit. If a workable measure can be developed, we will legislate to implement it.
    Bob Spink: Having accepted in principle the linking of housing benefit to behaviour, why have the Government rejected the Prime Minister's idea of linking child benefit to behaviour? What is wrong with the Prime Minister?
    Hon. Members: Answer!
    Malcolm Wicks: What is wrong with the Prime Minister? Nothing at all. I should like to be quoted on that. There is a serious issue about the measures we can employ to tackle antisocial behaviour of different kinds. That is the purpose of the recent White Paper and that will be the purpose of legislation. If housing benefit sanctions can be made to be a workable instrument of policy, we will do that. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills has made other proposals to ensure that truancy, which is big problem and a contributory factor in our shopping centres, can be tackled.
    Mr. David Kidney: Does my hon. Friend agree that the original setting up of the Child Support Agency is a bad precedent for the judicial function being taken over by an administrative body? Does he not worry that decisions about who is telling the truth in behaviour disputes and whether the alleged antisocial behaviour is acceptable or unacceptable are matters not for administrators, but for courts, to decide?
    Malcolm Wicks: The reality is that the Child Support Agency, with the agreement of the whole House, is delivering maintenance more effectively than the old court-based system, which simply did not work. However, I have said that we will take great care to ensure that the Government's concern to tackle antisocial behaviour, which I think is shared on the Conservative Benches but not the Liberal Democrat ones, is workable. That is why we shall consult very carefully to ensure that aspirations to tackle the yob neighbour can be translated into something that is workable, legal and effective.
    Mr. John Berco: The Minister has chosen to interpret the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) in terms of antisocial behaviour as it is conventionally understood. However, can he tell the House in what number or proportion of cases jobseeker's allowance has been withdrawn from those recipients of it who have thrice refused decent job offers?
    Malcolm Wicks: The sanctions regime in Jobcentre Plus and new deals has been very effective. There are different sanctions regimes and I shall send the hon.
    626
    Gentleman the data, but I have met unemployed people who admitted that the sanctions regime made them seek employment. Instead of playing party games on this one, what the British public—not least those living in fear of the yob neighbour—want to know is whether this Parliament can bring forward workable solutions. We are determined to do that, and I think that most of the House is. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would prefer to play the party political game.

    Unemployment (North-West Leicestershire)
    David Taylor: What the change in the level of unemployment in the North-West Leicestershire constituency has been since May 1997. [102962]
    The Minister for Work (Mr. Nicholas Brown): Since 1997, in my hon. Friend's constituency, claimant unemployment has been more than halved and long-term unemployment cut by more than 80 per cent. Those figures are clear evidence of the strength of our labour market policies, which have helped to deliver record levels of employment across the country and unemployment at its lowest levels since the 1970s.
    David Taylor: The reductions in unemployment in the former mining constituency of North-West Leicestershire are most welcome, but recent downturns in areas such as textiles, engineering and food manufacturing are a source of concern. Will the Minister receive a delegation including local Members of Parliament and workers at the United Biscuits factory in Ashby, where a planned phased run-down in 2004 could lead to the loss of 900 jobs? Economic success must not be holed below the waterline in that way.
    Mr. Brown: I am sympathetic to what my hon. Friend says and I congratulate him on getting in twice at Work and Pensions Question Time. I represent a constituency with similar problems to those to which he alludes. I shall receive his delegation, and whatever Jobcentre Plus can do to help in the difficult circumstances that he describes, we will do.

    Carers' Benefits
    Mr. David Cameron: What recent representations he has received on the level of benefits paid to carers; and if he will make a statement. [102963]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Eagle): There have been no recent representations from national organisations, but there have been 16 written representations about the level of invalid care allowance, which is to be renamed the carer's allowance in April, from MPs writing on behalf of their constituents in the past six months, although to my knowledge, they do not include the hon. Gentleman. We have already made substantial changes to carers'

    627
    benefit and we are in the final stages of implementing the carer's package, which improves financial support for carers by an estimated £500 million over three years.
    Mr. Cameron: May I thank the Minister for that response? I should also declare an interest£I forgot when I tabled the question that I am a recipient of carers' benefit.
    Does the Minister agree that as important as the level of benefit is the very poor take-up that we still have in this country and the desperate need for respite care? Is she aware that almost all the carers who come to my surgery are investigating or making points about respite care and its availability? Given that the Government are now providing more money to local authorities in terms of carers' grants, which I welcome, is it not now time for some mandatory requirements for respite care for those who are looking after elderly relatives or disabled children?
    Maria Eagle: The hon. Gentleman is right that respite care can be an important part of keeping carers going and I shall certainly pass on his remarks and suggestions to the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith), who has responsibility for that.
    In respect of numbers, it is estimated that at the outturn of this year some 421,000 people are in receipt of ICA, which is an increase over the past year resulting from our extension of eligibility for ICA to those who are over 65 years old.

    Final Salary Pension Schemes
    Mr. Edward Leigh: If he will make a statement on the number of final salary pension schemes that have closed since May 2002. [102964]
    The Minister for Pensions (Mr. Ian McCartney): The Green Paper acknowledges that the trend towards
    628
    defined contribution schemes has accelerated over the past few years, but the trend should not be overstated. One hundred and nineteen defined benefit schemes have reported their closure to new members to the pensions schemes registry since May 2002, which is just over 1 per cent. of the total number of defined benefit schemes where members are still building up pension rights.
    A number of companies—for example, Unilever, Centrica and John Lewis—have recently declared their desire to retain their existing pension arrangements, increasing their own, and in some instances their employees', contributions. That demonstrates partnership in action, an approach that the Government advocate.
    Mr. Leigh: I thank the Minister for that answer, but the fact is that nobody denies that final salary schemes are in crisis. It might have been hoped that many people could find comfort in personal pension schemes, but the collapse in share prices over the past three years means that those are also in crisis. In the light of that difficulty facing pensioners, will the Minister make representations to his colleagues in the Treasury to the effect that it is high time that the changes to advance corporation tax—representing a tax on shares that has cost our pensioners £30 billion, or £5 billion a year—should be suspended so that we can at least for the time being, end this crisis, which is afflicting our pensioners so seriously?
    Mr. McCartney: The crisis of confidence over private pensions started with the last Government and the misselling of £13.5 billion of pensions, and it took this Government to clear up the mess. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman, along with his colleagues on the Front Bench, should play a more active and positive role in replying to the response to the challenges put forward in the Green Paper. He might then get somewhere when he talks in such terms about the problems of second tier pensions. This Government are trying to sort out the problems caused by the last Government.

Points of Order
3.31 pm
Sir Patrick Cormack: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There are strong rumours outside the House that after this afternoon's emergency Cabinet meeting the Prime Minister or the Foreign Secretary will seek to make a statement. Have you received any notice of that? If you do receive such notice, do you intend to interrupt the business or, because it is timetabled business, to take the statement at the end of the business?
Mr. John Burnett rose—
Mr. Speaker: On the same point of order, Mr. Burnett?
Mr. Burnett: No, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: There may well be a statement later today. As to its timing, the first business today is a guillotine motion providing for the Northern Ireland Assembly Elections Bill to be taken through all its stages today. If the House agrees to that motion, I think it would be wrong for me to decide to interrupt the subsequent proceedings on the Bill on my own authority. The effect of that would be to truncate those proceedings still further and to contradict the order that the House had just made. But it is of course possible for the House itself to conclude proceedings on the Bill earlier than the scheduled time of 10 pm if Members decide that that would be desirable.
Mr. Burnett: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. With his usual courtesy, the Attorney-General has informed me of his written opinion on the legality of the actions that the Government may soon be taking, or authorising, in Iraq. Given the seriousness of the matter, an oral statement followed by questions would have been more appropriate. Will you prevail upon the Solicitor-General to attend any subsequent debate on
630
this matter to ensure that the Government's views on the legality of any action taken in Iraq may be challenged and debated?
Mr. Speaker: All I would say to the hon. Gentleman is that I am sure that the Solicitor-General will have noted his comments.
Mr. Alex Salmond: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On several occasions, the House has been promised a debate on the war before the shooting starts. Given that it appears as though the Americans are not depending on the element of surprise, the caveat about the safety of the troops does not apply. Given that the Leader of the House may not be in a position to redeem his commitment, is there a role for you in ensuring that the House debates the matter before any action starts?
Mr. Speaker: It is not a matter for me; it is for the Leader of the House to make a business statement.
Mr. John Taylor: Further to the point of order of the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett), Mr. Speaker. I want to associate myself with the hon. Gentleman's comments about the Solicitor-General, which you hoped that she would hear. It is of the greatest importance that the Law Officers should advise not only the Government but Parliament. Law Officers should be present to state the proper ruling.
Mr. Speaker: I believe that that is the purpose of making the Law Officers' advice available.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Further to the first point of order, Mr. Speaker. In the event of your breaking in on our proceedings, will the time for the statement and for questioning a Minister be added to that which the debate should have had? As you know, it has already been cruelly guillotined.
Mr. Speaker: Let me put the hon. Gentleman's mind at ease. I shall not break into the Northern Ireland business if the House decides to carry the first item of business.

Northern Ireland Assembly Elections Bill (Allocation of Time)
3.36 pm
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Jane Kennedy): I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to the proceedings on the Northern Ireland Assembly Elections Bill—
Timetable
1. Proceedings on Second Reading, in Committee, on consideration and on Third Reading shall be completed at this day's sitting and shall be brought to a conclusion, if not previously concluded, at Ten o'clock.
Questions to be put
2. When the Bill has been read a second time—

(a) it shall, notwithstanding Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of bills), stand committed to a Committee of the whole House without any Question being put, and

(b) the Speaker shall leave the Chair whether or not notice of an Instruction has been given.

3. On the conclusion of proceedings in Committee the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question and, if the Bill is reported with amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.
4. For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 the Speaker or Chairman shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;

(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;

(c) the Question on any Amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;

(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.

5. On a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
Consideration of Lords Amendments
6.—(1) Any Lords Amendments to the Bill shall be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
(2) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall be brought to a conclusion, if not previously concluded, one hour after their commencement.
7.—(1) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 6.
(2) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question already proposed from the Chair and not yet decided.
(3) If that Question is for the Amendment of a Lords Amendment the Speaker shall then put forthwith—

(a) single Question on any further Amendments to the Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown, and

(b) the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House agrees or disagrees to the Lords Amendment or (as the case may be) to the Lords Amendment as amended.

(4) The Speaker shall then put forthwith—

(a) single Question on any Amendments moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment, and

(b) the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House agrees or disagrees to the Lords Amendment or (as the case may be) to the Lords Amendment as amended.

(5) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House disagrees to a Lords Amendment.
(6) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question, That this House agrees to all the remaining Lords Amendments.
(7) As soon as the House has agreed or disagreed to a Lords Amendment, or disposed of an Amendment relevant to a Lords Amendment which has been disagreed to, the Speaker shall put forthwith a single Question on any Amendments moved by a Minister of the Crown and relevant to the Lords Amendment.
Subsequent stages
8.—(1) Any further Message from the Lords on the Bill shall be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.
—9.(1) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 8.
(2) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided.
(3) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair.
(4) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on or relevant to any of the remaining items in the Lords Message.
(5) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question, That this House agrees with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.
Reasons Committee
10.—(1) The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment, nomination and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons in relation to the Bill and the appointment of its Chairman.
(2) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.
(3) Proceedings in the Committee shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion 30 minutes after their commencement.
(4) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with sub-paragraph (3) the Chairman shall—

(a) first put forthwith any Question which has been proposed from the Chair but not yet decided, and

(b) then put forthwith successively Questions on motions which may be made by a Minister of the Crown for assigning a Reason for disagreeing with the Lords in any of their Amendments.

(5) The proceedings of the Committee shall be reported without any further Question being put.
Miscellaneous
11. Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business) shall apply to any proceedings to which this Order applies.
12. The proceedings on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 shall apply to those proceedings.
13. Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply in relation to any proceedings to which this Order applies.
14. No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which any proceedings on the Bill are taken or to re-commit the Bill.
15. No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to proceedings to which this Order applies except by a Minister of the Crown; and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
16.—(1) This paragraph applies if—

(a) a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) has been stood over to Seven o'clock, Three o'clock or Four o'clock (as the case may be), but

(b) proceedings to which this Order applies have begun before then.

(2) Proceedings on that Motion shall stand postponed until the conclusion of those proceedings.
17. If the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the conclusion of any proceedings to which this Order applies, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.
18. Proceedings to which this Order applies shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
I apologise on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for his absence. He will join us as soon as possible.
The Bill is the result of intensive negotiations that culminated at Hillsborough on 3 and 4 March. Our aim during them was to find a way in which to rebuild the confidence and trust necessary to restore stable and inclusive devolved institutions in Northern Ireland.
As will be explained on Second Reading, at the end of the negotiations, our judgment is that a shared understanding has been reached of the way in which the process can move forward. There is a genuine chance that we might shortly be in a position to complete the transition to a peaceful and democratic society in Northern Ireland. All parties now need time to reflect on our discussions on the way forward. The prize is the opportunity for the people of Northern Ireland to cast their votes at an Assembly election on the basis of a set of working institutions. Without the Bill, the current Northern Ireland Assembly would be dissolved this Friday, the election campaign would start and there would be no political advance before the Assembly election on 1 May.
The Bill would postpone the dissolution of the current Assembly to 28 April and the date of the election to 29 May, thus allowing for a short delay to give the parties the opportunity to reflect.
Mr. Quentin Davies: I am a little bemused. The Minister refers to the Bill and is describing its substantive purpose, yet we are considering the timetable motion. Will she argue for the timetable motion? In the light of Mr. Speaker's comments, I wonder whether she agrees that it is unnecessary and undesirable to timetable the measure and that it would be much better to let matters take their course. If the Prime Minister had an urgent statement to make this afternoon, Mr. Speaker would be able to then interrupt proceedings to allow that.
Jane Kennedy: The hon. Gentleman should have contained himself for a moment longer; I had intended to make a brief statement in moving the timetable motion. As I conclude my remarks that set the scene, he will realise that the motion is straightforward and that I have made the case for it.
As I have said, in postponing the dissolution date of the current Assembly to 28 April and the date of the election to 29 May, the Bill allows for a short delay. I know that the hon. Gentleman has said that that forms part of the substantive debate on the Bill, but, because the current dissolution date for the Assembly is this Friday, the Bill must receive royal assent by Thursday in order for the dissolution of the Assembly to be postponed and the way left open for the restoration of the devolved institutions prior to the Assembly election. I believe that that makes the case for the timetable motion that we are considering today, and that we can
634
deal with all the substantive issues in the Bill in the period laid down in the motion. Regrettable though timetable motions are—I know that the hon. Gentleman's party always argues cogently, and from a very principled point of view, against their use—
Mr. Quentin Davies rose—
Jane Kennedy: I am just about to bring my remarks to an end, but I will give way one last time.
Mr. Davies: Would the hon. Lady be good enough to respond to my proposition to make the matter a little more explicit? I am perfectly prepared to make a deal with her, under which she would not proceed with her timetable motion, and we would agree to proceed in a timely fashion—knowing that we have to get the Bill on to the statute book by the end of the week, for the reasons that she has mentioned—which would allow the statement to take place at 7 o'clock without the difficulty, which Mr. Speaker has explained, of his interrupting a Bill that is under timetable. I put that proposition to the hon. Lady. If she would like now to withdraw her timetable motion, I am sure that matters could proceed in a way that would meet the interests of the Bill and the wider interests of the House at this moment of international crisis.
Jane Kennedy: The hon. Gentleman makes a cogent point. Had I been dealing only with him and his party, it might have been possible for me to agree to his suggestion. Sadly, that is not the case. Given that there is an amendment to the Bill that we might consider at a later stage, and given the imperative upon us, if we are to achieve our objective of giving all the parties more time to consider the issues that arose from the discussions at Hillsborough, I believe that the compressed timetable for the Bill's passage through the House is unavoidable, unpalatable though that is to the hon. Gentleman and his party. I therefore intend to proceed with the timetable motion as it stands.
3.42 pm
Mr. Quentin Davies: I am very sorry that the hon. Lady did not accept the proposal that I just made to her, particularly because she could have avoided the trap into which she is now falling. You would never say anything that had the slightest shadow of partisanship Mr. Speaker, but earlier, in explaining quite objectively the constraints placed on you once a Bill is subject to a timetable motion, you set out the nature of the trap into which the Government are falling. I gather that they wish to make a statement at 7 o'clock. In normal circumstances, Mr. Speaker, you would want to give the Prime Minister of the day the opportunity to make an urgent statement to the House, which is waiting anxiously to hear it, at the earliest opportunity. The only reason why that cannot take place, why common sense cannot prevail, and why the way in which the House has conducted the business of the nation satisfactorily for generations, if not centuries, cannot proceed, is that the Government have got themselves embroiled in this attachment to the idea of the automatic timetabling of Bills. They are suffering this afternoon because of that attachment. The Prime Minister will be sitting in No. 10, not knowing whether

635
he is supposed to come to the House at 7 o'clock or at some later time because of this system, which the Government have gratuitously, unnecessarily and very regrettably taken it upon themselves to introduce.
We shall oppose this timetable motion; we always oppose them—[Interruption.] Let me say to Labour Members that this is not a perfunctory piece of opposition on our part. It is a deeply felt matter of principle that the legislature should be allowed to take the time that it needs to debate proposals introduced by the Executive in its own way and in its own time. We should not be forced into this Procrustean bed of a timetable motion.
Above all, we in Parliament should not have to endure the humiliation of the Executive branch using their massive majority—there happens to be an enormous and overwhelming Labour majority of 200—to get such timetable motions through the House and to dictate to the legislature, as they have been for these past several years and will continue to do for another couple of years while this Government remain in power, how long it is allowed to debate their proposals. If there was a greater affront to the balance of powers on which any free constitution depends, I cannot think what it might be. This is a monumental scandal, and no Government in the history of this country, whatever their majority, ever dreamt of doing any such thing.
We are about to debate Irish business, and we know that timetable motions were introduced to the House in the 1880s in response to the filibustering of Irish Members, which brought all business to a halt. There was, indeed, a consensus in the House between the Conservative and Liberal parties on introducing the possibility of using timetable motions, but such motions were envisaged as exceptional measures to be introduced only exceptionally and only, in principle, according to a consensus between the majority parties in the House. They were to be justified on each and every occasion.
From the 1880s to the 1990s, that was how timetable motions were used—only exceptionally, only when proceedings on a Bill had begun in the House and only when there was a prima facie case that there was a delay in the transaction of Government business either in the Chamber or in Committee. On each and every occasion, the Government had to come before the House to argue for the necessity of a timetable motion or a guillotine.
This Government came to power in 1997 with a massive majority, feeling that they could do what the hell they liked with the legislature, as with everything else in the country. They pushed through this system and decided that they would then dictate systematically to Parliament, in advance, how long it would be allowed to spend on business and on debating Bills introduced by the Executive branch. That is an affront to every principle on which Parliament—any Parliament by any name—is based.
It is for us to decide how long we wish to take to discuss the Government's proposals. It is for us to decide, if necessary, what questions we wish to ask the Government and what explanations we require before we take decisions on their legislative proposals. I have to say that it must be in the interests of good legislation that that should be the case.
636
What happens now, quite scandalously and quite regularly, as all of us in the House know and as the public are becoming increasingly aware, is that we get bad legislation, rafts of which—tens of clauses, sometimes—have never been subject to debate either on the Floor of the House or in Committee. That is entirely because of the Procrustean and artificial system that the Government have introduced.
We in the House have important matters on our minds, such as the prospect of hostilities in the Gulf and one aspect of the Northern Ireland peace process, which we shall debate later. These are great historical events, and few of us here will be in this place when weightier matters are debated, but there is no doubt that when people have forgotten debates on what accounts for 90 per cent. of the business of the House—even important matters such as tax rates, health, education and welfare, which are temporarily very important indeed—it will be remembered against this Government in decades and generations to come that they, in the whole history of Parliament, were the first and only ones artificially to curtail our opportunity to discuss Government legislation. They are the first and only Government to make such an attack on the liberties of Parliament.
Mr. John Bercow: My only anxiety is that my hon. Friend, in characteristic fashion, if I may say so, is understating his case somewhat. Does he not agree that the Government, in rigidly sticking to their timetable motion, are guilty of not only an intolerance of dissent, but a failure of imagination?
Mr. Davies:I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. That failure of imagination clearly extends to a lack of sensitivity—until I intervened to make the point rather cruelly and blatantly—about the embarrassment that would be caused to the Prime Minister himself if the timetable motion were pursued.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention and especially reassured to learn that I was understating my case. It is always right to proceed by subtlety, so I am glad that I have that reputation among my colleagues and hope that I shall retain it. Equally, however, I hope that I did not leave the Government in any doubt whatever as to the seriousness of the points that I was trying to make and, indeed, that my language was not so mild as to nourish any illusion on that score.
Once again, important business is subject to a scandalous artificial timetable imposed by the Government. Again, there has been a breach in the equilibrium and balance in the powers of the constitution between the Executive and the legislature, which is the price our country continues to pay for the terrible error of having elected a Labour Government.
Once again, we face the prospect that serious and important legislation will leave this House without having been properly considered, and that we shall not have been able to discharge our responsibility to those who sent us here. Again, that is the result of explicit deliberate decisions taken by the Government, who are so intoxicated by the vast majority that they happen, temporarily, to enjoy that they feel that they can even get away with violating some of the essential principles of our constitution.
To add farce to those serious considerations, the Government are proceeding so blindly on the course that they have adopted, against the background of their

637
massive complacency, that they do not even realise that it is their own Prime Minister whom they will embarrass and inconvenience. Further words of mine about the great mistake—the grievous error—that the Government are making by introducing this motion would be superfluous. I have generously given them every opportunity to withdraw before we have to vote on the motion. They have declined to do so and have obstinately continued on their set course.
Mr. Stephen McCabe: I should hate to suggest that further words from the hon. Gentleman would be superfluous, but if his offer was genuine, why has he chosen to spend the past 10 minutes taking up time unnecessarily when he could have tested his proposition by finding out whether other hon. Members would co-operate so that we could move on to the main business, which is what he said he wants to do?
Mr. Davies: The offer was genuinely made and, it seemed to me, equally genuinely rejected. If the hon. Gentleman does not realise that when an offer is rejected its benefits have to be forgone by the rejecting party, he does not know the first thing about negotiation. I do not know where the hon. Gentleman has been living; I thought that our fellow citizens sent men and women of this world to the Chamber to bring experience and wisdom to bear on our proceedings, so I am slightly surprised by his apparent naivety. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman's defence would be that he was desperately trying to stem my flow so as to save his Front-Bench colleagues from further embarrassment. The Government Whip grins, so I am glad that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe) has scored a few brownie points where they count.
We shall oppose the timetable motion, irrespective of our views on the substance of the Bill. Whether this motion is passed or rejected, we shall continue to reject timetable motions on the same firm principles as long as the Government remain in power, which I trust will be for only two more years. Then Parliament will be able to return to conducting its business properly.
3.54 pm
Lembit Öpik: The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) may well be right—a Liberal Democrat Government may well be elected in two years—but that is not the issue.
The Conservatives, understandably, seem to get annoyed about everything. What annoys me is the assumption that Conservative Front Benchers have authority to negotiate on behalf of all the Opposition parties. The Liberal Democrats take a different view. I recognise that when I am Secretary of State for Northern Ireland I shall have to decide whether, by not imposing a guillotine, I will bring about a terrible compromise, and Conservative Members will try to generate mischief and delay the proceedings inordinately—as often happens, I might add, in Standing Committees considering related matters.
Perhaps the most serious arrogance is the hon. Gentleman's assumption, in seeking to negotiate for others in the Chamber, that it is acceptable simply to sweep away the Bill—to postpone it from 7 pm, or whatever time a statement is made, until 8 pm, rather
638
than completing an important debate before proceeding to other matters. The hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) made a similar case in his point of order. I am pleased with your judgment, Mr. Speaker: we should focus on this issue and resolve it before, if necessary, moving on. It is a shame that the hon: Member for Grantham and Stamford appears to confuse the importance of Northern Ireland business with the importance of other matters.
It seems to me that if there are those who have a right to complain about the guillotine, they are the Unionists sitting behind me and—when they arrive—the SDLP Members sitting opposite. The people whose opinion on the guillotine I really respect are the representatives of Northern Ireland parties. They may not persuade me to oppose the guillotine on this occasion. Given that there is one amendment and there are only two clauses, one of which consists of the name of the Bill, we shall probably have enough time to complete our discussion while allowing reasonable time for Northern Ireland speakers, who are not in the habit of procrastinating or pointlessly stringing out debates and will not, I am sure, be guilty of any such behaviour today.
I agree with the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford on one thing: enormous majorities to tend to create bad and arrogant Governments. I hope that the current Government will bear that in mind as they look back on the dark days of Thatcherism, when a majority of 144 brought the country to its knees.
3.57 pm
David Burnside: My understanding is that we have three hours in which to debate the guillotine motion before the statement that is expected to be made at 7 pm. If two statements are made, at 7 pm and 8 pm, the substance of the Bill will be squeezed into the time between 9 pm and 10 pm. Let me explain my opposition to the motion, and to the fact that we are even debating it.
Mr. Peter Robinson: I understood you, Mr. Speaker, to say that we should proceed with the debate, that if we finished early there would be an opportunity for a statement, but that we would not interrupt business between the debate on the guillotine and the Second Reading debate.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is perfectly correct. That is exactly my position—we should dispense with this business first. The House may decide in favour of the timetable, in which case we shall dispense with this business and any statements will follow. Nothing will interrupt the business if the House so decides.
David Burnside: I thank Mr. Deputy Speaker, the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), for his wise words!
I will oppose the timetable motion because we should not even be discussing the subject in the House today. A democratic election was set in legislation for 1 May. May I explain what the Government perhaps do not wish to explain openly and honestly to the House and to the people of Northern Ireland—why we are here today debating Northern Ireland business to postpone the

639
Assembly election from 1 May to 29 May? It sums up the Government's total mismanagement of a political process that they call the peace process.
We are having a one-month delay, and perhaps even more—who knows?—because the Government have accepted a 100 per cent. veto from the representatives of Sinn Fein-IRA on the operation of any form of democratic local government in Northern Ireland. Following the signing of the Belfast agreement, an Assembly was established in 1998. It has come on and off—
Kevin Brennan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is the hon. Member for South Antrim (David Burnside) in order in discussing what is essentially the substance of the Bill when we are discussing the timetable motion?
Mr. Speaker: Sometimes hon. Members get a little elbow room from the Speaker. The hon. Member for South Antrim (David Burnside) should take that point on board. He has made passing reference to the Bill, but it is the timetable motion that we are debating at the moment.
David Burnside: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The timetable motion means that we are limiting the time to discuss why the Government have postponed the Assembly election. I hope that I am within order in trying to outline why that guillotine motion has been put before the House: it is because of the clear mismanagement of the peace process. It is worth while stating why that process has stalled again.
The Minister referred—I assume that she was in order—to the recent discussions at Hillsborough. I assume that she was referring also to the discussions at Weston Park. Those are relevant to the motion, because of the substance of the negotiations between Her Majesty's Government, the Government of the Irish Republic and four, sometimes five, of the political parties in Northern Ireland, with one or two parties being excluded from that process, especially the Democratic Unionist party. An effort is being made to cobble together an agreement with Sinn Fein-IRA to try to restore the institutions in time for the election.
The House deserves to have considerable time to debate why that has happened. It is not because my party did not adhere to its obligations under the agreement. It is not because the other democratic parties in Northern Ireland did not try to adhere to the institutions as set up and as they operated in the Assembly and the Executive. There is no Executive or operational Assembly in Northern Ireland at the present time because one party, Sinn Fein-IRA, will not adhere to totally democratic methods.
640
Today is St. Patrick's day, when all Irishmen, I hope, can celebrate our patron saint. It is one year ago to this day that Sinn Fein-IRA broke into Castlereagh police station under the authority of Mr. Storey—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is out of order. He must stick to the timetable motion.
David Burnside: I will conclude.
I have stated my opposition to the timetable motion. I believe that we need more time. I will try, if I can catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, to speak in the main debate later in the day. We do not need this legislation. It should not be put before the House. It is another example of mismanagement of the peace process, a political process, by the Government.
4.4 pm
Rev. Ian Paisley: We are short of time. Everything we say prolongs the debate and leaves us less time to deal with something that needs to be dealt with and the people of Northern Ireland need to hear about.
The Minister says that the Bill and the need for it comes from what happened at Hillsborough. The majority of Unionists in Northern Ireland were not represented during the final voting at Hillsborough: add them up, and see how many were represented. A large section of the people were cut out—we knew nothing about it—yet the police were able to visit some Unionists to tell us that we were about to be attacked, and that we should be careful because the IRA had information on us as a result of its having broken into Stormont. That organisation—the very organisation accused of doing that—knew what was happening at Hillsborough, but I, a public representative, did not.
So this is all news to us; we do not know what is happening, and no one will tell us. I asked the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister to let us see what they were talking about, but they said, "You will not see it; you will not even have a peep at it." I know people—people who are no friends of the well-being of law-abiding citizens—who not only saw it, but who were, for a time, put out of free access here, there and yonder, because of what they knew.
All that I am saying is that we need to get down to discussing the matter at hand, and that we should leave this subject. I do not believe that there should be a timetable, and, as I said in my initial statement, this is an awful guillotine that goes far too far. We should have time, but we will not get it, so what should we do? We should take the time—as you said, Mr. Speaker, which satisfies me—to get into this debate as hard as we can.
If the House divides as a result of a particular Member's speaking for such a long time during this debate, I, of course, will vote against this timetable, because I oppose it. However, I believe that we need to get on with the main subject before the House.
Question put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day

  Northern Ireland Assembly Elections Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  4.7 pm
  The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Jane Kennedy): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  As I said during the debate on the timetable motion, the need for this Bill arises from the intensive negotiations on the political future of Northern Ireland that the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach conducted at Hillsborough a fortnight ago.
  This is a short Bill with a simple purpose. It provides for a 28-day postponement of the Northern Ireland Assembly elections that are currently scheduled for 1 May. Postponing an election is a serious step, and it is certainly not one that we would contemplate lightly. However, I believe that it is very much the right thing to do in the circumstances that now face us, because what emerged from the Hillsborough discussions was a potential basis for political advance in Northern Ireland. Nothing is guaranteed and more work is needed, but we may now have an opportunity to end direct rule, pass powers back to the Assembly and Executive in Northern Ireland and implement all the remaining aspects of the Belfast agreement of 1998.
  If that opportunity is taken, the people of Northern Ireland could vote for an Assembly that had already resumed its powers at the time of the election, or that was ready to take them up afterwards. That is clearly a great deal better than an election to an Assembly that is in a state of suspension, without powers, unable to meet, and with no clear route out of that state.
  Lady Hermon: Will the Minister clarify the precise circumstances in which a suspension could be lifted before the elections on 29 May?
  Jane Kennedy: Suspension of the Assembly would have to be lifted with the agreement of the parties. That is the only basis on which we can move forward, and I will come to that point later in my speech if the hon. Lady will be patient for a moment while I outline some of the big issues that we are discussing today.
  Realistically, we could not hope to tie down the political agreement necessary to move beyond that state if the election date remained 1 May—which, on the present timetable, would mean the dissolution of the Assembly, and the start to all-out campaigning, at the end of this week. If the election date were moved to 29 May, we should have a much better chance of such agreement. That is the reason for the Bill.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, North and Bellshill (Dr. Reid), the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, was obliged to suspend devolved government on 15 October last year, in the aftermath of concern about continuing paramilitary activity. It was clear that there had been a catastrophic breakdown of trust, that the lack of trust existed on both sides of the community, and that that catastrophic breakdown of trust made the effective functioning of devolved government impossible.
  642
  As the Prime Minister made clear in a speech in Belfast on 17 October, Northern Ireland had reached a fork in the road. It was, my right hon. Friend said, time for republicans to complete the transition to exclusively peaceful means—to make it real, total and permanent. Without that, it was clear that the system would no longer work, but if such real change occurred, the way would be open to the implementation of the rest of the agreement in its entirety. What was needed, the Prime Minister made clear, was action sufficient to restore trust on all sides.
  Mr. Jeffrey M. Donaldson: The Minister talks about trust having broken down on both sides. What did Unionists do to breach trust?
  Jane Kennedy: There was a sense that there was a lack of commitment to power sharing and to working together to make government work. As I have said, there was a catastrophic breakdown of trust in the veracity of those associated with paramilitary organisations. It is that trust that we have sought to restore, through the talks and negotiations that have taken place in recent weeks.
  Since that breakdown of trust and the Prime Minister's speech in Belfast, both the British and Irish Governments have worked in the closest partnership, along with the parties, to promote a fundamental step forward. There has been a series of round tables, convened by the British and Irish Governments and open to all parties in the Assembly. There have been other meetings of the six parties who favour the agreement. There were meetings with the Prime Minister and Taoiseach at Hillsborough in February. Most promisingly, though, there have been intensifying contacts among the parties themselves. Engagement by the parties with the Government, and with the Irish Government, is often important, but engagement between the parties themselves is crucial.
  The Prime Minister and Taoiseach arrived at Hillsborough on the morning of Monday 3 March, intending to leave that evening. In fact, both stayed through the whole of Tuesday, and into the early hours of Wednesday. The House knows the pressures on the Prime Minister's time, especially in the present international situation: his choosing to remain with the parties is eloquent testimony to the fact that the negotiations, though often difficult—as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and I have reason to know—held out real promise from the start.
  There was a great deal of engagement between the parties, and, although areas of real difficulty remained, there was by the end, as the Prime Minister said, a shared understanding of how the process could now be moved forward to a lasting and durable settlement based on full implementation of the agreement.
  The key issues under discussion—and there are many—are widely known and have been widely commented on. At their core is, on the one hand, an end to paramilitarism, and, on the other, the stability of the institutions. It was the clear judgment of both Governments that a settlement was within reach. Such a settlement would open the way to reviving the full operation of devolved government in Northern Ireland and the important north-south and east-west

  643
  institutions on a foundation of stability and willingness by all parties to operate them wholeheartedly. It would necessarily be founded on an end to paramilitarism, as the Prime Minister made clear. That would include—in the context of the changed environment brought about by the definitive transition to exclusively peaceful and democratic means, and in the context of all parties endorsing the policing arrangements and structures—the coming of security arrangements that would be regarded as normal in other parts of these islands.
  We cannot rush the steps to the conclusion of such a settlement. There is a need on all sides to rebuild the trust and confidence that is necessary to underpin the successful operation of the institutions, which will take time. The Governments cannot dictate the pace of the process. The parties need an opportunity to reflect on the key issues with their colleagues around the country. They also need time to engage with each other further. The Government concluded that we needed to give space for that to happen before the two Governments come back with definitive proposals about the most promising basis on which implementation of the Belfast agreement can be set back on track. We intend to do that in early April. I hope that, by that stage, we will see a response from the paramilitaries that enables us all to go forward.
  I have to emphasise again what the Prime Minister made clear in October, because it is critical: the system will no longer work in the shadow of paramilitarism. We can go forward only on the basis of the agreement. That must include a commitment to exclusively peaceful means on the part of the parties that are involved in government and the organisations that are linked to them. We now need to see acts that are unmistakably acts of completion of the transition to exclusively peaceful means. We also need, of course, to see a renewal of the commitment to operating all the agreement institutions wholeheartedly. On all sides, what is said and done must inspire trust and confidence in all parts of the community.
  By early April, when we will introduce our final proposals, the Assembly would, on the present schedule, have been dissolved for two weeks. If we held elections according to the schedule, therefore, those elections would be to an Assembly in suspension, with no clear way established to its resuming powers again. However, in the light of the discussions at Hillsborough, we now have good grounds to hope that, if we postpone for a few weeks, the elections may be to an Assembly that either has resumed powers or has good prospects of doing so once the votes are counted. That would be a far more satisfactory state of affairs for the vcters, for Northern Ireland and for us all. Hence, we decided, after careful consideration, that a brief postponement of the Assembly elections would be right.
  Mr. Peter Robinson: The Minister has outlined two possibilities. In the first, an agreement would be forthcoming before the election. In the second—which she did not quite explain to the House—
  644
  an agreement might be reached after the election. What circumstances suggest to the Minister that, if people had not agreed before the election, they might agree after it?
  Jane Kennedy: As I said, that would have to be in the context of acts of completion. Without those, the idea that we can begin to restore trust is nonsense. The acts of completion underpin all our hopes for the way forward in Northern Ireland.
  Lembit Öpik: In pursuit of the same point, does the Minister accept that what sounds like a strong statement—in this case, acts of completion—can become a flexible statement in the interests of expedience? It is that problem that causes concern and perhaps scepticism in certain groups.
  Jane Kennedy: I do not accept that. I am not aware of specific statements that could be taken as watering down the absolute commitment that the Prime Minister himself spelt out in Belfast in October. The commitment is unequivocal and that remains our position. Without that, we would be unable to restore the trust not so much of the Labour party, the Liberal Democrats or the Conservatives, but of the parties that need to be part of the power-sharing Executive in Northern Ireland. That is why the acts of completion are one of the issues that are central to our discussions.
  Short delays to elections are unusual and are undesirable in principle, but they are not unprecedented. The House will recall that although local elections were due on 3 May 2001 in England and Wales and on 16 May in Northern Ireland, they were postponed to 7 June because of concerns about the impact of foot and mouth disease and its accompanying restrictions on the electoral process. Indeed, the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which established devolved government on the basis set out in the agreement, provides for elections to be delayed, or indeed brought forward, by up to two months by order subject to the negative resolution procedure. We decided, however, that it would not be right to use that provision in the circumstances of the postponement that we are considering.
  As I said, any delay to an election is regrettable. We would not propose it if there were any other way to achieve our objective. I hope that the House will agree that the potential prize well merits the postponement in this case because a month could make a very great difference. The Bill postpones the election date by four weeks, or 28 days, to 29 May. The hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) and his colleagues in the Democratic Unionist party have tabled an amendment that I regard as a wrecking amendment. I am not sure whether it is a typographical error, but the date in the amendment must be wrong. Surely it should refer to 1998, not 1999.
  Andrew Mackinlay: The amendment is not clear in the documents that I have. Bearing in mind that it is a manuscript amendment, I would be grateful if the Minister could help us by saying what it is about.
  Jane Kennedy: I am not sure that I should discuss the amendment at this stage. I am sure, however, that a copy of it can be made available. Indeed, there is one on the Table.
  Andrew Mackinlay: On a point of order, M r. Speaker. I do not want to embarrass myself, although that has never stopped me before, but a copy of the amendment is not available outside the Chamber.
  Mr. Speaker: I understand that copies of the amendment are in the Vote Office, and they may well be available on the Table.
  Andrew Mackinlay: I am very much obliged to you for your help, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Peter Robinson rose—
  Jane Kennedy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Before I move on, I shall give way to the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson).
  Mr. Robinson: Copies of the amendment are available because I picked one up several hours ago from the Vote Office. My copy refers to 1998. I am not sure why there is a date of 1999 in the Minister's copy.
  Jane Kennedy: I have an earlier copy. The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that the date is correct in the amendment that is now available to the House, although I shall not dwell on it.
  As a consequence of choosing 28 April as the dissolution date, the election timetable is shortened from 25 to 20 days, but that will not affect other key election timetable events, such as deadlines for absent votes. The election will be safeguarded by the most stringent precautions ever taken against electoral fraud.
  The Bill includes technical provisions to take account of the impact on expenditure limits of moving the elections.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: The Minister will be well aware that photographs are supposed to be made available so that people can get an identity card to vote. Is she aware that there is a complete jam-up of the works, which means that in some areas people cannot get those photographs or they cannot get an appointment to have photographs taken? The elections will be on us shortly, so will the Minister set her mind to finding out how to keep the process moving?
  Jane Kennedy: I am not aware of the complete jam-up to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I understand that on 14 March the number of applications for electoral identity cards stood at 55,225, and that on 11 March the number of cards issued was 16,935. The processing of applications is well under way. Every elector may now use a range of photographic identification; people are not restricted to using the electoral identity card to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I am confident that those who need a card will be able to get one in ample time for the elections.
  We are asking the House today to go the extra mile, as it has done before, to give the agreement a chance to succeed and come to full fruition. We believe that that is a real prospect; otherwise we would not have introduced the Bill. Northern Ireland, and therefore each of us in
  646
  these islands, has come a very long way since the agreement was concluded in 1998. I hope that the House will agree to offer this vital chance of advancing further.
  4.26 pm
  Mr. Quentin Davies: As it is St. Patrick's day, I start by offering my warm congratulations to all those in the House from Northern Ireland and with Irish connections generally. It occurs to me that we may all like to send our warmest wishes to the men of the Irish Guards and the Royal Irish Regiment, who are currently deployed in the Gulf and for whom this must be an anxious time.
  The Opposition have supported the Northern Ireland peace process and the Belfast agreement from the very first. Indeed, the peace process as we know it began with the ceasefire that followed the historic Downing Street declaration negotiated by the then Conservative Government. It is therefore reluctantly, and with a heavy heart, that over the past 18 months, we have felt the need, in the interests of the peace process and of the people of Northern Ireland, to take issue with the Government on the tactics that they were adopting in the process. In our view, those tactics were imperilling the implementation of the Belfast agreement and the achievement of peace and normalisation in Northern Ireland.
  Those tactics were based on three illusions on the part of the Government, no doubt honestly, if naively, held., but no less potentially damaging and disastrous for that. The first of those was that the issues at stake and the parties involved in the peace process could be dealt with effectively one by one and separately. In other words, the Government, although well meaning, failed to appreciate that everything in Northern Ireland is interlinked. Everything is therefore contingent; side deals will never work; and no party will make a move unless it knows what the others will do in return.
  The second illusion was the belief that terrorists and former terrorists can be appeased, or even disarmed, by unilateral concessions. In other words, the Government appear to fail to appreciate that we are dealing here with hard men, negotiators as tough as they come, who will never give anything for nothing and will take unilateral concessions as a sign of weakness and simply ask for more. In short, there was a failure to recognise that concessions must always be reciprocal and there must always be sanctions for non-performance in any successful peace process or agreement.
  The third illusion was the belief that no damage would be done to Unionist parties or to the SDLP, the main constitutional parties in Northern Ireland, by endless conciliation and appeasement of republicans; that they could be, to a large degree, taken for granted. That was both unfair and impolitic. It could only lead, as I fear it has, to increasing disillusionment and cynicism about the peace agreement over the past few years in Northern Ireland, and to the hardening of positions in both the Unionist and nationalist camps. So the Government saddled themselves and are responsible for quite a large measure of the difficulty with which they now have to contend.
  The Government's misconceived approach—it was fundamentally misconceived in relation to the three illusions that I have set out—led to their committing,

  647
  and it could only have done so, four cardinal errors. I have described these four errors before as the Government four cardinal errors, and I shall again repeat what they were to remind the House.
  First, there was the colossal error of releasing all the prisoners without any decommissioning taking place, even though the Belfast agreement required both processes to be completed within two years. Secondly, there was the failure to respond at all to successive breaches of the ceasefire and the agreement by Sinn Fein-IRA—Florida, Colombia, Castlereagh and the continuing beatings, shootings and intimidation. As I said at the time, failure to respond to such egregious breaches could only lead to more, and so, sadly, it proved with Stormontgate.
  The third cardinal error was the incredible decision, despite all that, to offer new unilateral concessions to Sinn Fein-IRA that were not required by the agreement. The two worst such examples were the promise at Weston Park of an amnesty for on-the-run terrorists to be delivered by the end of 2001, and the special status for Sinn Fein members in this place.
  The fourth cardinal error was the decision to turn down the offer that I made in the House last July to pass rapid legislation to give the Secretary of State power to suspend from the power-sharing Executive any parties in breach of their obligations or in concert with those in breach of their obligations under the ceasefire or the agreement.
  Lembit Öpik: Will the hon. Gentleman describe the mechanics of how he felt that such a suspension would have played out in Northern Ireland and why he feels that it would have been effective?
  Mr. Davies: I am not pretending that I predicted Stormontgate. Of course I did not. However, I predicted and said at the time—it is on the record—that if we did not respond to breaches, there would be more. I said during the debate that took place in July that we had better prepare for what the Government do, because the Government, as sure as hell, had better do something next time, otherwise there will be more and more. The Government need to suspend from the power-sharing Executive parties that are in breach of their obligations or in concert with organisations that are so in breach.
  At the time, there were only two possibilities available to the Government, and unfortunately that remained the position. One was to introduce a motion in the Assembly, which under the rules of the Assembly would have had to achieve a majority in both camps, Nationalist and Unionist. In practice, that meant that the entire onus for excluding Sinn Fein would have lain on the SDLP. That would have been a ridiculous situation and an abdication of a fundamental responsibility on behalf of the Government to do something about these breaches.
  The other alternative was to suspend everybody, both innocent and guilty, and to bring down the structure of devolution—the Executive, the Assembly, the whole lot. That is what the Government ended up having to do. That is because they did not accept my proposal, which was to provide in legislation in this place—it could have
  648
  passed through the House quite rapidly—for the Secretary of State to have powers to exclude the particular party which was in breach or in concert with those in breach. That is simple. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman did not follow the argument at the time. It seems clear in retrospect that we should have done that. Instead, we have brought down the whole structure, and that is precisely why we confront the difficult situation that we do. That is precisely why, in addition, we have had the crisis over the past six months and the issue of how we shall restore the institutions of devolution, which were suspended because, unfortunately, there was no alternative.
  However, let me be fair to the Government. Since the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) took over as Secretary of State, there has been, in all honesty, a striking change in the Government's approach, which is extremely welcome. All the other elements in the equation, such as the issues, the parties, the personalities—in Northern Ireland, the Government of the Irish Republic, and the Government themselves, including the Prime Minister, Mr. Jonathan Powell and everybody else—remain the same and nothing else has changed. The only new element is the arrival of the right hon. Member for Torfaen, so it is fair to give him substantial credit for that change in approach.
  Kevin Brennan: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Davies: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman recognises that I am endeavouring to be fair. Perhaps our own critiques were not without effect. Perhaps even more eloquent is the fact that the predictions that we made on the basis of our analysis proved true all too often and, sadly, what we said would happen came about. However, there was undoubtedly a change of tone. The Prime Minister's speech in October, to which the Minister of State has already referred, was certainly the most realistic and robust that he has made so far in the peace process. At the time, I said that we welcomed the speech but that we would judge the Prime Minister by his deeds, not merely by his words. Importantly, over the past six months, there has been a welcome absence of unilateral concessions by the Government.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Desmond Browne): I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman's speech, which could be described as slightly understated, but urge him to reflect on the timing of the events that he is narrating to the House. My recollection is that my right hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, North and Bellshill (Dr. Reid) was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the Prime Minister made his speech on 17 October.
  Mr. Davies: The tone of the speech, as I have already said, was welcome. The substance—the negotiations—I shall come on to later; they are a more recent phenomenon, but are also extremely welcome. We keep our eyes and ears open and have noticed that the words and concepts that we have espoused for so long and which the Secretary of State's predecessor, the right hon. Member for Hamilton, North and Bellshill (Dr. Reid), used to reject passionately or even to rubbish when I used them over and over again in the past year and a half at the Dispatch Box—words such as linkage, timetable,

  649
  sanctions, multilaterality—are now on the Government's lips, including those of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne) and the Minister of State, which I welcome.
  Last Wednesday, in Northern Ireland questions, the Secretary of State generously and revealingly agreed with me that it was a thoroughly good thing that we in the Conservative party had successfully resisted the promise of amnesty for on-the-run terrorists at Weston Park. As a result, that important card remains in the Government's hands, and enables us to achieve the judicial treatment of the problem of on-the-run terrorists, which both the Secretary of State and I, both Government and Opposition, agree we should seek. There is therefore a new realism and robustness, and there is a new approach that could be characterised as a multilateral, comprehensive package—exactly what the Opposition have been calling for for the past year and a half, recognising the linkages and insisting on the need for discipline, balance and sanctions on the Government's part. I hope and trust that that will bear fruit—indeed, there is some evidence that it is beginning to do so, as we always expected it would. Has the divergence—the rupture, even—between us over tactics now come to an end? Can we now speak of bipartisanship of approach and tactics as well as objectives? I profoundly hope so—the next few weeks will tell definitively.
  It is clear that the Government's new course has produced a more hopeful situation. I have already had two private and detailed briefings from the Secretary of State about the meetings at Hillsborough and I am grateful for that. I must not betray in my remarks to the House the confidentiality of those briefings, but I can say that the new approach has been based on the principles of multilaterality, comprehensiveness and balance, and I know that the agenda now includes the essential mechanisms of explicit timetables and sanctions for non-performance.
  Mr. Nigel Dodds: The hon. Gentleman mentioned that he had had two detailed briefings from the Secretary of State on the outcome of the discussions at Hillsborough. Does he agree, therefore, that it is all the more despicable that hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies, and members of the party that I represent in the House have received no such briefings, consultations or any information whatever from government, officially or otherwise? Is that not a despicable way to treat hon. Members, particularly when they represent a substantial—indeed, a majority—view of Unionism in Northern Ireland?
  Mr. Davies: I have the greatest respect for the electoral mandate of any democratic party and I recognise that what the hon. Gentleman says is true—his party represents a large number of people in Northern Ireland. It has chosen, for reasons that we know, not to take part in the Belfast talks or in talks subsequent to the Belfast agreement, but I agree that the party cannot be left out of account. It would be inconsistent with the briefings that I have had if I engaged in publicly second-guessing the Government's tactics at Hillsborough, but I take note of the hon.
  650
  Gentleman's comments, and I hope that the two Ministers on the Front Bench will have done so too. The complaints are not new, but that is no reason for not taking notice of them. I am glad the hon. Gentleman had the opportunity to make the point again this afternoon.
  Without breaching the confidentiality of the briefings that I have had, I must tell the House—I have the agreement of the Secretary of State that I should say this—that what he told me about the results of those discussions so far has convinced me that it is right that we should not prevent the process being given a little more time before the Assembly elections. We therefore decided not to oppose the Bill today. I say that we shall not oppose it, rather than that we shall support it. I hope the Government will understand that.
  Although I have had briefings on those meetings, I have not been present at them, so I am not in a position to make a judgment on behalf of the Opposition as to the extent of the progress achieved or the genuineness of that apparent progress. However, I have sufficient confidence in the Secretary of State to believe totally in his sincerity when he says that he believes that the progress is sufficient and sufficiently genuine to warrant a little more time. On that basis we should decide not to stand in the way of a little more time being given.
  I emphasise, and I have emphasised this privately to the Government, that we say that with considerable reluctance and after much thought. One should not put forward proposals to extend deadlines, let alone extend deadlines for democratic elections, unselectively. One should do so only very rarely and specifically, and on the basis of extremely good arguments. There are two big issues that we should not overlook. One is that we are dealing with rules for a constitutional process. Constitutional rules must be taken seriously if they are to be worthy of that term. That is particularly true of the rules of new constitutions, like the constitution for devolved government in Northern Ireland, which are very young and have not yet acquired a substantial legitimacy or credibility of their own.
  Secondly—this is a point of negotiating tactics on which in the past there have been considerable differences between us and the Government—the deferral of any deadline in any negotiation process must always be problematic. Extending one deadline inevitably reduces the credibility of all deadlines in that process. The object of deadlines is to concentrate minds and exclude opportunities for delay. If it is felt that deadlines are flexible in practice, they are worse than useless, as they will not be deadlines at all, but merely instruments enabling one party to make a fool of another. We must look very critically at this matter, and it is only after having considered it very soberly and critically that we have come to the decision that we should not stand in the way of the Bill this afternoon.
  Having said that, I want to make three points as plainly and forcefully as I can. First, we will support no further postponement of the elections. I hope that the Government will make it very clear to all their interlocutors in the peace process that elections in a democracy cannot be postponed beyond the constitutionally prescribed dates except by consensus and that there will certainly be no such consensus for

  651
  any further delays. The evil day cannot be further postponed and minds must be concentrated. We cannot continue as we have for the past five years. This extension of the deadline must really and genuinely be the last.
  David Burnside: The hon. Gentleman has recognised time and again in the House that every deadline in Northern Ireland is not a deadline, but is repeatedly reset. If and when the election takes place on 29 May this year, what sort of deadline would he propose for excluding those who are in breach of the agreement and are still involved in paramilitary terrorist activities? Surely, no deadline for a newly elected Assembly should entail continual uncertainty. Surely, a deadline must be set for going ahead with an all-inclusive Executive or to exclude Sinn Fein from it.
  Mr. Davies: I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree, given his business background, that one of the rules of negotiation is that one does not declare hypothetical tactics in advance or say what one might or might not do in situations that have not arisen. That would be foolish.
  I was trying to make a strong distinction—perhaps it would help for me to repeat what I was saying—between a constitutional deadline based in constitutional or foundational law and a deadline in negotiation. Deadlines in negotiations must be treated seriously or they will lose all credibility. However, a fortiori, if a deadline is enshrined in constitutional rules, one must be very careful indeed about extending it; otherwise, one will devalue the whole constitution of which that deadline is a part. That is particularly true in respect of deadlines for elections, as democratic elections are, of course, at the very centre of the democratic and constitutional process—or of any process worthy of such a name.
  We are prepared to accept the extension of the deadline, but just this once. I think I have made it unambiguous and clear—I have certainly sought to do so—that this should be the last time. There should be no illusion about that on anybody's part.
  Secondly, we are prepared to accept this procedural step—for that is what it is—in advance of a genuine, comprehensive and definitive settlement on the basis of the Government's assurance that it will help significantly to bring about such a comprehensive settlement in Northern Ireland, but we will not accept any substantive concessions in advance. We will not accept the making of any such concessions except as part and parcel of that comprehensive and definitive settlement. We will not therefore agree, to provide for any such concessions now in primary legislation to irrevocably complete the primary legislative process in advance in respect of any matter that needs to be dealt with because of the Northern Ireland peace process and simply leave it to the Government to decide on implementing the provisions of that change in our law under statutory instruments if and when they feel that they have achieved enough in the process to warrant their doing so. Parliament should not, and in such critical cases—they are critical constitutionally, for judicial propriety and for peace—it absolutely must not,
  652
  sign blank cheques in that fashion. Only when the whole package is available for inspection can Parliament make a judgment on it, and only then can it decide whether a particular measure is still justified in principle or should be modified or amended. Statutory instruments notoriously cannot be amended in this House, and we therefore absolutely reject that method of proceeding. In other words, if the Government wish to legislate as part and parcel of their delivering their side of a bargain in a Northern Ireland settlement, I am afraid that we must wait to see what that bargain consists of, and primary legislation should only be introduced at that stage. I hope that the Government will take account of these observations very seriously when they plan ahead and take decisions—for example, on the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill, which is scheduled to be debated on Report next week.
  Let there be no doubt about what we mean when we say "comprehensive settlement". It must be a settlement in which there are no loose ends— no necessary actions that are left over indefinitely or are to be dependent for their fulfilment on good will in the future—and no side deals or secret agreements. It must be definitive and transparent. It must, of course, include the completion of decommissioning, to a strict timetable, of IRA and loyalist paramilitary weapons to the satisfaction of General de Chastelain and of the public in Northern Ireland. The latter means inevitably that the completion of decommissioning must be undertaken in a much more open fashion than were the two acts of IRA decommissioning that we have already had. A settlement must involve the disbandment of all paramilitary organisations connected to any party that wishes to take part in the political process and does not wish to go down the route of permanent professional criminality. There can be no third choice. Concessions by the British Government must be made pari passu with, or after, the verified completion of those two processes of decommissioning and disbandment. There must be no payment in advance whatsoever.
  Last, but certainly not least, there must be clear and enforceable sanctions for non-performance or for subsequent backsliding at any and every stage. That is our concept of a successful peace process. If it is the Government's agenda, too, as I hope, they will have our full support; if not, I fear that they will not.
  Mr. Alex Salmond: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Leader of the House has resigned. That is something that we understand and, indeed, that many of us support, but it creates an issue in terms of the flow of information to Members in the House as to what statements are being made, and by whom, and what debates are being held, and when. In particular, will the commitments given last Thursday by the former Leader of the House still stand in relation to the timing of any debate on the international situation? The usual channels are not a matter for you, but the flow of information to Members and the fact that every Member must be of equal standing most certainly is. Can you give some reassurance on that in this highly unusual situation?
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): I inform the hon. Gentleman that that is not a point of order for the

  653
  Chair. It is a matter for the Government. My responsibility now is to comply with the allocation of time motion that is before the House.
  4.53 pm
  Jim Knight: At a time when we are all understandably preoccupied with events in Iraq, it is nevertheless appropriate that we should not be so distracted that we fail to continue to seek to get our own house in order in respect of Northern Ireland. I support the Bill as an important measure to allow time for parties to reflect on the recent negotiations and, I hope, to get the Assembly up and running again in time for the elections.
  I make no bones about the fact that I am no expert on this subject. I visited Belfast for the very first time last month with a number of colleagues. We met representatives of all the parties at Stormont, toured the interface areas and met cross-community workers, the Chief Constable, the head of the mediation service and members of the suspended civic forum.
  The visit was truly fascinating. It was clear that Belfast suffers the problems of any major city in this country or in Europe relating to housing, employment, educational standards, drugs, crime—organised and otherwise—and transport. We also saw plenty that was good and positive. The relative peace was clearly welcomed despite understandable nervousness about its fragility. However, as a first-time visitor to Belfast, I was struck by one point above all others: it is a scandal that Northern Ireland is not a bigger issue in the wider, mainstream political debate in our country.
  Andrew Mackinlay: One of the reasons why it does not form part of our mainstream debate is that there is no Labour party in Northern Ireland. Some of us, who are on a three-line Whip, are waiting with bated breath for our political cousins from the Social Democratic and Labour party to turn up. I have been a Member of Parliament for 11 and a half years. I am sick and tired of being brought here by my Whips to support measures—I emphasise that I support the Bill—only to find that there is no Labour voice from Northern Ireland. I hope that Mr. Mark Durkan takes note. At the moment, no representative of our political cousins is present. I—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I ask the hon. Gentleman to bring his remarks to a close.
  Jim Knight: I think I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention. I broadly support his comments. There is a strong argument for the Labour party's allowing membership for residents of Northern Ireland, but also against its organising there.
  David Winnick: It is a complex issue.
  Jim Knight: My hon. Friend is right.
  It was truly shocking to find that we live in a country where some communities are so divided and informed by violence, and where people have so little hope. I have been brought up with the troubles—they are approximately as old as me—but last month, I saw the reality of the TV pictures with which I grew up. I saw the walls on the peace lines, the abandoned housing, the
  654
  murals of hatred, the marked-out territory, and schools on opposite sides of the road that could be on opposite sides of the world for all the contact that they have with each other. I am sure that that is all too familiar to all hon. Members in the Chamber, and perhaps the normal facts of life for some. However, they were shocking to me, and form part of the reason why I wanted to speak in the debate.
  The people of Northern Ireland deserve better. They deserve peace and security as much as anyone else in the world, yet they have been isolated in a discrete pocket in the mainstream political debate of this country. That has been allowed to happen because the subject is all too depressing and difficult and if we put it to one side, we do not have to worry about it too much. I therefore pay great tribute to the Prime Minister for his work in trying to sustain progress throughout his premiership, even in recent difficult international times.
  What are the substantive issues in the Bill? We are told that the British and Irish Governments have reached agreement on a series of proposals to restore devolved Government on a secure footing that are capable of commanding the support of the pro-agreement parties. We are told that it is possible that we have reached the basis for the final breakthrough, resolving all the outstanding issues and delivering stable and inclusive government in a peaceful society. We are told that we need to give the parties time to reflect on that possible breakthrough so that they can make the necessary decisions to restore the devolved institutions of the Belfast agreement and thereby hold meaningful elections to a live Assembly. I believe that we should trust that information.
  However, postponement should not be undertaken lightly. When we met all the parties at Stormont, we discussed postponement and, although we largely considered indefinite postponement, there was clearly considerable opposition to the idea. Many believed that it was being considered simply because the polls suggested that the result would not be to the Government's liking.
  I also appreciate that the immediate run-up to an election is not the best time to secure the necessary compromises to make progress on the more substantive issues such as achieving a complete cessation of paramilitary activity, agreement on future sanctions, the final acts of completion, full cross-party representation on the Policing Board and so on. The Belfast Telegraph published a contradictory poll that showed both that 64 per cent. of Unionists are against the Belfast agreement and that 60 per cent. of Unionists want it to work. The position is therefore difficult to predict.
  The Bill is the right way forward because the position is so difficult. To make a definite, clear postponement of just four weeks is not to run away from the ballot box. It is a sensible compromise to provide some breathing space. I know that, for some, compromise is an unwelcome "C" word, but I believe that the majority will welcome it if it produces results.
  I would say the same about the publication of the proposals agreed by the British and Irish Governments. I understand the wish of anti-agreement parties to know what is in those proposals, but I also think it right to allow those who are committed to progress to consider them in the round, without having them picked apart in

  655
  public, bit by bit, by their opponents in the run-up to important elections. We need to see the bigger picture. Everyone will find things that they like and things that they do not. Nothing can therefore be viewed in isolation. We can all predict what the main issues will be, and all that is now being proposed is that the key players have the chance to have a good look before they leap forward to what I hope will be a lasting peace.
  Before I sit down to make way for more experienced voices—I said that I was no expert on these matters, and I do not intend to take up very much time, although there are some who might wish that I could—I would like to raise one further issue. I would like to hear further reassurance from the Minister that the election identity card scheme will be fully implemented in time for the elections, and that the Northern Ireland Office will ensure that there are no administrative logjams. It is vital that the electorate should have complete confidence in the outcome of elections, wherever they are held. I speak as one who failed to gain his seat in the 1997 general election by just 77 votes, and I was delighted to double my predecessor's majority to 153 in 2001. I know all about close results and recounts, and I am happy to say that I have every confidence in the validity of those results.
  Lady Hermon: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is the Government's stated intention to withdraw all non-photographic identification before the Assembly elections, but that there has been insufficient advertising and publicity given to the fact that people must have photographic identification? I hope that he will have a word in the Minister's ear, either later this evening or on some other occasion, about increasing the advertising for these electoral identity cards.
  Jim Knight: I certainly support what the hon. Lady says. That is why I have raised the matter. I want to put on record my concern that the scheme should be implemented properly, because it is an important safeguard given the delicacy of the situation in Northern Ireland. It is particularly important that the electorate should have the same confidence that I had when I lost by 77 votes. It is clear that this has not been the case in Northern Ireland, and I am keen that that certainty should be in place by 29 May.
  In conclusion, I would simply say, "Give peace a chance." That is quite a controversial statement to make in these times, but, in the context of Northern Ireland, it is our only hope. The Bill is a reasonable and measured response, at a delicate time, and it deserves the support of the whole House.
  5.3 pm
  Lembit Öpik: I congratulate the hon. Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight) on what could be called his maiden speech on Northern Ireland. He was doing very well—bearing in mind the fact that there is a vacancy in the Cabinet—until his potentially ambiguous comment about giving peace a chance.
  The Liberal Democrats are disappointed that it has been necessary to introduce the Bill to postpone the elections, because we are reluctant to see any

  656
  interference with the democratic process. When the Assembly was suspended last October, we stressed that it was really important to convene round-table, all-party talks immediately, so that progress could be made quickly to restore the institutions and proceed with the original election date of 1 May 2003. My colleagues in another place sought and were given reassurances from the Government that, despite the suspension, the elections would indeed take place on that date.
  I understand that circumstances have now changed and, in fairness to the Government, they have been fairly good at consulting and informing the Liberal Democrats on the need for the change to 29 May. But we need to be convinced of the reasons for that change. As the hon. Member for South Dorset pointed out—quite reasonably, I think—the Prime Minister has spent some time in Northern Ireland in recent weeks. Given the international situation, I pay tribute to his personal dedication to the peace process. Although I have taken issue with one or two of his decisions, there is no doubt that he, aided by the powerful presence of former US President Bill Clinton, did a great deal to drive the process on. The Prime Minister can regard that as an achievement of which he should be justly proud.
  The Prime Minister has said that it is necessary to postpone elections to allow time for more talks on restoring devolved government in Northern Ireland. In that context, a series of questions are raised by the decision, which should inform the House on whether the delay is appropriate. First, how often is the Secretary of State meeting the political parties, and will there be any further round table discussions before the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach return to Belfast in April?
  During that time, the political parties in Northern Ireland will no doubt debate the merits of the package put before them by the two Governments, but I understand that, as yet, a final text—a final deal—has not been agreed in every detail, although the parties have seen copies of a document produced by the Governments. On 5 March, BBC News reported
  "A 28-page document … included five annexes dealing with security normalisation, policing and justice, human rights and equality, on-the-run paramilitaries and mechanisms to verify and monitor any deal."
  That is an extensive statement, but if the document has not yet been finalised, how can the parties gather support for it? I have raised separately a concern that it seemed, at least to one party in Northern Ireland, that there was differential access to the materials—in other words, some parties saw more than others of what has been put forward. If the elections are to be postponed to 29 May, it seems not just respectful but vital that all parties are treated equally in terms of access to the proposals.
  One reason for the degree of scepticism is what happened at Weston Park, where many of us felt unilateral agreements were made, regarding on-the-runs, for example. That has caused a scepticism or a concern—a distrust—as to everyone being involved at present because they were not involved in the past. That point was made by the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies), and it is one with which I very much agree. If someone is shown to have behaved not completely openly with all sides, those who feel excluded will be much more difficult to convince in future. I hope that the Under-Secretary will give an assurance that all

  657
  parties will have equal access to the information and that the scourge of unilateral deals, as correctly highlighted and criticised by the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford, is not part of the current negotiations.
  Even if the package is 99 per cent. completed and agreed, the final 1 per cent. may contain something that is seen as vital to one party, but completely abhorrent to another. My time with the Northern Ireland portfolio has taught me many things, one of which is that if we are truly to move forward together, it is vital that all those in the process are clear about what is being proposed and that they can support it. Otherwise, we are looking at another short-term fix rather than one that can provide long-term stability.
  That goes to the heart of the problem with which we are dealing in Northern Ireland. There is a lack of trust among the political parties and it cannot be resolved by another quick fix. It is therefore incumbent on the Government to behave in a way that reassures all parties, and indeed the public, that a quick fix is not being sought to bring in one side or another and, potentially, distance a third.
  The discussions at Hillsborough were about the response of the two Governments to actions that have yet to be delivered by paramilitaries—the so-called acts of completion. That is the context in which we must assess the package presented to the parties. For the Liberal Democrats, it is important that the Secretary of State reassure the House today that the Government will take forward the elements of the package only in that context.
  The Minister of State gave the impression in her introductory comments that acts of completion are solid objects and very clearly defined in the sense that there is no flexibility in them. Once again, however, the Government have created a rod for their own back because the definition of "acts of completion" is rather vague. For example, they have already assured us that acts of completion are necessary to ensure the changes to the district policing partnerships, as circulated with the draft of the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill; yet an accompanying letter sent on 25 November from Lord Williams of Mostyn to Lord Glentoran, Lord Smith of Clifton and Lord Shutt stated:
  "We are not yet persuaded that the time is right to introduce changes in these areas. In particular the removal of the disqualification of ex-prisoners could, in our view, happen only in the context of acts of completion, as envisaged by the Prime Minister."
  Does that commitment still stand? If it does not, it is hard to see what will be achieved by delaying the elections. It is obvious to me and to others that various parties representing Northern Ireland in the House would have difficult issues to address with their memberships, let alone with their principles, in accepting something that shifted away from the unequivocal statement in that letter of 25 November.
  That is also the context for any discussion of on-the-runs. When the two Governments announced their package of proposals after the Weston Park talks in the summer of 2001, the Liberal Democrats firmly rejected the notion of a general amnesty for those who are on the run from justice. The early release of paramilitary prisoners was an extremely bitter pill for many people in
  658
  Northern Ireland to swallow, but it was tolerated because it formed part of the Good Friday agreement. That cannot be emphasised too much.
  The Good Friday agreement was negotiated by the political parties and accepted by the people through a referendum. However bitter the pill, the political parties were willing to swallow it because of the transparency of the process that led to the agreement. To propose an amnesty for those who are on the run—in effect, to ignore their offences entirely—is not an extension of the early release scheme and would go well beyond the Good Friday agreement. At the time, the Lib Dems indicated to the Government that if we were to support any legislation on that matter it was essential that those who intended to avail themselves of the measure should face some form of judicial process and that their release should be on licence.
  The judicial commission proposed by the two Governments appears to be addressing our concerns, but will an admission of guilt be needed from a person who appears before the commission before their release on licence?
  Rev. Ian Paisley: During the talks, it was stated that people would not have to attend any courthouse or legal proceedings, and nor would they have to make any statement as to their guilt or otherwise.
  Lembit Öpik: The hon. Gentleman rightly draws attention to the concern that the process could be carried out in absentia. The issue could be resolved by a casual letter sent to the commission. It would be helpful if the Minister could explain to what extent the details of the process will be set out in any measures that would necessarily have to be debated carefully by the House.
  Mr. Quentin Davies: I very much agree with the drift of the hon. Gentleman's comments. Does he agree that the House cannot possibly be asked to take irrevocable legislative decisions so that no further amendment is possible—for example on the changes proposed in the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill, which are concessions that the Government have agreed to make to republicans as par; of a settlement—when we have no idea about the nature of that judicial, or quasi-judicial, procedure for dealing with on-the-runs and the whole matter has been left vague?
  Lembit Öpik: It is possible to modify any legislation if the Government have the will to do so. However, it is difficult to consider each part of what is being agreed when we cannot see the big picture. It is much more difficult for politicians on the ground in Northern Ireland to sell a package when some of it has to be taken on trust. Again, I point out that the issue has been entirely created by the Government because of occasions in the past when one side or the other felt betrayed by unilateral agreements. That was bound to come home to roost. Had the Government shown more of a spirit of bilateralism in their negotiations in the past, perhaps politicians in the Chamber now would find it easier to sell packages on the basis of trust. Because the Government seem to have played fast and loose, particularly at Weston Park, Ministers must now be much more explicit about the details. It would not be reasonable for them to expect those details to be taken on trust again.

  659
  As for on-the-runs, it is vital for justice to be seen to be done and for victims' concerns to be properly addressed. I think of those victims in particular when I consider what legislation we should have. But the issue of on-the-runs cannot be dealt with in isolation; we must also bear in mind those who have been exiled from their homes in Northern Ireland by paramilitaries—quite probably by paramilitaries who, despite the prospect of an amnesty, perhaps through licence, have nevertheless excluded people from their home state.
  It would be highly distasteful for those suspected of crimes by the proper authorities to be allowed to return home when those exiled by paramilitaries are not afforded the same right. The paramilitaries must lift their threats from those who have been exiled, and allow them to return. My fourth question to the Minister is this: what plans are there to address explicitly the question of exiles? It is hard to imagine, certainly in the context of on-the-runs, how the Government could do other than ensure that it is handled transparently and equitably.
  The issue of sanctions seemed to cause the most difficulties during the recent talks. Under the Good Friday agreement, the only sanction to be imposed on individuals or parties not upholding their responsibilities is removal of their membership of the Executive by cross-community vote. Paragraph 25 of the agreement states
  "Those who hold office should use only democratic, non-violent means, and those who do not should be excluded or removed from office under these provisions."
  Since the signing of the agreement and the election of the Assembly, it has not always seemed to be the case that all involved in the peace process are truly and exclusively committed to peaceful means. The number of so-called punishment beatings and attacks in Northern Ireland over the past five years is unacceptable, and testimony to the ongoing underlying problem.
  I wholeheartedly agree with the two Governments that there must be a strong procedure to ensure that parties comply with the necessary democratic standards. The establishment of a commission to examine paramilitary activity was mooted by the Government last July. The then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Hamilton, North and Bellshill (Dr. Reid) said in a statement to the House that he could see a case to
  "shine a light on the levels of paramilitary violence in the community, both loyalist and republican".—[Official Report, 24 July 2002; Vol. 389, c. 984.]
  That brings me to my fifth question. In the absence of any action that is clear, emphatic and proactive, other than words of concern in the Chamber, what can we expect from the discussions that will come to light between now and 29 May to assure us that real pressure is being put on the paramilitaries to turn off the tap of beatings which, as they have shown in the past, they can administer and desist from as political expedience requires?
  One of the four cardinal sins of the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford was to criticise the Government for not introducing a power to suspend individuals rather than the Assembly as a whole. I take
  660
  a different view. According to the hon. Gentleman's logic, in what he calls Stormontgate it would not have been feasible to suspend individuals there and then without violating the principle of their being innocent until proved guilty—suspending people who were still awaiting trial by law on the assumption that they would indeed be found guilty. I do not think that a change in the law would necessarily have helped to achieve what the hon. Gentleman wanted.
  Mr. Quentin Davies: I see the hon. Gentleman's argument but I do not think he has quite understood the point. As far as I know, there was never a suggestion of indicting members of the Executive in connection with Stormontgate. Equally, one does not need to have a conviction of individuals to know that an offence has been committed. The fact that an offence had been committed was clear and on that basis the party that was the beneficiary of the intelligence ring could legitimately have been suspended without any prejudice to the trial of individuals who may have been subsequently indicted.
  Lembit Öpik: The difficulty is that that leads to quite a big divergence from how we would handle things, for example, in the House. If one were trying to normalise things, that would be counter-productive. To take the hon. Gentleman's example, if wrong-doing were committed in the House by, let us say, a member of the hon. Gentleman's party but it was not clear who it was, one would have to find some way of creating a sanction that punished a wider group. I seek the Minister's perspective, if he wants to give it, but I am highlighting that these rather blunt instruments of law are not as effective as handling the issues on a case-by-case basis. As the record shows, I felt that the only option that the Government had at the time was to suspend the Assembly as a whole.
  I ask the Secretary of State to give the House some indication of how he proposes to deal with the question of community relations. In the run-up to the election on 29 May, there is every danger that the Northern Ireland community will feel more split than it has for some time. One of my ongoing criticisms is the assumption, often in the very words we hear from Ministers, that there are two communities in Northern Ireland. That is unhelpful because it sectarianises the debate. I have said many times that 14 per cent. of people regard themselves as unaligned with Protestant or Catholic groupings. Sometimes, I feel that Ministers still slip into the assumption that legislation can validly be framed in a way that looks at those two main blocs rather than perhaps giving more weight to those people who do not regard themselves as traditionally Unionist or nationalist.
  My final question is—
  Mr. Browne: The hon. Gentleman makes a serious point, which is reflected in his sister party in Northern Ireland's approach. It is a regular interlocutor of mine on these issues. I would not wish him to leave the impression in the House that Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office are careless with their vocabulary in relation to the community of Northern Ireland and the

  661
  failure to recognise its diversity. It is at the heart of our policy that we recognise that Northern Ireland is a diverse society. That has to include those people who do not see themselves as being in one or other of the two traditional camps. If the hon. Gentleman carefully examines the comments of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my fellow Ministers, he will see that we are very careful not to do the very thing of which he accuses us.
  Lembit Öpik: I am pleased that the Minister intervened. Rather than raking over examples from the past—I can think of a few from recent Standing Committees on statutory instruments, where I raised that point—let us accept that all of us now recognise the importance of acknowledging those who do not traditionally align themselves with, if you like, the two larger community groups, which often are seen to dominate, certainly in the media.
  I am grateful that the Minister has given that assurance. I was not suggesting that Ministers were being cavalier in their language but the hon. Gentleman would expect me to make that point, not least on behalf of the Alliance party in Northern Ireland.
  Let me conclude by—[Interruption.] I am grateful for the attentive support of Labour Members. I hope that this one final assurance can be given by the Minister. The Liberal Democrats are inclined to support the Bill but only on this condition, and it is my final question. [Interruption.]Okay, I will make it my final statement, and silence will indicate assent, in order to be philosophically consistent with what I said before. The statement is: there is absolutely no prospect of a further delay. The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford said that and I echo his sentiment. It is reasonable to expect the Minister to give the explicit commitment that 29 May is now the given date. Although we are not pleased about the change, we understand it, but if that date were to change after such an assurance were given, Ministers and the Government would begin to lose the confidence of the Liberal Democrats, and perhaps of the House in general. I have no doubt that the Minister will be able to give that assurance.
  5.25 pm
  Kevin Brennan: I am tempted to begin by saying that this is my final question, but I shall resist that temptation. May I wish you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the House a very happy St. David's day? It is good to hear—[Interruption.] I apologise, I meant St. Patrick's day. That has rather spoilt my point, which is that it is nice to know that all hon. Members can be so happy on the feast day of St. Patrick, that famous Catholic Welshman who went to the emerald isle to do his bit.
  This is the third time that I have attempted to speak in a Northern Ireland debate, but the first time that I have been successful in catching the eye of the Chair. I am sure that my success has nothing to do with the fact that you, too, Madam Deputy Speaker, were born in Wales, but, for that reason, you will know the saying, "Three tries for a Welshman—Tri chynnig i Gymro."
  662
  My comment is no reflection on next Saturday's match between Wales and Ireland, although I am tempted, as someone who is half-Irish—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not be tempted into saying anything more to do with Wales or rugby.
  Kevin Brennan: I take your point, Madam Deputy Speaker. I just wanted to say that—despite the fact that I am a Welshman—I wish the all-Ireland team well for next Saturday, given that they are on their way to their first grand slam since 1948.
  In supporting the Government today, I follow my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight) in paying tribute to the work of the Prime Minister. I also pay tribute to the work of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and I was pleased to hear Opposition Front Benchers do likewise. The Prime Minister's personal commitment, and his great experience, wisdom and diplomacy, along with that of the Secretary of State, have been very important.
  No one ever said that delivering peace in Northern Ireland was going to be easy. It is perhaps easy to forget how long the process of building a lasting peace has been going on. It is worth reminding the House that 15 December will be the 10th anniversary of the historic Downing street declaration, which was brokered by the former Prime Minister, John Major, and the former Taoiseach, Albert Reynolds. There have been 10 long and arduous years of dogged negotiation and effort, followed by hope, then setback, then breakthrough, then disappointment. However, we are all still here today, discussing peace and trying to find a way through the current difficulties, and that is what we must focus on in this debate.
  There is an old Welsh saying that the difference between devolution and evolution is that devolution takes longer. In the context of Northern Ireland, the peace process perhaps takes longer than evolution. Despite the recent difficulties, the parties and both Governments remain focused not just on delivering peace, but on securing workable and successful institutions through the Bill. That is testament to how far we have come, but we must not lose sight of one very important fact. Who would have thought that we could have gotten this far at the beginning of this process, 10 years ago, under John Major's Government? It is right to pay tribute to the efforts made by the previous Conservative Government, as well as to the progress made under the current Government and Prime Minister.
  It is also easy to forget the distance that everyone has had to travel along this route. I pay tribute to the distance travelled by the parties in Northern Ireland—nationalists, republicans, Unionists and loyalists— towards compromise and peace, but also to the political parties in Britain in coming to terms with the peace process. When the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) famously described the Good Friday agreement as "Sunningdale for slow learners", he put into context the time that it takes to secure a lasting peace.
  That also puts into the correct historical context the monumental progress that has been achieved in recent years. From a British perspective, progress has been

  663
  made since the Prime Minister took hold of the process and drove it forward with his characteristic determination and vision. That has been the hallmark of his approach, and that of the Government, to British-Irish affairs since coming to office in 1997.
  While we will listen to any concerns that people in Northern Ireland have about the Government's decision to delay the elections, it is worth thinking about the delay in the context of the Good Friday agreement itself, to see what the Bill actually proposes. As the House knows, the Northern Ireland Assembly was set up under strand 1 of the agreement, which related to democratic institutions in Northern Ireland. Under paragraph 36 of the agreement, it was envisaged that after a period there would be
  "a review of these arrangements … including the details of electoral arrangements and of the Assembly's procedures, with a view to agreeing any adjustments necessary in the interests of efficiency and fairness."
  That makes the Government duty bound to review the electoral arrangements for the Assembly, and gives them the power and moral authority to make any adjustments necessary. I am pleased that the Government have chosen to introduce legislation on the issue.
  Paragraph 5, entitled "Review procedures following implementation", puts a further onus on the two Governments to put the wheels back on the wagon, if they should fall off along the way. It states:
  "If difficulties arise which require remedial action across the range of institutions, or otherwise require amendment of the British-Irish Agreement or relevant legislation, the process of review will fall to the two Governments in consultation with the parties in the Assembly. Each Government will be responsible for action in its own jurisdiction."
  The Government are acting responsibly and within their jurisdiction in introducing the Bill.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman quoted that section of the agreement, because it does not limit the consultation to the parties in the Assembly who are in the Executive, but to the parties in the Assembly. That should include all the parties in the Assembly, whether they support the agreement or not.
  Kevin Brennan: I know that the hon. Gentleman's party has been consulted on many occasions, but has made it clear that it does not support the agreement. Therefore, in a sense, that is a moot point if the Government are trying to pursue progress on the agreement. I understand that if the hon. Gentleman's were the largest party after the election, it would drop the agreement, so I am not sure in what sense it could be party to any progress on the agreement.
  If the process fails, the shape of any settlement that could be achieved in Northern Ireland will be no different in 10, 20 or 30 years' time. We had Sunningdale in 1974 and we now have the Good Friday agreement, but no one has made a convincing case that any settlement achieved in future would be substantially different. Clearly, the danger is that a return to violence could happen. I was with my hon. Friends the Members for South Dorset, for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Harris) and for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson) and the
  664
  hon. Member for Strangford (Mrs. Robinson), on a trip to Belfast, and only a week later a dissident republican bomb was left close to some of the places that we visited. We are all aware of the danger of a return to violence, but that does not mean that we should not pursue peace.
  We saw efforts at reconciliation being made by communities in Belfast. It was remarkable to meet some people who were active participants in the conflict but who have since made genuine efforts to build peace. There have been many genuine and sincere acts of contrition. We need now to continue the process and to have acts of completion, which will give a sense of certainty that the war is over.
  I am sure that some Northern Ireland Members sometimes feel that those of us from the mainland who take an interest are naive and have facile ideas. It can be easy to make false comparisons, but if one comes from Cardiff, as I do, one cannot help being struck by the similarities between Cardiff and Belfast. They are Victorian cities with similar types of housing. In many ways, they have similar histories. There is only one jarring difference—the sectarian conflict that has held Belfast back from achieving the renaissance that it could achieve. Cardiff has been able to achieve such a renaissance in recent years.
  Lady Hermon: I do not represent a Belfast constituency, although North Down is fairly close so I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to clarify one point. The Bill before us this evening seeks simply to change the date of the election—a date that was set by section 32 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. The Bill is not part of a formal review as set out in the agreement. I would not wish hon. Members to be misled into thinking that it was.
  Kevin Brennan: I accept that, although I felt that, on Second Reading, there was leeway to range widely around a topic. I have waited many hours on two previous occasions, so I hope that the hon. Lady will forgive me for having ranged widely. I will conclude shortly.
  I represent a city in mainland Britain of similar size to Belfast. In Belfast and Cardiff, the similarities of the problems, which we discussed with people living on estates, are striking, leaving aside the conflict. I am sure that, in years to come, Belfast will be shortlisted for European capital of culture, as Cardiff has been, and as Belfast tried to be on this occasion. People will benefit if we can sustain the peace. If the time that is granted by the passage of this Bill helps in that, it will have been worth while. There have been 30 years of strife and we do not want another 30 before returning to square one. I hope that we are giving time for peace to develop, at least in Northern Ireland.
  5.38 pm
  Mr. Peter Robinson: I had to pinch myself during the early part of this debate as I watched the Minister, in almost angelic fashion, presenting the Bill as if it had some moral authority. In reality, it is probably one of the most corrupt pieces of legislation that the House will see. It will not simply put off an election for four weeks, because it is now four years since that election should have taken place. I will go into that in a moment.

  665
  There is an imperative on the Government to obey the law and respect the rights of people to democratic expression through the ballot box. Those are two principles that any Government should guard. However, on every occasion that this agreement faltered, the Government were prepared to change and abuse the law, and avoid giving the electorate any say. The law has been redesigned on a number of occasions and democracy has been consistently manipulated. The process has been a farce and the Government's sole objective has been to cobble it together and evade the will of the Northern Ireland electorate.
  The Northern Ireland Act 1998 set out several different ways through which elections could take place. Section 31 makes provision for an ordinary general election, and section 32 details two processes that could bring about an extraordinary election. The Minister was wrong to tell the House that the Government could have relied on the provisions in section 31 that allow flexibility of up to two months. They could not have done that because after we took legal action against the Government, the Secretary of State was forced by the Court of Appeal to introduce an order in the House that would allow an extraordinary election, which he determined should be on 1 May 2003. Therefore, section 31 had already been superseded and could not be applied because the Secretary of State had called on section 32 to get out of the dilemma that he faced because of the ruling. Section 32 provides for an extraordinary election when a stalemate has occurred in the Assembly. That can arise for several reasons, including if the six-week requirement has not been met for the election of a First Minister and Deputy First Minister.
  The Government have exerted themselves improperly to bypass section 32 on many occasions. The first such occasion was when the then Deputy First Minister, the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), resigned following a disagreement with the then First Minister, the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh said that he could not work with the right hon. Member for Upper Bann and believed that he had gone back on agreements. The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh made a personal statement to the Assembly in which he announced his resignation. As a result, he was put out of his ministerial office, his ministerial car was taken off him, his ministerial staff were removed, his ministerial salary was taken away, his fax machine was pulled out of his home and his little mobile was taken off him. All the emoluments of office were removed from him.
  The then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Mo Mowlam, came to the Dispatch Box and, with tears flowing down her cheeks, announced the resignation of the Deputy First Minister and said what a great contribution he had made. The whole world believed that the Deputy First Minister had resigned until everyone realised that the First Minister and Deputy First Minister were joint offices that were tied together. There could not be one without the other, and neither could be elected without a majority of the votes of both sections of the community as represented in the Assembly. The issue of designation became central, and because the majority of Unionists in the Assembly were opposed to the process, the Government knew that the Deputy First Minister who had resigned would not be
  666
  re-elected. They also knew that the First Minister had consequently fallen and that he would not be elected either.
  What were the Government to do? The law made it clear that the stalemate could be resolved by applying provisions in section 32 of the 1998 Act that allowed for an extraordinary election that would let the people decide. However, the Government's problem was that they knew that the people would support those in the Unionist community who opposed the agreement, so they could not allow the people to have their say. The end result was that the cheating began. The then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland produced a new Standing Order for the Assembly that said that no resignation would be effective unless it had been accepted by a vote in the Assembly, and so the resignation became a non-resignation.
  Mr. John Taylor: I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument, and he is certainly giving a vivid account of events at which he was present and I was not. Does he agree that a resignation is a perfect act of itself and does not require another half, acceptance, to make it complete? What does he say to that?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that we are not going to stray too far into resignations. We are talking about the postponement of elections.
  Mr. Robinson: The issue of resignation is central to the Bill, which is based on the principle of when an election can be called and the circumstances in which it can be delayed. The Leader of the House has shown us today that a resignation issued by the individual is effective, whether or not it is accepted by anybody else. That is what the world believes, but the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland changed the rules to ensure that a resignation that everyone knew had taken place would not be counted, so the person concerned could get back to the business of the Executive.
  That was only the first problem. The second occurred when we were approaching the 2001 elections to this House. The leader of the Ulster Unionist party knew that he would have problems with the electorate and thought that he had to toughen his act, so he made a statement indicating that unless Sinn Fein-IRA jumped through certain hoops, he would resign with effect from 1 July. That was a post-dated resignation. Of course, the IRA did not jump through the hoops that he had set for it, and the statement did not have the impact that the Ulster Unionist leader expected. That can be seen from the number of my colleagues on these Benches; the Ulster Unionist leader had predicted that he would get 10 members of his party returned, but that was not to be. The end result was that after the election, on 1 July, he had to resign.
  The Ulster Unionist leader wanted to get back into office, but he could not because the law requires that a majority of Unionists support the First Minister and Deputy First Minister. That conundrum is similar to the one that faced the Government when the Deputy First Minister resigned, but this time things had changed. The Secretary of State no longer had the power to introduce Standing Orders in the Assembly, and devolution had occurred, so the Northern Ireland Act was in force.

  667
  How did the Government solve that conundrum? Not by using the processes in the Act, section 32 of which would have allowed an extraordinary election. Instead, we had the farce of the Alliance party, sister party to the Liberal Democrats, and half of the Women's Coalition redesignating themselves as Unionists. As the House will know, when Members take their seats in the Assembly they have to designate themselves Unionist, nationalist or other. For the purposes of that particular vote, the Alliance party and half of the Women's coalition redesignated themselves as Unionists just for the day, throwing out of the window the purpose of the Act, which was to ensure that any major decisions would be taken with the consent of both sections of the Northern Ireland community. Once again, cheating got the Government through the problem that they faced.
  We then had the introduction of the Northern Ireland Act 2000, which allowed for the suspension of the Assembly. That measure had the same purpose. If a First Minister and Deputy First Minister could not be elected within a given period—six weeks—the suspension process would begin, so for the third time, this House made laws to circumvent the legal requirement for an extraordinary election that would have allowed the people to give their verdict.
  Now, we have this Bill before the House. It comes about as a result of the Government attempting for political purposes to avoid an election on 1 May. The Government have no choice in the matter; the order made it clear that the election was to be on that date. That decision was taken by this House on the Government's advice. The Secretary of State chose that day because it was the last possible day on which an election could be held. That resulted from the case that ultimately went to the House of Lords and deeply divided the Law Lords, as it had the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland. The reality is that the Secretary of State chose what he recognised to be the last possible date on which an election could be held.
  I question the authority and ability of the Government to revoke the Northern Ireland (Date of Next Assembly Poll) Order 2001. The order was a legal requirement that was placed upon the Government at the time—they could not have done without the order— but now they are attempting to remove that legal requirement simply by changing the rules once more.
  Mr. Browne: The hon. Gentleman's recollection of the history of these developments is similar to mine. He omits from his analysis, however, the fact that at each turn when he was able to do so he challenged the steps that were taken and claimed that they were illegal, but on each occasion he was proved not to be right. He knows that the Bill cannot become law unless the House passes it, and he, of all Members, would protect the sovereignty of Parliament.
  Mr. Robinson: The Minister is wrong on two counts. First, he is wrong in saying that at each stage we issued a legal challenge. We took a legal challenge on only one occasion, on one specific issue. We did not mount a legal challenge on redesignation or on the Mallon
  668
  resignation. Similarly, we did not mount any challenge on the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.
  The House is sovereign in changing legislation for events to come, but it cannot change events that have already taken place. Historically, those events have already happened. How can the House change a decision—[Interruption.] I will give way if the Minister has the point.
  Mr. Browne: The hon. Gentleman is right, I have the point. Perhaps I was not sufficiently precise in my language. As he and his party showed, there was an opportunity to mount a challenge if they believed that we were acting illegally, but they decided not to do so. The Government's position was upheld in the one case they challenged.
  We can enter more carefully into the detail at another stage, but the order that set the date of 1 May set a prospective date.
  Mr. Robinson: Only one case was taken to the House of Lords, and that related to the decision of the Secretary of State to permit the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to remain in office after the six-week period had passed. I have already said that that issue resulted in the closest division of the Law Lords and the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland.
  Interestingly, the Minister refers to whether the Government were acting legally. I have not thus far claimed that the Government were acting illegally. My first reference was to the morality of the Government having set down in legislation a specific course that has to be taken in certain circumstances, but, when those circumstances arise, deciding to change the law rather than to abide by the law that they had written. That is the reality.
  Why is there delay? We have delay because the Government managed—at Hillsborough, according to them—to reach some level of agreement among the parties. We were not there and we were not invited to be there. I do not think that the shadow Secretary of State quite picked up the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds). It was not simply a case of the Democratic Unionist party not having been consulted and having stayed away from the talks—it was the DUP not having been invited to the talks. When it made contact, asking to see the Secretary of State or the Prime Minister, it was refused the right to do so. We were deliberately refused access to any of the information contained in the documentation. Still, to this day, the Government have not let us have sight of that documentation, yet little parties that collectively do not have the same representation as my party and receive a lower percentage of the vote—the Progressive Unionist party, the Women's Coalition and the Alliance party—have had the right of access to the documentation.
  The DUP enjoys greater electoral support than the SDLP and Sinn Fein, but we are not allowed to see the documentation about which the Minister spoke so glowingly at the beginning of the debate. It is not good enough to say, "You were against the agreement." Does

  669
  being against Government policy mean that we cannot be consulted about new Government policy? That is an absurd position for the Government to adopt.
  Lembit Öpik: Is my perception correct that the absence of perceived consultation makes it much more difficult for members of the hon. Gentleman's party sometimes to be sympathetic to ideas to which otherwise they would be more amenable?
  Mr. Robinson: It has that effect, but it has another effect. It becomes clear that the Government are attempting to cobble something together behind the viewpoint of the majority of the Unionist community. The viewpoint that we express is the viewpoint of the majority of Unionists in Northern Ireland. They may not all be members of my party, but they hold the same views as members of my party on these important issues.
  Apparently there is supposed to be a collective understanding about the way forward. I watched with interest the press conference that took place immediately after the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic came out of the talks. One person after another took a different position, indicating that they did not have a common understanding of the way forward. The Government seem to have seen a common understanding, but the participants seem not to have done so. However, it appears that at least there is a document setting out a number of concessions to the IRA, to buy it off in the hope that it might make a gesture and make a statement to the effect that its war is over.
  No doubt we shall know precisely the words of that statement when the and fheis meets at the end of this month. I understand that the Government expect that the IRA will then make a statement, closely followed by some act of completion. I think that the Government want the act of completion to be as public as possible. However, I can say with certainty that it will not be an act of completion. There will still be further acts required. The IRA will not hand in all its weapons, nor has it any intention of doing so. Indeed, it is bringing more guns and weaponry into the country, rather than decommissioning.
  An essential part of the deal is what has been described as the sanctions. In both the Belfast agreement and the Northern Ireland Act there is a sanction, but it is totally ineffective. It required nationalists and republicans to throw out Sinn Fein. We knew that that would never happen. We told the parties that supported the agreement that it would not happen, and it has not happened. Every attempt has been made in the Assembly to hold a vote on the issue, but the SDLP and Sinn Fein have always vetoed it.
  A more effective sanction was required, and the leader of the Ulster Unionist party has described it as a deal breaker. I assume that we must judge from that that all the other concessions were not deal breakers for the right hon. Gentleman. He was quite prepared to support them or to acquiesce in them, including on-the-run terrorists. However, the one deal breaker for him, and according to him, was the issue of sanctions.
  I have to go by what the newspapers say because the Minister has not taken us into his confidence and has not told us what the proposals are. According to the
  670
  Belfast Telegraph, a four-man panel will be set up, which will have a representative from the United States, from Her Majesty's Government, from the Dublin Government and a person from Northern Ireland. Those four wise men must reach some kind of consensus to determine whether there has been a breach of the ceasefire. The Belfast Telegraph did not tell the world, nor has the Secretary of State or any of his Ministers, whether that consensus has to be unanimous or whether one person can veto it. I am sure that the Under-Secretary will tell us his winding-up speech. However, the four-man or four-person panel will make a decision about whether there has been a breach of the ceasefire. If they deem that there has, they will inform the two Governments and an implementation body, which is a pro-agreement group in the Assembly. They will consider the matter, and if they deem that there has been a breach of the IRA ceasefire, they can require Sinn Fein to give its views, excuses or indeed a report.
  David Burnside: Will the hon. Gentleman interpret or define the way in which he sees—and I saw no more of it—the four-man international committee institutionalising the sanction procedure, with the United Kingdom Government and Parliament giving up their sovereign power? It would be dangerous to go down that international route, with a veto for appointees from the British Government, the Irish Government and the American Administration. We should be very wary of participating in such an internationalisation of the sanctions procedure rather than leaving it as the responsibility of the Government.
  Mr. Robinson: I agreed entirely with the hon. Gentleman until his last few words, with which I have some difficulty, as. I would not leave it with the Government of the United Kingdom. No Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will throw Sinn Fein out. People have had opportunities over the past five years to table a motion in the Assembly to have Sinn Fein excluded, but have failed to do so, in spite of Florida, in spite of Colombia, in spite of the killings, in spite of the shootings, in spite of the paramilitary beatings, in spite of Castlereagh, even in spite of Stormontgate and the spy ring. Never on any of those occasions did they table a motion in the Assembly, so I do not rely on the Secretary of State or Her Majesty's Government to impose any sanctions on Sinn Fein
  The hon. Gentleman's first two points, however, are sound. First, there has been a further internationalising of the situation. A great mistake was made by the previous Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone, who advocated the internationalising of the decommissioning issue, as a result of which people from outside the United Kingdom became involved in a number of different ways. The second and, in my view, more important, issue raised by the hon. Gentleman is the fact that we will end up having an internal Government matter within Northern Ireland vetoed by people who do not live in Northern Ireland and should have no jurisdiction there. Throughout the whole period of previous talks, my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) resolutely opposed the Dublin Government having any say in internal Northern Ireland matters. On the four-man panel, a

  671
  representative of the Dublin Government will have a direct say in the sanctions issue and a direct ability to veto any sanction.
  However, those are only the first two stages of the process. In the next stage, if Sinn Fein makes its apologia and it is not accepted by the implementation body, the matter will proceed to the two Governments, who have to agree on the appropriate measures to be taken. Again, a veto will be given to Dublin in the process, after which the Secretary of State will make his decision. That is a recipe for disaster, procrastination and delay, and is a certain way of ensuring that no decisions will be made to impose sanctions on Sinn Fein. The leader of the Ulster Unionist party may consider that worthy in ensuring that a deal will not be broken, but I have a different view of its value.
  Mr. Dodds: In light of the process that my hon. Friend rightly described, which is the subject of speculation and leaks and has not been denied by the Government at all, is it not all the more incredible that the leader of the Ulster Unionist party should describe that process as a deal breaker, rather than things such as on-the-run terrorists, destruction of security along the border and elsewhere for innocent citizens, and other similar matters?
  Mr. Robinson: My hon. Friend's point stands without me having to make any further comment. If that was the only deal breaker, the prospect now lacing everybody in Northern Ireland in the devolution of policing and justice powers fills Unionists with dread. On the back page of the UUP manifesto was a picture of a clock, showing what the leader of the UUP considered to be the progress made under the Belfast agreement and what the next steps would be. One of those steps was the devolution of policing powers. Again, that is one of the proposals to be introduced under the Hillsborough deal—perhaps not immediately, but no doubt after the election, powers over policing and justice matters will be devolved to Northern Ireland, but only in certain circumstances. My understanding of the 28-page document that I have got from parties that were there—not Sinn Fein, I must immediately tell the House—is that that will happen in only one set of circumstances, where there is a division of those responsibilities between Unionists and nationalists. Whether Unionists get the policing portfolio and nationalists the justice portfolio, or whether they hold them jointly, those proposals have been considered, and are included in the document that the Secretary of State will not let the world see.
  The bottom line is that if the Sinn Fein organisation becomes the largest nationalist party, not only will one of its members become Deputy First Minister if the UUP leader can command a majority in the Assembly, but the policing and justice post will be held jointly by a Sinn Fein representative. The obvious person to get it is Sinn Fein's policing and justice spokesman, Gerry Kelly who, of course, has a wide knowledge of justice and policing matters. He has a wide knowledge of justice matters because he was found guilty of being responsible for blowing up the Old Bailey, when 200 people were injured. His wide knowledge of policing issues comes
  672
  from the fact that he attempted to blow up Scotland Yard. This is the man who is being canvassed as the Minister with responsibility for policing and justice in Northern Ireland. When he was caught and put in prison, he escaped. A prison warder was killed when a screwdriver was gouged into his head during the escape bid by the Sinn Fein representative who will become the Minister with responsibility for policing and justice under the proposals being acquiesced in, if not agreed, by the leader of the Ulster Unionist party. People in Northern Ireland are rightly not pleased about that prospect. However, it is part of the deal that was cobbled together.
  At Hillsborough, only one party canvassed for a delay in the elections, and did so publicly for a long time. An article headed, "Postpone Assembly poll urges Trimble advisor" says:
  "A Queen's University political lecturer who acts as a senior advisor to Ulster Unionist leader David Trimble has suggested a year's postponement of the Northern Ireland Assembly elections to avoid the collapse of the Executive and other institutions of the Belfast Agreement."
  The UUP leader refined his argument as he spoke to people from London and Dublin, suggesting that extra time was needed because time had been lost over the Assembly's life as a result of postponements and suspensions. The fact is, that was built into the legislation—the Assembly's first term was for five years, not four years, as every other term should be under the legislation. The UUP advanced the argument that there should be a delay in the poll, and that there should be a one-year postponement of the election. The morning of the first day, the UUP leader went in and argued for a one-year postponement of the elections. By the end of the day, he was falling back on an argument to put them off until October—he would have been satisfied with a delay over the summer. By the time that the meeting finished, and he left early, he was satisfied with a delay of four weeks. Some people say that if had stayed any longer we would be out campaigning now.
  The right hon. Gentleman was the one demanding the delay in the elections, and his was the only party demanding such a delay. All the other parties had openly said that they opposed a delay. On leaving the United Kingdom on his way to the United States, the right hon. Gentleman had the audacity to make a statement—again, the subject of a headline in the Belfast Telegraph—on Tuesday 11 March: "Trimble warns: don't postpone poll again". The man who had begged and pleaded, who had worn the knees out of his trousers pleading with the Secretary of State to postpone the elections, ends up warning the Secretary of State not to do so again—the very person who had been responsible for the delay.
  There is nothing unusual about the right hon. Gentleman's attempt to wash his hands of the decision that had been taken. I remember the occasion in the House when he stood up to berate the then Secretary of State about allowing facilities in the House to be made available to Sinn Fein-IRA. The Secretary of State put his hand into his inside pocket and asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he wanted to reconsider what he was saying. Eventually the Secretary of State pulled out a piece of paper that turned out to be a letter from the leader of the Ulster Unionist party advocating that facilities in the House should be given to Sinn Fein-IRA

  673
  in circumstances that then pertained. He was changing his position to one that was more attractive to the electorate. The delay comes as a direct result of an on-the-run politician, afraid to face the electorate, attempting to avoid the decision of the electorate at the ballot box.
  It would appear from the debate that there was only one element to the Bill. There has been no discussion about its other element. Even the explanatory notes do not give away what the other element is. Leaving aside the issue of the postponement and delay of the election, there is a key provision in the Bill that allows the Government to delay the return of an Assembly after an election. As a consequence of delaying the first occasion when the Assembly meets, clause 1(2)(c) states:
  "in subsection (5), at the end there is added as shall any day on which section 1 of the Northern Ireland Act 2000 is in force'."
  The effect of that subsection is to ensure that the requirements laid down in section 16(1) of the 1998 Act, whereby a First Minister must be elected within a six-week period, will no longer apply. The six weeks will drift with the suspension. If the first meeting of the Assembly is not held within eight days, the six-week period is not triggered.
  In case the Minister tenses himself at this stage, I should tell him that I support the provision. It is a sensible provision. The Government will not admit it, but the reason for it is that they recognise that things will change after the election. Negotiations will be required after the election. This is the negotiations clause in the Bill. It is, perhaps, the real purpose of the Bill.
  Mr. Browne rose—
  Mr. Robinson: Yes, confession is coming.
  Mr. Browne: Having listened to the hon. Gentleman for some considerable time and found something on which we agree, I hate to spoil it. The provision is a restatement of the state of the law as a consequence of section 1 of the 2000 Act. It is in the Bill only for the avoidance of doubt. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman would have any doubt, as I know how carefully he studies such matters, but it is there in case anyone else had any doubt. It is not a new provision at all.
  Mr. Robinson: The House might be prepared to swallow that one, were it not for the fact that this is the second time that the Minister has indicated that there was no requirement for a provision in the Bill. On the first occasion, we were told that the revocation of the 2001 order was not required. Now we are told that the provision in clause 1(2)(c) is not required. If that is the case, we do not need the Bill at all.
  There is no requirement for a Bill because, if we simply revoke the 2001 order, we fall back on the provisions of section 31 of the 1998 Act. That allows the Government to have the flexibility provided by section 31, which gives them two months before or two months after for the calling of an election.
  Mr. Browne: I fear the hon. Gentleman misunderstands. The provision relates to section 1 of the 2000 Act, not any subsequent order. The point that I
  674
  was making about the previous order was that the Bill effectively repealed that order. That is why it is necessary to restate it.
  Mr. Robinson: The Minister confirms that in his view the Bill is unnecessary legislation. Both subsection (2)(c) and the one to which he previously referred are a belt-and-braces operation, restating what has already been stated elsewhere. However, no parliamentary draftsman would put into a Bill a provision that was already the law. The purpose of a Bill is to change the law, not to confirm the law as it stands. The Government are clearly making a provision. There is a legal requirement in the 1998 Act that is not interfered with by the 2000 Act—the suspension Act. The 2000 legislation deals with circumstances of an existing Assembly. It has no provision for the first day of a new Assembly. That is why the Bill was considered by the parliamentary draftsmen to be necessary.
  It is clear that the Government had the alternative simply to revoke the 2001 order, which would have removed the section 32 provisions, and the Secretary of State could have fallen back on the section 31 provisions. The only change is the new suggestion that the Government can stay the hand of the new Assembly for a period beyond the eight days, thereby obviating the requirement for the section 16(1) provision to come into play.
  Again, the Government are attempting to manipulate the democratic process for their own political benefit. The electorate were entitled to have their say on these matters. That was required four years ago, and the Government avoided it. It was required when redesignation took place, and again the Government avoided that consequence. They have avoided it several times with the suspension legislation. On this occasion, there should have been an election on 1 May. Once again, the Government put it off because it is not politically timely.
  There is no reason why the election could not proceed and agreements be reached with people who will have a mandate after an election. What is the purpose of delaying the election for a further four weeks in order to reach agreement with people who do not have a mandate and who, after an election, will be seen not to be representative? It is clearly an attempt once again by the Government to present new circumstances that might give a leg up to one particular political party.
  Several hon. Members have raised the issue of voter identification. I have serious concerns that hundreds of thousands of people will lose their vote as a result of voter identification. In a letter to me the Minister stated that 243,000 people had ticked the requisite box on the registration form to indicate that they required voter photo ID. He told me in a letter that only 45,000 people had returned such applications. Today he updated the figure to bring it up to 55,000. That still means that there are 200,000 people who stated that they required the ID and have not got it. Can anyone imagine what will happen at the polling stations if 200,000 people come along to vote and are told that they cannot do so because they do not have the requisite photo identification? There will be riots in the street. In one of the most middle-class areas of Northern Ireland, where legislation previously passed by the House meant that there were queues and people felt they would not be able

  675
  to vote, the police had to be brought in and there were all sorts of problems. That happened in one small area and involved a few dozen people. What will happen when the Minister's legislation is introduced and 100,000 or 200,000 people end up unable to vote? It is not good enough for him to say that people will realise after the event that they had other photo identification. The form that they ticked indicated very clearly that they did not have alternative photo identification and those people will lose their vote.
  I hope that I may have the Minister's attention for one final moment. Several references have been made to the question whether the Government will attempt once more to postpone the date of the election. Personally, I do not see how they could do so under the Bill—the Secretary of State has waived any ability to change the date—but what they can do is scrub elections all together. They could determine that they will not proceed because they do not like the potential outcome of the election. Will the Minister assure us from the Dispatch Box that he has set the course for an election come what may and whether or not parties act and perform as he expects as a result of Hillsborough? Can we have the undertaking that there will be an election on 29 May whatever the fallout from the Hillsborough discussions might be?
  6.21 pm
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I shall not speak for as long as my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson)—I am sure that some will be happy about that—but I would like to mention the matter of people getting their identity cards. I understand that the Minister received a letter from my office that I had not signed. I would like to see that letter, because I understand that there were was no signature, but merely a "pp" against my name. Usually, when a letter goes out from the office, there will be a signature on it as well.
  Mr. Browne: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I do not want to make it a feature of every Northern Ireland debate in the House that a Minister produces a letter from his pocket. Nevertheless, I have a letter that states:
  "Please reply to 256 Ravenhill Road Belfast BT6 8GJ",
  which I assume is the address of the hon. Gentleman's office. The letter is on House of Commons notepaper, addressed to me and signed "I. Paisley". Although the letters "pp" appear underneath the signature next to "Ian Paisley MP MEP MLA", it is signed "I. Paisley". I do not know who has access to the hon. Gentleman's notepaper or who he authorises to use it, but I naively assumed that that letter came from him or was at least dictated on his behalf. I am sure that he accepts that.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I should like the Minister to give me a copy of that letter. I shall be very happy to look into the matter.
  Mr. Peter Robinson: At any rate, the letter would have been sent before anyone in the office was aware of the statistics provided by the Minister, which indicated that 200,000 people had not replied to the applications that were sent out.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: All I can say about that is something very simple: this House has given an opportunity to the people of Northern Ireland to vote using a certain route. They should be encouraged to take that route and there should be no hold-up. I have constituents who have been told that so many people want their photographs to be taken that they have to wait in a long queue. Asking people to wait in a queue to get an identity card so that they can vote will cause great difficulties. That is what I am worried about and I do not feel that we will deal with all the people who say that they need the identity card. I cannot see us catching up on that. As my hon. Friend said, there will be trouble at the polling station.
  I am glad that the Secretary of State has just entered the Chamber and I am sure that he will take note of what I say. I am not saying that the Government do not want these people to vote; I am saying that they have specified the way in which they must vote and we must see that that route is kept open and made available. That is the point that I wish to make at this time.
  On 27 November, I asked the Prime Minister the following question in the House:
  "The Prime Minister is aware that in the past two days my party has met the Minister with responsibility for security in Northern Ireland and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. We put one question to both: what is an act of completion? Does it consist of IRA-Sinn Fein repudiating and ceasing violence and being disbanded, or does it simply mean that they make a statement that they will give up violence? Can the Prime Minister tell us what he believes it means?"
  This was the Prime Minister's reply:
  "I can. It is not merely a statement, a declaration or words. It means giving up violence completely in a way that satisfies everyone and gives them confidence that the IRA has ceased its campaign, and enables us to move the democratic process forward, with every party that wants to be in government abiding by the same democratic rules."—[Official Report, 27 November 2002; Vol. 395, c. 309.]
  I can say a hearty amen to that, if we are to get what the Prime Minister described. I read after the meetings in Hillsborough comments saying that a statement would first be made and accepted in good faith, but no statement measures up to what the Prime Minister said in this House. I say to this House that the Prime Minister has to deliver on that statement, and that if he does not do so, he will have fallen down on his own definition. He came to Belfast and no politician was invited to the meeting. He made a statement and would not allow the press to question him. He returned to the House, I questioned him and that was his answer. I hold the Government and the Prime Minister to that statement.
  We want to see the disbanding of IRA-Sinn Fein and all terrorist organisations, whether they are Protestant, Roman Catholic or whatever they want to call themselves. I have suffered from them all. I have had bullets put through my bedroom window by those who call themselves loyalists. I have had a church bombed by those who would say that they are republican. I have suffered from both, and when I read what they say about me, I see that they think that I am Mr. Baddie No. 1. I congratulate myself, as that is what I want to be in the eyes of such people, for they are the scum of the earth, no matter what they profess to be. Deliverance is needed. I would like to hear the Minister stand up and say "Yes, we dot every t and stroke every t of the Prime Minister's statement and there will be no going back—

  677
  there must be a complete cessation of violence, the abandonment of paramilitarism and a goodbye to the gun in politics." Let us hear that.
  When there were acts of decommissioning, there was rollicking laughter on the Labour Benches when I said in the House that I did not accept the reality of what had taken place. I spoke to General de Chastelain, who was supposed to be in charge, and asked "Could you tell me, general, where this happened?" He said, "No, I couldn't tell you." I asked "Do you think it happened in Ireland?" He said "I don't know." I said "Who were these men?" He replied that the men who had met him were all disguised. He said, "They told me that they were the IRA and that they were going to deal with the weapons." I said, "How did they deal with the weapons?" He said, "I cannot tell you." I asked, "How many weapons did they deal with?" He answered, "I cannot tell you." I said, "Were you out in a boat?" He said, "We may have had a boat journey."
  Mr. Tom Harris: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There has been a great deal of speculation in the media this evening about a possible change to business in the House tomorrow, and I wonder whether you can confirm that. In doing so, can you let the House know if and when the text of any Government motion for debate tomorrow might be available to all hon. Members from the Vote Office?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I can say to the hon. Gentleman that his words will have been heard across the House. If a change in business for tomorrow is to be made, no doubt the Minister will inform the House as soon as it is practicable and Members will have a chance to ask questions at that time. I cannot add to that statement at the moment. have had no notice of the details, but the hon. Gentleman and the House as a whole can expect that events are marching upon us.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: The general was unable to give any information. I notice that people who laughed at those of us who did not believe that it was proper decommissioning are now saying that previous acts of decommissioning were not really decommissioning. They are coming over to our point of view after laughing at us and mocking us. The bombings, the killings and the beatings went on, and now on-the-run terrorists—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I know that the hon. Gentleman has very strong and deep-rooted views on these matters, but he is straying wide of the Second Reading debate on a Bill that, whatever he may see as its implications, is quite narrow in its terms.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but other hon. Members dealt with matters relating to why we are here tonight. Why are we here? What is the House meeting for? What are we discussing? We are discussing the date of an election. Why has that election been called? Because the Assembly has had to be suspended. Why was it suspended? Because those who were in government were found to be guilty of a whole series of acts that could not suggest that they were concerned only with peace and stability in Northern Ireland. The root cause of the matter before us is that IRA-Sinn Fein
  678
  refused to accept what it told us it had accepted. I, for one, cannot believe a word of what any IRA man says, and neither do the majority of the people of Northern Ireland.
  Certain aspects of the Bill alarm me. Will the Government honour the result of the election? That is a question that has to be put. We must remember that this House governs the election. It will not be organised by the Assembly, by any Minister of the Assembly or by any elected Member from Northern Ireland. The Government here are responsible for everything that happens in managing the election—for getting the bolts into the boxes and getting them cut. It is a free country. We do not like the views of many of the people standing for election—we wish that they were not there, but they are. We are democrats, so if the democratic vote goes the way in which I personally believe it will—I have talked to many Government officials, and to people even closer than Government officials, and they agree—there will then have to come an honouring of democracy. It is all right to say that you are a democrat when things are going your way, but I have been in politics for a long time, and I have sat in this House for a long time, and I have seen the swings that take place—some days you are up, some days you are down and some days you do not know if you are up or down.
  The day has come when the people of Northern Ireland are no longer going to be fooled by Government promises or allow Adams and his colleagues to deceive them. The day of the election is coming, and I am glad of that. I trust that the Government will make it clear that they will honour that election and that those who are elected will be consulted. The majority of Unionists have a right to be consulted, irrespective of whether the Government like their views, and I trust that that is what will happen. Then, perhaps, democracy will be seen to work as everybody puts their case.
  Matters in Northern Ireland are very serious, and tonight matters in this old world of ours are very serious. It is interesting that we meet on St. Patrick's night. Someone said that St. Patrick was a Catholic. Of course, I am a Catholic, too. I am not a Roman Catholic, as everybody knows—I do not need to tell the Secretary of State that. There is unity in the message that Patrick brought to Ireland. I could say amen to every one of the doctrines that he taught, one of which was that no Christian man should take the life of another. He was harder on the terrorists of his day than any other preacher ever was We need to return to that basic teaching of Patrick and to see that a man's life is a very important thing and that no one has the right to put out his hand to take that life, except under the constitution of the state where power is given to the magistrate to use the sword as an ordinance of God. It is important that we remember that tonight.
  My deputy has given a fair history of the saga of this agreement. Hon. Members should realise that the time has come for the election, but that the time has also come when the Government must honour what the Prime Minister said to us in this House and accept the verdict of the people. The sooner we are around the table, when every man will have the opportunity to put his case, the sooner we will get this settled. I will not sit

  679
  for my party at any table where there are gunmen and terrorists who continue to hold to that and to do their misdeeds. Those are not the people with whom I, as a democrat, have anything to do, but I will sit with those who are constitutionalists and believe that the way out is through the ballot box and democracy. I hope that at long last the Government will come out strongly on the side of democracy, and I look forward to that day.
  Several hon.Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before I call the next hon. Member, it may be helpful if I say, further to the point of order that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Harris) raised, that I can tell the House that a motion has been tabled that affects tomorrow's business. A copy may be obtained from the Table Office. As hon. Members may have noticed from the Annunciator screens, statements are to be made at the conclusion of our business tonight.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can the business continue till 10 o'clock or will statements be made before that point?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: We are operating under an allocation of time order and the business cannot therefore be interrupted. We must wait until the proceedings are completed before Ministers can make statements in the House.
  6.40 pm
  Mr. Jeffrey M. Donaldson: The business relates to the date of the elections for the Northern Ireland Assembly. I share the view that there should be no need for the Bill. The elections should not be delayed; they should proceed on 1 May. I shall explain the reasons for that.
  The republican movement—the IRA—has been given a veto over holding the elections on 1 May. It is the greatest determinant of the election date. The Assembly is in suspension because of the IRA's actions. The Government have been clear that if the suspension is to be lifted, we need, as the Prime Minister said, acts of completion from the IRA. We were told that elections had to be delayed because the parties needed to consider Government proposals.
  I listened to the statements that were made after the Hillsborough talks. My right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) clearly said that the elections would be delayed because the IRA had failed to come up to the mark. In other words, elections will not be held on 1 May because of the IRA's failure, just as we do not have a Government—neither Assembly nor Executive—in Northern Ireland because of the IRA's failure. The Government are giving the IRA a veto. In a democratic society, we should challenge that.
  It is worth revisiting the reasons, which some hon. Members have mentioned, for the current political vacuum. Hon. Members have already touched on that. A couple of weeks ago, the police commander in my constituency visited me. He delivered a document
  680
  entitled, "Police Message", which stated that the IRA had information about me personally that they had collected in recent months. Underneath the information, the police issued a warning:
  "This information is believed to have been gathered and held by the Provisional Irish Republican Army, which is currently on cease-fire. You are however advised to seek advice on and take steps to protect your personal security."
  Other hon. Members have been given similar police messages and warnings about the IRA's activities in collecting information about their personal details and political viewpoint.
  At the beginning of the debate, the Minister talked about a break-down of trust. I hope that she understands why hon. Members who receive such messages from the police do not trust the IRA and the republican movement. We do not trust a party that was in government when such activities were taking place; the information was collected about me when Sinn Fein was in government. While it was in government, its friends in the IRA were collecting information about Unionist politicians. It is difficult for those of us who are from the Unionist community and represent it to trust such an organisation.
  Trust has broken down and confidence is breaking down. An article by Mr. Alex Kane, a pro-agreement Unionist, on the Hillsborough process appeared in Saturday's Belfast News Letter. He prefaced his remarks by outlining events at Hillsborough. He wrote:
  "And that is why the Ulster Unionist Party should not have participated in last week's republican-promoting circus at Hillsborough."
  Those words are strong indeed from a pro-agreement Unionist. He continued:
  "It should not be part of a negotiation process if all it is doing is bargaining for, and making new concessions for, promises which it bargained for and made concessions for in 1997, 1998, 1999, 2001, 2002 and again, last week."
  Lady Hermon: I hope that my hon. Friend will make it clear that Alex Kane writes in a personal capacity. He is not an elected member of the Ulster Unionist party and his views are therefore personal. It would be helpful if my hon. Friend said that.
  Mr. Donaldson: I simply described Mr. Kane as a pro-agreement Unionist. I did not even ascribe a party political affiliation to him. His views reflect a growing lack of confidence in the process, even among those who support the agreement. Of course, it is clear that his views are personal.
  Mr. Dodds: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that Mr. Alex Kane works as a member of staff for a pro-agreement Ulster Unionist Member of the Legislative Assembly?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are getting further away from the terms of the Bill that we are meant to be discussing. As I said to the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), although we are conducting a Second Reading debate, the terms of the Bill are narrow. I appeal to the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) to tailor his remarks accordingly.
  Mr. Donaldson: I appreciate your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, the decision to postpone the election gave rise to the Bill. I am referring to events at Hillsborough that resulted in the decision. It is important for hon. Members to understand the reasons for our debate. However, I take your point, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I simply confirm what the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds) said. Mr. Kane is also a paid-up member of the Ulster Unionist party. I believe that he is a member in the Malone branch in Belfast, South.
  A deal was discussed during the Hillsborough talks. Like other hon. Members who spoke earlier, I do not know its terms. The Irish Times mentioned sections of a document that was discussed at Hillsborough. It dealt with a wide range of issues, including so-called normalisation. I understand that that will involve significant troop withdrawals—perhaps between 5,000 and 7,000 troops over a period of time—the demolition of the Army watchtowers along the border in south Armagh; remaining troops being confined to barracks and becoming "invisible". That is proposed at a time when so-called dissident republican terrorists promise a bomb a week. One of those bombs was delivered to the High Court in Belfast last week.
  David Burnside: My hon. Friend should not confine his remarks to dissident republicans. Only last week in south Armagh, an illegal IRA gun was used to shoot a member of the IRA. The former chief of staff, Brian Keenan, gave the oration. Is that an organisation that is on ceasefire?
  Mr. Donaldson: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Let me quote some of Mr. Brian Keenan's comments during the oration. I understand that he is the deputy chief of staff of the Provisional IRA. The Secretary of State should note the comments because they come close to, if they do not constitute, incitement to hatred under current Northern Ireland legislation. He said:
  "There is no place in this community, or any republican community for degenerates who abuse and contaminate the struggle young Keith died on behalf of."
  He refers to Keith Rodgers, the IRA volunteer who died last week. He continued:
  "It is not the time now for any thoughts of revenge, the republican movement will no doubt make their position very clear."
  Those comments are being interpreted by many people in Northern Ireland as a clear threat from Mr. Keenan that the IRA will take revenge. All this sets the political context in which we are considering the Bill tonight, in which the Government took the decision to postpone the date of the election, which has given rise to this legislation. My hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim (David Burnside) is right: it is not only the Real IRA and the Continuity IRA but the Provisional IRA that have been involved in acts of terrorism, as we saw last week at Cullaville in south Armagh. It matters not that the objects of that violence were republicans, or that it was some kind of internal feud or dispute. It still constitutes terrorism and the use of violence to further a political agenda.
  I am disappointed that no SDLP Members are here for this debate. On a previous occasion, and with a fanfare of trumpets, the leader of the SDLP launched a
  682
  direct rule watch, in which the party would take the lead in monitoring direct rule. Where are its members today, when this matter is being considered in the House? It has three hon. Members who are entitled to take their seats here, yet none of them is here to scrutinise this important piece of legislation, which is being introduced under direct rule. The direct rule watch seems to have gone to sleep so far as the SDLP is concerned. The party was very active in putting forward demands under the Hillsborough process on issues such as criminal justice, yet it is not here to make a contribution tonight.
  The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) referred to the new international body that is to be created to oversee the implementation of the agreement and, specifically, to deal with the issue of sanctions. This is important because we are told that power will not be restored to the Assembly until there is some kind of political deal. Part of that deal supposedly involves the establishment of this international body. There was an interesting article in The Irish Times on Saturday 15 March, written by the former Irish Prime Minister, Garrett Fitzgerald, who said of this proposal:
  "And as Sinn Fein also seeks the abolition of the British government's unilateral power to suspend the Assembly, its abolition—and the substitution of an alternative method of guaranteeing the integrity of the process that would involve representatives of the Irish and US Governments—may have positive elements from their point of view.
  For Sinn Féin, the de facto transfer to an international body of British sovereignty over the working of the system of government of Northern Ireland must surely have some attractions."
  Well, it has no attraction for any Unionist who values the Union. I cannot believe that we would want to support a proposal that would see the transfer of the sovereignty of the United Kingdom to some kind of international body on an issue as important as the exclusion from office of a Minister in the Northern Ireland Assembly.
  In terms of the legislation before us, I believe that the Government are wrong to change the date of the election, but they have clearly made up their mind to do so. I would echo the remarks that have been made by others, however. There should be no further postponement of the date of the election: 29 May is now proposed as the day on which the people of Northern Ireland should go to the polls, and that date should be adhered to. No one should be afraid of the democratic process. If we believe in and cherish democracy, elections should be at the heart of that process, and it is time for people to give their verdict on that process.
  The way things are going—and if the Government cobble together this deal and manage to get enough people to sign up to it—I cannot believe that a majority of Unionists will accept the kind of deal that is on offer at present, in which policing and justice powers would be transferred and then exercised under some kind of joint arrangement. In the present circumstances, in which the IRA is continuing to engage in violence and has failed to decommission its illegal weapons, I do not believe that anyone would support someone from Sinn Fein-IRA becoming a Minister with responsibility for justice or policing. These are important issues. If the deal that has been outlined in some of the media is introduced, it wall be rejected by the Unionist community.
  Lady Hermon: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend and colleague for giving way again. I want to make two points. First, it was grossly unfair to criticise the absence of the SDLP Members here this evening. I am sure that he knows that they have domestic reasons that sometimes make it difficult for them to attend.
  Mr. Peter Robinson: Apologist.
  Lady Hermon: I am so glad that hon. Members have all been blessed with St. Patrick's generosity of spirit in the Chamber this evening. The second point that I would like my hon. colleague to remember is that there is still a substantial number of pro-agreement Unionists in Northern Ireland, and I would not wish him to pre-empt their judgment or their decision on 29 May.
  Mr. Donaldson: I appreciate the points that my hon. Friend has made, but I do not agree with her on the SDLP. Wallace high school in my constituency is playing in the schools rugby cup final today. My daughter attends that school, and I had wished to be there today to see that cup final. I deemed it more important, however, to deal with the business that I was elected to deal with here, which is legislation from the British House of Commons. No one should apologise for the absence of a political party that ought to be here—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that we have heard quite enough on that subject. We should be dealing with the business before the House.
  Mr. Donaldson: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  I do not believe that a majority of Unionists would support the kind of deal that has been outlined. I concede to the hon. Lady that there could well be a minority of Unionists who might sign up to and support the deal, and the election will provide the verdict on that, when it comes.
  In conclusion, there has to be a bottom line here. This process has lurched from one crisis to another, and every time we reach a crisis, the Government reach into the goody bag to find more concessions to make to the republican movement. Instead of punishing those who have been responsible for the crisis, they reward them. That is precisely what is happening here, in terms of on-the-run terrorists, for example. Some kind of deal is also to be conceded to the IRA in reward for its targeting Unionist politicians, prison officers and police officers.
  The Prime Minister talked about acts of completion, and we need such acts. We need complete disarmament and complete disbandment. That has to be the bottom line. I urge the Secretary of State to stick to that instead of holding out carrots by offering concessions to the republican movement, which, of course, it will pocket while offering the minimum in return.
  Mr. John Taylor: How confident is the hon. Gentleman of the thorough degree of the acts of completion that he seeks, and over what timetable does he think that they are achievable?
  Mr. Donaldson: The agreement stated that they ought to have been achieved after two years, but that was in
  684
  2000. The acts of completion need to be achieved very quickly indeed. The article by Mr. Alex Kane to which I referred earlier suggested that there should be a six-month period in which the IRA would follow through on the commitments made, but that its political representatives should not be allowed back into government in Northern Ireland until such completion had occurred. That is the principle here, and it has consistently been my view that, because of the IRA's failure to commit to the requirements of the agreement for complete disarmament, its political representatives should be excluded from office until such completion has taken place.
  If the Assembly cannot be put back together and have power devolved back to it before the elections, may I make a suggestion to the Secretary of State? After the elections, he should reconvene the Assembly, put back in government those parties that are committed to exclusively peaceful means and exclude from office those parties that have failed to make that commitment. They should not be permitted to re-enter government until they have completely disarmed and completely disbanded. In my opinion, that is clear.
  While expressing grave concerns about the purpose of the legislation, I reiterate what other Members have said today: we look to the Secretary of State, in this debate, to make it absolutely clear that this is the final time that the election will be delayed and that it will happen on 29 May.
  7 pm
  David Burnside: It is terribly important that we look forward positively to the election. There should not have been a postponement until 29 May, but the election will now take place and I hope that the Government commit themselves to that date, supported by the Opposition and all the minority parties whose Members have spoken here tonight. However, it is no good looking forward unrealistically. The Assembly and the Executive have not worked. Humpty Dumpty has fallen off the wall and there are inherent flaws in the institutions set up by the Belfast agreement, which a new Assembly will try to put together again.
  It was an admirable aim to have an all-inclusive Executive, but that meant no collective Cabinet responsibility and no departmental Committee structure that could hold Ministers to account. It meant, in reality, that there was no Opposition for the Northern Ireland Administration. All of us who are standing in the Assembly election look forward to campaigning for something that works and is right at Stormont, but the Secretary of State will have to be flexible in reaccommodating and regaining the consent of the pro-Union people in Northern Ireland.
  I voted for the Belfast agreement. I was one of the 55 per cent. of the pro-Union people, who, traditionally, are Protestants, who supported the agreement, but we have been seriously let down by the Government's mismanagement of the political process. Promise after promise by the Prime Minister has been broken. I shall not repeat them, as the House has heard them time and again. The House is about to authorise going to war, but Sinn Fein-IRA remain armed, terrorist and involved in criminal activities and we are expected, before 29 May

  685
  and with a couple of promises, to put them back in the Northern Ireland Executive with Martin McGuinness as Minister of Education and Gerry Kelly, perhaps, as Minister of justice after the election. No way, Secretary of State, will we allow that to happen.
  After the election, there must be a coming together of the Ulster Unionist party and the Democratic Unionist party to renegotiate, to get inside the negotiation and to re-establish administrative devolution that works at Stormont. The system has not worked; it has inherent flaws. I see no time in the foreseeable future at which I, as an Ulster Unionist, could support Sinn Fein representatives returning to an Executive governing Northern Ireland. They should not have been allowed to participate in the first place. They have been tried and they have failed. While their ceasefires have stopped the major bombing and the major violence that terrorised the Province for 30 years, their organisation remains a terrorist organisation. They must be marginalised from the process.
  After the election—it is important that it takes place—I would support the Ulster Unionist party, the DUP, the Social Democratic and Labour party and the other smaller parties that may or may not be elected to the Assembly trying to reach a consensus agreement to replace the inclusive imposed coalition with a voluntarily agreed coalition of democratic parties so that we could have the advantages of devolution and, I hope, a slimmed down Executive and Assembly. We want something realistic that can work in co-operation with local government in Northern Ireland, which is under review. A considerable transfer of powers is needed to the local government authorities that will replace the 26 district councils.
  It is good to have an election, and it is good to have an election that will give the people of Northern Ireland a chance to express their views on how they want Northern Ireland governed internally within the United Kingdom and locally. There is support for devolution, but not the devolution that has been tried and has lurched from crisis to crisis since 1998. Let us admit that, consider the system and try to improve it. After the election, we should get into negotiations. I hope that all parties will be involved, and it is totally unacceptable for the DUP not to be invited in. I would expect the Secretary of State to invite all the parties and to have a negotiation to try to reach consensus after the election.
  Lady Hermon: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I must make it absolutely clear that my colleague's views, which are going on the record, are entirely his own. They do not reflect a decision of either the Ulster Unionist Council or the Ulster Unionist Executive.
  David Burnside: My views and what I am saying are consistent with the united resolution of the UUC, which was passed at the Ramada hotel. I intend to stick by it and to adhere to it to the letter, which means that I will not support at a future UUC meeting going into the type of settlement proposed and negotiated at Weston Park and Hillsborough. Therefore, I am happy to go to the electorate on 29 May, as I hope my party will go to the electorate, with a united policy statement that adheres to democracy in Northern Ireland and to "no guns, no
  686
  government", which was our party's policy at the last Assembly election. Unfortunately, our party withdrew from it.
  On that further note of Unionist unity, I want to convey this to the House: the Unionist people have had enough of this process and we must regain their consent. All the parties will take part in the democratic election and we must try to make it a real election that produces Executive government in Northern Ireland, but there needs to be a deadline that is not six or 12 months, Secretary of State. After the election on 29 May, he must tell the parties, "There is negotiation and openness. We want consent across the community and we want consent from the pro-Union and the nationalist communities." We all recognise in Unionism—both the UUP and the DUP, I believe—that we cannot have a local Administration unless it has cross-community support that reflects the Unionist tradition and majority as well as nationalist opinion.
  Lembit Öpik: If the hon. Gentleman were Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, what process would he introduce to achieve that?
  David Burnside: After 29 May, I would put on a deadline of about four weeks and say that the parties must try to bring together an inclusive Executive under the current institutions. If that was not possible, the sectarian blocs of nationalists and Unionists should be replaced with a weighted majority of, say, 60 or 65 per cent. under an Assembly vote, which would allow the formation of a voluntary coalition. They would have executive Cabinet responsibility, with all that that entails, and there would be a stronger Committee system. We would negotiate a local Administration at Stormont that reflected the whole community and brought better accountable government to Northern Ireland. We need a deadline and politicians elected to the Assembly must not just sit there being paid but not doing the job. They must decide to put the system together, make it operate and make it effective. A short rather than a long deadline would help to concentrate the minds of all the political parties.
  It is not unfortunate, but fortunate, that the differences within Unionism have been expressed here, although I hope the House understands that the pro-Union people have a right to expect their consent to be given to an election and to the institutions of government. The whole system has gone in one direction: it has the consent of the nationalist and republican community, but not that of the pro-Union community in Northern Ireland. The task after the election is to regain that consent, so that we can have better administrative devolution and accountable government at Stormont with the consent of the Unionist and the nationalist people.
  7.9 pm
  Mr. Nigel Doddis: I join the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) in sending our good wishes on this St. Patrick's night to the men of the Irish Guards and the Royal Irish Regiment. At this critical time, our thoughts are with them.
  It is important to take time to debate democracy in part of the United Kingdom. The Government's move to postpone elections, coming on top of the shabby

  687
  history of interference with the legal set-up for the Northern Ireland Assembly elections that was outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), sends a worrying message to the people of Northern Ireland: the Government are prepared to interfere with the rights of the electorate—the democratic rights of the people of Northern Ireland—if it ends in a result that better suits their political objectives and those of their friends rather than one that truly reflects the wishes and feelings of the people of Northern Ireland.
  Although our minds are concentrated tonight on events that are taking place farther afield than Northern Ireland and although we await statements on world conflict of historic importance, we should remember that the debate on Iraq is about human rights and democracy; yet the House is currently discussing a measure that would stop a democratic election taking place on 1 May and would postpone it until 29 May, as a result of negotiations at Hillsborough Castle on 3 and 4 March 2004 that involved, among others, a party that is inextricably linked to terrorists and whose representatives at Hillsborough included people who sit on the army council of the Provisional IRA. It is ironic, to put it mildly, that we are about to discuss action against Iraq because of its possession of weapons of mass destruction and its links to worldwide terrorism, when we are dealing with legislation for part of the United Kingdom that arose from negotiations to which one of the parties was the Provisional IRA, which has worldwide links with terrorism.
  Many people in Northern Ireland deeply resent the Prime Minister's approach to the decommissioning of illegal terrorist weaponry, where he is prepared to go the second, nay the third, nay the fourth mile in negotiating with IRA-Sinn Fein and giving them concessions, while he takes a completely different approach to Iraq—one that involves military action. Many people in Northern Ireland say: would that the Prime Minister had adopted the same approach towards the Provisional IRA in Northern Ireland that he is prepared to adopt towards the Iraqi regime and its possession of weapons of mass destruction. When one considers this Bill, which arose from the negotiations at Hillsborough Castle, it is hard to square the Government's approach to Iraq with their approach to the Provisional IRA and its cohorts in Northern Ireland.
  As other Members have pointed out, the Democratic Unionist party experienced a complete lack of consultation, dialogue or briefing about the negotiations, which is deplorable. It is a travesty of democracy, especially as there are five DUP Members.
  The other day, on television, I heard a member of the American Administration give an insight into dealings over the putative agreement that had been reached at Hillsborough. Today, the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford indicated that he had received at least two briefings on the outcome of the Hillsborough talks, even though, like us, he was not present. Paragraph 4 of the explanatory notes states:
  "The Bill follows intensive negotiations at Hillsborough on 3 and 4 March 2003 between the UK and Irish Governments and Northern Ireland political parties."
  688
  My party, with other like-minded Unionists, represents the majority of the Unionist people of Northern Ireland. The Government may not like that, but the facts are clear; from the results of the last Westminster election and the contributions from the Unionist side tonight. It is wholly unacceptable that the people whom we represent should be excluded from negotiations on the political way forward in Northern Ireland, and should even have been denied access to knowledge of what was discussed at Hillsborough.
  It is no good for the Government to say, "It is all about implementing the agreement and you're against the agreement". It is time that the Government faced the fact that, even if they have 100 per cent. nationalist support, they cannot implement a process based on the consent both of Unionists and nationalists if they no longer have Unionist consent. If the process does not have the consent, support and acquiescence of a majority of Unionists, the Government should recognise that and enter negotiations with those of us who represent the majority of Unionists. In their contributions tonight, Ulster Unionist Members, too, have reflected the concerns of the Unionist community.
  Back in 1985, Unionist people and their representatives were completely excluded from consultation on the negotiations that led up to the Anglo-Irish agreement. The same mistakes are being repeated. The explanatory notes state that the measure will allow a period of three or four weeks for the parties to reflect, yet the second-largest Northern Ireland party represented in the House has not even been given the proposals. The proposals included things that are not in the agreement, such as legislation relating to on-the-run terrorists, so it is no good saying that the measure is all about implementing the agreement. Some of the points discussed at Hillsborough go well beyond what is in the agreement.
  That the Government can believe that the measure offers a proper, stable and sensible way to proceed is beyond those of us who represent the majority of Unionist people. The Government and other Members are keen to point out that the process is inclusive and involves everyone. They say that that includes Sinn Fein-IRA, no matter about their past or even their present. It seems to us and to the people whom we represent that the process includes everybody but the majority of the Unionist people. That cannot be right.
  When the Under-Secretary responds to the debate, he should explain why the majority of Unionists in Northern Ireland and the representatives in this place of a substantial section of the Unionist community are being kept in the dark about the proposals. Why do we have to rely on newspaper reports? Why do we have to rely on Mr. Hass, the American envoy? Why do we have to rely on the utterances of members of the IRA army council who are better informed about what is going on at Hillsborough and in the negotiations than the decent law-abiding people of Northern Ireland? For the Minister to think that the measure will build confidence and gain the support of Unionists when they have been excluded from any chance of input to the negotiations beggars belief. I challenge him to address that point.

  689
  I shall not detain the House by going into details about the overall package that was discussed at Hillsborough, as they have already been covered by other hon. Members. Those negotiations continue. Although the Prime Minister told us that there would be no further negotiations, there have been delegations to Downing street from one or two of the main parties since Hillsborough. Even within a few hours, or days, of the Prime Minister's statement at Hillsborough, the situation that he outlined was reversed.
  People in Northern Ireland are gravely concerned that the election has been put back to give further consideration to the scaling down of security along the border, in Belfast and in other urban areas of Northern Ireland merely in response to some gesture from the Provisional IRA, when, as we have heard recently, that organisation and other so-called dissidents are still active in Northern Ireland.
  It strikes many people in Northern Ireland as outrageous that anyone should suggest—after the leaving of a bomb at the Laganside courthouse, which Her Majesty had visited only the previous week—that we can simply tear down all our defences and leave ordinary decent people denuded of proper security, simply because Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness demand that as part of the price of their returning to government.
  As has been said many times in the House, we should not accept a process allowing those currently on the run to evade any form of justice. We should remember that those whom we are discussing have committed some of the most awful, heinous crimes. We should remember the case of Mrs. Hill, whose husband lay in a coma for more than a decade—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is going into too much detail, which is outside the scope of this Second Reading debate. We cannot recapitulate the whole history, recent or distant, of the troubles of Northern Ireland on this occasion.
  Mr. Dodds: The election has been postponed to give Northern Ireland parties which are party to the deal more time to reflect on a range of issues such as the running down of security, the evading of justice by those on the run, the introduction of legislation devolving criminal justice in Northern Ireland, and policing. I was in the process of citing a specific example, but in deference to your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will not go into specifics. I will say this, in general terms. There are people in Northern Ireland tonight who will view the Bill as having been designed simply to allow the IRA time to go away and try to do some sort of deal with its own people—to persuade people that it is worth pocketing all the concessions, and that in return for a gesture on decommissioning, some statement or stunt, it will return to government in Northern Ireland.
  We have heard no details of the definition of the acts of completion outlined by the Prime Minister in Belfast on 17 October. We have heard no definition from anyone in Government of a complete end to paramilitarism. Does it mean disbandment? It should mean disbandment if it is to mean anything, and that disbandment must be proved over a considerable period. I ask, as others have today, how anyone can
  690
  trust the word of the Provisional IRA. I am one of the Members who have been visited in recent weeks to be told that our details are being held by the Provisional IRA—and its army council includes Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness. Those elected politicians in the Assembly who people are so keen to return to government are organising the gathering of such intelligence, and the targeting of other elected Members as well as a host of ordinary citizens across Northern Ireland.
  The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford spoke of the Government's failures. He said that the middle ground represented by the Ulster Unionists and the SDLP had been failed by the Government's appeasement. It must be said that those parties, and their leadership, have been party to that appeasement. Many of the deals done with the Provisional IRA have been done with the support of not just the British Government but the pro-agreement parties, led by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). They cannot wash their hands of responsibility.
  Substantial concessions are being offered to the Provisional IRA, as is clear to the people of Northern Ireland. We regret the fact that the Bill is before the House tonight. The election should have proceeded on 1 May, and we are opposed to any further delay. I hope the Minister will confirm that there will indeed be no further delay. On Radio Ulster the other morning, in reply to a question from the interviewer, his colleague the Secretary of State, said that "hopefully" the election would take place on 29 May. I should be grateful if the Government would confirm that it will, come what may, and that there will be no further attempt to interfere with the rights of the people of Northern Ireland.
  I add my voice to those of Members throughout the House who have expressed concern about the possible effect of legislation on electoral fraud, namely the disfranchising of tens of thousands of people in Northern Ireland. It is vital that, when the election goes ahead, everyone whom the register entitles to vote is able to do so. If they have no photographic ID at the time of the election, they should not be deprived of that right.
  7.25 pm
  Mr. John Taylor: Let me say, I hope not gracelessly, that if the Government are hoist on their own guillotine with the present business it is their fault. The lesson is that they should not guillotine everything: they are now reaping the results of their guillotine reflex.
  Those who are present now may wish to know that four hours ago my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) offered them the opportunity of proceeding without a guillotine, whereupon other matters could have intruded. Ministers declined, but I do not intend to extend their discomfiture. My party has said that it will not oppose the Bill; but if the Government attempt a second postponement, we certainly will.
  7.27 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Desmond Browne): I listened with interest to hon. Members of all parties. Let me say at the outset that the Government agree with all who have

  691
  spoken that the postponing of any election is a serious step, but what is proposed in this instance is a short, defined postponement. I will develop the reasons given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State shortly, but let me say to all who have sought clarification that the people of Northern Ireland will have a chance to deliver their verdict on 29 May if the Bill is passed.
  Although it may not be reflected in the number of speeches made to this effect, there is widespread agreement in the House on the desirability of the Bill. Although I cannot agree with the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) and his colleagues, I respect their views; but those views are, to an extent, rooted in their antipathy to the Belfast agreement, which the great majority of Members support and which, I think, lies at the heart of the albeit qualified support that the official Opposition are prepared to give the Bill tonight.
  Let me now—early in my speech—deal with the issue that has largely dominated the contributions of members of the party of the hon. Member for North Antrim in the context of the talks that have taken place. I understand why it has. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—any of us, indeed—would be happy to talk to the hon. Gentleman's party about the political way forward, but our proposals, which formed the basis of the discussions at Hillsborough castle and are at the heart of the decision to postpone the election for a comparatively short time, are essentially about the better and fuller implementation of the agreement. It must be said that it is unlikely that the hon. Gentleman or his colleagues have many suggestions to make in support of that objective.
  Mr. Peter Robinson: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Browne: May I finish responding to the point that the hon. Gentleman, among others, made?
  The discussions are about the full implementation of the agreement. Members of the Democratic Unionist party say that that is an inadequate response but the Government's response is that anti-agreement parties, though we respect their views, by their nature are not going to contribute constructively to that debate.
  The proposals will in due course be published when they become definitive, which the Governments expect to be at or about the beginning of April. The Hillsborough discussions involved a series of working drafts aimed at finding common ground between the parties, so that those proposals can be published at that time.
  Mr. Robinson: The Minister puts a far from convincing case if he is saying that, because my party does not agree with the Government's policy on this issue, we cannot have any valuable contribution to make and should not be heard. That seems an outrageous suggestion for any democrat to make. We may have a different policy but that does not mean that there are not genuine proposals that we can put and general views that we can submit to Government on all
  692
  these issues, particularly as some of them go beyond the Belfast agreement; they were not touched on in terms of the format of the agreement.
  Mr. Browne: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his contribution. Had I said what he has just attributed to me, it would have been outrageous, but I did not. I said at the outset that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and indeed any of us would be happy to discuss the way forward for Northern Ireland with the hon. Gentleman or any member of his party. If he seeks to have those discussions and has contributions to make, those discussions can take place. He knows, because he has regular access to Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office, that when he and others request meetings, they are refused only if the diary of the respective Minister does not allow it. If he wants to come in to make the sort of contribution that he has just told the House he wants to make, we will be happy to have those discussions with him.
  The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) raised a different point in relation to the same issue: whether all parties had the same opportunity in the context of the discussions at Hillsborough to make a contribution. We in Government listened to all the views expressed to us, whether they were on the details of the text or the substance.
  No one will be surprised to learn that we spent more time discussing some particular issues with some parties than we spent with others. That has nothing to do with democracy or being undemocratic. It is just a reflection of the realities of negotiation. Parties came to those discussions with interests that they wished to discuss with us in greater detail than other parties, but we shall take into account in producing our final proposals all the views expressed to us, whether on the text or otherwise. However, we do not propose to enter into detailed textual negotiation before publication. That would protract the process of reaching the point of definition, so that these matters can be published. In the views of both Governments, significant and sufficient discussion has taken place and the Governments hope to be in a position at or about the beginning of April to publish the definitive text.
  While I am on the detail of the matter, the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), and others who were encouraged by him to do so, have let their imaginations run away with them about who might or might not be the Minister for policing and justice in Northern Ireland. There is no such deal. The hon. Gentleman knows that it has been Her Majesty's Government's intention in the right circumstances to devolve responsibility for policing and justice. Indeed, the introduction to the implementation plan on criminal justice specifically said that a significant time ago.
  That principle commands wide support across Northern Ireland, but much is not agreed, including the timing of it and the ministerial structure that will have to take on those important responsibilities for Northern Ireland. A good deal of discussion is needed before we could arrive at answering many of the questions about ministerial appointments, even on the most optimistic timing.
  I dare say that the hon. Member for Belfast, East will not desist from making his colourful assertions, because it allows him to give descriptions of the background of

  693
  his nominee for the post in the context of what he anticipates is happening, but, if he will allow me to, I will try to put his mind at ease by saying that there is no deal such as that on which he based his contribution and which was supported by other hon. Members.
  Mr. Donaldson: Is the Minister aware of a report in The Irish Times that stated that the Government were considering a variety of models for the devolution of justice, including
  "a joint ministry with office holders drawn from the two political traditions"?
  If that is not the case, will he deny it, and will he show a willingness to share the proposals with those of us who have not seen them?
  Mr. Browne: I am aware of that report. But the fact that something was reported in The Irish Times does not mean that it is correct. What I have said is—[Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman and others will wait a moment, I may answer the question. What I have said is that it has long been the Government's intention in the right circumstances to devolve responsibility for policing and justice, so no one should represent that to the House as something that emerged from the Hillsborough discussions. It is not. Indeed, it is an aspiration of the hon. Gentleman's party that policing and justice be devolved to Ministers in Northern Ireland in the context of devolution. He knows that fine well and if he is trying to pretend otherwise—[Interruption.] Let me finish. The point is that it cannot be devolved to Northern Ireland unless it is devolved into some ministerial structure. He will accept that, so we agree that it is the hon. Gentleman's party's policy to see devolution in the right circumstances. We agree that there will need to be a ministerial structure into which it should be devolved. We must, therefore, agree that it is sensible for the Government to consider what that structure will be.
  At the moment, the Government have reached no decision as to what that structure will be and that structure cannot be agreed unless it is agreed with the parties that form the devolved Assembly. I cannot make it any clearer than that. People may take from that that we must be considering models and then seek to set them out in a newspaper article, but that will not he Government policy and it is not likely to be the way in which Government policy is fixed.
  Mr. Peter Robinson: The Minister's evasion in answering the question of the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) seems to suggest that the report is right—that that is one of the options being considered. The Minister still has not told us that it is not one of the options. If it is one of the options being considered, everything that I said stands and I was perfectly entitled to make my comments.
  Mr. Browne: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. I have just made the Government's position clear. The Government's position on devolution of policing and justice has been clear for some considerable time. It would have been remiss of the Government in the time since they have made that position clear—urged to do so by, among others, the Ulster Unionist party—not to consider what structures could be put in place to receive devolution, but no decisions have been made and there is no policy.
  694
  I want to refer to my hon. Friends the Members for South Dorset (Jim Knight) and for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan), who contributed to the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset told us that it was his first contribution to a Northern Ireland debate. I feel for him. I know from my time on the Back Benches in the early years of the previous Parliament how daunting it can be to enter these debates. Often, the first contribution in response, although not this time, is a Northern Ireland Member telling the hon. Member that their contribution is worthless because they do not live in Northern Ireland. The irony is that it normally comes from a party that puts itself forward as a Unionist party and in every other context wishes to identify itself with the rest of the United Kingdom.
  The fact that that did not happen tonight is a credit to both my hon. Friends, who spoke well. Their advocacy of the restoration of devolution was strong and augurs well for how much can be learned in a comparatively short time in visiting Northern Ireland. Frankly, in many aspects, Northern Ireland is not that much different from the rest of these islands. Members should not be daunted from entering these debates just because Northern Ireland politicians can sometimes be a little over-aggressive in responding to honest contributions.
  I am grateful to the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) for his contribution, which was characteristically comprehensive, and multilateral and understated. I am also grateful for his qualified support for the Government. He will forgive me if I do not respond in detail to his analysis of the past months and years. Whether his prescriptions would have led to greater political progress than we have seen is perhaps for other Members to judge, but I am grateful to him for his praise for the wisdom of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and for his support. It would be churlish of me to enter into a critique of his analysis at this stage. I am grateful for his current position in supporting Government policy in Northern Ireland, and I hope to keep him there.
  I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire for his support, even if that, too, was conditional. I hope that my earlier answer about the election date has matured the conditionality of his contribution. He raised a number of interesting issues, as he usually does in such debates. He asked whether we can expect continued round table talks. What I can offer him is that we will continue to stay in touch with the parties in Northern Ireland, but whether those talks will be round table, bilateral, multilateral, quadrilateral or any other "lateral" I cannot say at this stage; it depends on whether people ask for them. If the talks involve the hon. Member for Belfast, East and his party, I suspect that they will be simply bilateral. However, talks will take place, and we will continue to stay in touch.
  More importantly, the parties in Northern Ireland need to talk to each other, because what matters is the future of politics in Northern Ireland, and of the parties. This agreement is not a series of bilateral agreements with the British Government, or of trilateral agreements with the British Government and the Irish Government; it is a multilateral agreement, and the parties need to understand that, and to talk to each other about it. It would sometimes be better if they spoke to each other before coming to either Government to talk about the issues that they wish to address.

  695
  The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire asked for an assurance that the letter written by the Leader of the House of Lords to some of his colleagues in the other place would be honoured, and I have no difficulty in giving him that. The proper place for discussing issues relating to the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill is during the remaining stages of that Bill, which the House should consider shortly.
  The hon. Gentleman also raised the important issue of justice and victims, in the context of on-the-runs. He will accept that the Government's stated position since Weston Park is a logical extension of the Good Friday agreement. It has never been the Government's intention to treat this as an amnesty. We have always intended to deal with this issue, but I can assure him that it can be dealt with only as one step in the context of acts of completion. I think that that is the assurance that he was looking for, and I hope that he accepts it.
  Lembit Öpik: I also seek the Minister's reassurance that the Government are still looking at some form of licensing scheme, or, to be more exact, that they are not intending to push through a blanket amnesty.
  Mr. Browne: The Government have made it clear that amnesty is not part of their thinking. There will have to be a system that respects the issues of justice, and the question of victims is also important in that regard.
  On victims, the hon. Gentleman also raised the question of exiles and punishment beatings. He can rest assured that exiles and punishment beatings fit in with the Government's definition of acts of completion. In his speech in Belfast on 17 October last year, and in a statement in the House in November, the Prime Minister made it clear that violence must be given up completely in a way that satisfies everyone, and which gives them confidence that the Provisional IRA has ceased its campaign, thereby enabling us to move the democratic process forward, with every party that wants to be in government abiding by the same democratic rules. That means acts of completion, which manifestly must include some response to the issue of exiles, and an end to punishment beatings, among other forms of behaviour.
  Several hon. Members mentioned electoral fraud and the electoral identity card. The exact provenance of a letter—a copy of which I have in front of me—that purports to come from the Democratic Unionist party's leader, the hon. Member for North Antrim, and which approves the implementation of measures to remove all forms of electoral identity other than those involving photographic identification, may need to be resolved without delay to ensure that these measures are in place before the next election in Northern Ireland. I am confident that the letter will prove to have come from his office.
  I should point out that every party in Northern Ireland that is represented in this House agreed at the end of February, or thereabouts, to that legislation. As I undertook to do in this House, I wrote to all those parties asking for their comments on whether we should take that step, recognising its significance in terms of what was required from electors in Northern Ireland,
  696
  and recognising that if the process was mishandled, it could accidentally disfranchise a lot of innocent, good voters. All the parties in Northern Ireland that are represented in this House wrote back in a positive fashion, saying that we should go ahead, and it was on that basis alone that I decided to do so.
  With respect, issues are now being raised with me that ought to have been raised at that time. I am told that there is evidence to suggest that people are being turned away in their efforts to obtain these cards. I should point out that I have no such evidence, but if the parties do have it, they should bring it to my attention as quickly as possible.[Interruption.] I note that some assent is coming from a sedentary position, and I should be happy to receive that information.
  Some people tell me that the system is being gummed up, but that is not the case. As research continues, evidence is emerging to suggest that in excess of 900,000 people in Northern Ireland have photographic driving licences. Given that it is not possible to drive until one is over 17, by far the majority of those people will be voters, or at least entitled to be registered. We also know that, thanks to the policy of the hon. Member for Belfast, East, a significant number of people—in excess of 140,000—have other photographic identification.
  For example, in Northern Ireland there are 150,000 holders of passports issued by the Irish Government, and about 75 per cent. of adults across the UK have UK passports, all of which will be accepted. It does not take a genius to work out that although the number of people on the electoral register is increasing, the likelihood is that almost every one of the 1.1 million, or thereabouts, on the register has the appropriate type of electoral identification. Having said that, 50,000 applications for electoral ID cards are being processed, only 3,500 of which had to be rejected because of the way in which the forms had been completed. The issuing of those cards by post is increasing daily, and the chief electoral officer has given an undertaking that anybody who applies before 16 May will have an electoral ID card for the election on 29 May.
  On the absence of advertising, the Electoral Commission, which has accepted responsibility for advertising, is spending more than £500,000 in Northern Ireland on advertising the electoral identity card. I understand that advertisements have been placed during peak-time television programmes, including episodes of "Coronation Street", which are watched by more than 50 per cent. of the adult population of Northern Ireland. Daily advertisements are also placed in the press. The advertising campaign, which is being conducted through television, the press and billboards—I have seen the press and billboard advertisements—is extensive and very expensive. I do not understand why it has been suggested that the campaign is inadequate.
  Mr. Peter Robinson: The Minister is stringing out figures on the number of people with passports, driving licences, and smart passes for senior citizens. He then says that because of those numbers, and of the number of people who vote in Northern Ireland, there is clearly no problem. However, he must surely have considered the possibility that someone with a passport might also have a driving licence; in other words, we could be dealing with the same person, so both documents should not be added into the equation. The reality is that the

  697
  Minister, in a letter to me, indicated that some 243,000 people—one in five voters in Northern Ireland—had said that they needed a photo-identity pass, having been shown the alternatives, but only 55,000 have made an application. That suggests that some 190,000 people—almost one in five of the voting population—will be disfranchised—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. Will the hon. Gentleman bring his remarks to a close?
  Mr. Browne: I propose to bring my remarks to a close shortly, Madam Deputy Speaker. However, the hon. Member for Belfast, East may be assured that sufficient resources are available to ensure that everyone who needs an electoral identity card can have one.
  It has been suggested that in postponing the election our motive is to influence the result in one way or another. We have not proposed the delay with the aim of influencing the choice of Northern Ireland voters one way or another. No Government could or should prevent the people of Northern Ireland from expressing their democratic choice, and it would be a rash Government who tried to do so.
  What we do have a duty to do is to try to give the people of Northern Ireland something real to vote about. The majority of people in Northern Ireland want the Belfast agreement to work, and it is not in their interest for the process to fail. In the long run, stable and inclusive institutions can flourish only in a society from which the shadow of political violence has been removed. The Government believe that the Bill is a necessary part of bringing that about.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Committee of the whole House, pursuant to Order this day.
  Bill immediately considered in Committee.
  [SYLVIA HEAL in the Chair]

  Northern Ireland Assembly Elections Bill
    Clause 1

      DATES OF ELECTION, ETC
      7.52 pm
      Mr. Peter Robinson: I beg to move manuscript amendment No. 1, in line 2, to leave out from the beginning to the word "in" in line 13 and insert—
      "In Section 31 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998".
      It will assist the House if I say that I do not intend to speak for more than a couple of minutes on the amendment—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—although if I were encouraged, that might change.
      The amendment was covered to some extent on Second Reading. Having spoken for three quarters of an hour in that debate, I do not need to add many points. The effect of the amendment would be to have an election on 1 May, as provided in the original 1998 legislation and in the order put forward by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he was required by legal action to do so. There should be no further delay to the election. The people should have the opportunity to speak.
      698
      The reality is that the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister are attempting, once again, to cobble together an agreement that has clearly failed. It has gone from crisis to crisis. It has collapsed on four occasions, it has been attended by all sorts of violence and the misbehaviour of the Provisional IRA, and it is abundantly clear that the Secretary of State will not be able to obtain a stable political structure from the existing Belfast agreement. It was Einstein who once defined insanity as endlessly doing the same thing and hoping for a different result. That seems to be the Government's intention. They continue to repeat the same mistakes that they have made before and hope that things will turn out all right. They will not turn out all right, because a new agreement is needed. I hope that the election will allow us to reach a situation in which we can have negotiations for a new agreement that will enjoy the support of not only nationalists in Northern Ireland but the Unionist community as well.
      Mr. Alistair Carmichael: The House has already heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Opik) that we generally support the Bill, so it will come as little surprise that we are opposed to the amendment. We oppose it for two reasons. First, it does not add anything to the Bill. Secondly, as the Minister said earlier, it is a wrecking amendment, although it would not actually wreck the Bill. Clause 1(3) would still categorically state that the date of the election would be 29 May 2003. All the amendment would do is add further confusion and provide work for the courts when the inevitable challenge is brought by the Democratic Unionist party.
      Mr. Desmond Browne: As the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) has just said, the amendment is designed to wreck the Bill by removing the provisions that would revoke the order that sets the election day for 1 May and amend the legislation to set a new election date of 29 May. In moving the amendment, the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) did not: pretend that it was anything else. It might even qualify as a reasoned amendment on Second Reading.
      It will be obvious that the Government cannot accept the amendment. Postponement is not a step that the Government propose lightly, but we believe that there is a chance of a real breakthrough that will give the people of Northern Ireland the opportunity to vote for an Assembly ready to take up powers again. That chance should not be missed, and I submit to the House that it will be missed unless we have this window of opportunity. We cannot allow the Bill to be wrecked in this fashion.
      Mr. Peter Robinson: I regret that the Government wish to resile from a date that was set by them in the legislation, and later confirmed by an order by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, simply for political purposes. People should not attempt to manipulate elections and the electoral process for party political reasons. The election date was set by the Government and should not be manipulated by them. I trust that hon. Members will consider the matter and join us in the Lobby on that issue.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 368.

      Division No. 115]

      [7: 56 pm

      AYES

      Burnside, David

      Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

      Dodds, Nigel

      Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Paisley, Rev. Ian

      Mrs. Iris Robinson and

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Mr. Gregory Campbell

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Coaker, Vernon

      Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Cohen, Harry

      Alexander, Douglas

      Coleman, Iain

      Allan, Richard

      Colman, Tony

      Allen, Graham

      Connarty, Michael

      Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

      Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

      Cooper, Yvette

      Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Corston, Jean

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Cotter, Brian

      Austin, John

      Cousins, Jim

      Baird, Vera

      Crausby, David

      Banks, Tony

      Cruddas, Jon

      Barrett, John

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Barron, rh Kevin

      Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

      Battle, John

      Bayley, Hugh

      Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

      Beard, Nigel

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Darling, rh Alistair

      Bell, Stuart

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Benn, Hilary

      David, Wayne

      Benton, Joe (Bootle)

      Davidson, Ian

      Berry, Roger

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Best, Harold

      Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Blackman, Liz

      Dawson, Hilton

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Dean, Mrs. Janet

      Blizzard, Bob

      Denham, rh John

      Boateng, rh Paul

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Borrow, David

      Dismore, Andrew

      Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

      Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Dobson, rh Frank

      Breed, Colin

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Brennan, Kevin

      Doran, Frank

      Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

      Doughty, Sue

      Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Drew, David (Stroud)

      Browne, Desmond

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Bryant, Chris

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Burden, Richard

      Edwards, Huw

      Burnett, John

      Efford, Clive

      Burnham, Andy

      Ellman, Mrs, Louise

      Byers, rh Stephen

      Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

      Caborn, rh Richard

      Farrelly, Paul

      Cairns, David

      Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Fisher, Mark

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Flint, Caroline

      Caplin, Ivor

      Follett, Barbara

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Foster, rh Derek

      Casale, Roger

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Caton, Martin

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

      Challen, Colin

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Foulkes, rh George

      Chaytor, David

      Francis, Dr. Hywel

      Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

      Gardiner, Barry

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      George, Andrew (St. Ives)

      Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

      Gerrard, Neil

      700

      Gibson, Dr. Ian

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

      Gidley, Sandra

      Gilroy, Linda

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Godsiff, Roger

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Goggins, Paul

      Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Lammy, David

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Hain, rh Peter

      Laws, David (Yeovil)

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Lepper, David

      Hancock, Mike

      Leslie, Christopher

      Hanson, David

      Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

      Harman, rh Ms Harriet

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Linton, Martin

      Harvey Nick

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

      Love, Andrew

      Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

      Healey, John

      Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

      Heath, David

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      McCabe, Stephen

      Hendrick, Mark

      McCafferty, Chris

      Hepburn, Stephen

      McCartney, rh Ian

      Heppell, John

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Hermon Lady

      MacDonald, Calum

      Hesford, Stephen

      McDonnell, John

      Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

      McIsaac, Shona

      Mackay, rh Andrew

      Heyes, David

      McKechin,Ann

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Hinchliffe, David

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Hodge, Margaret

      McNulty, Tony

      Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

      McWalter, Tony

      Holmes, Paul

      McWilliam, John

      Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Hoon, rh Geoffrey

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Hope, Phil (Corby)

      Mallaber, Judy

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Mann,John (Bassetlaw)

      Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

      Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

      Howells, Dr. Kim

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Martlew, Eric

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Meacher, rh Michael

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Merron, Gillian

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Michael, rh Alun

      Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

      Milburn, rh Alan

      Hutton, rh John

      Miliband, David

      Iddon, Dr. Brian

      Miller Andrew

      Illsley, Eric

      Moffatt, Laura

      Ingram, rh Adam

      Mole, Chris

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

      Moonie, Dr. Lewis

      Moore, Michael

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Moran, Margaret

      Jamieson, David

      Morley, Elliot

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

      Mountford, Kali

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Mullin, Chris

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

      Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

      Naysmith, Dr. Doug

      Kaufman, rh Gerald

      Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

      Keen, Alan (Feltham)

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Keen, Ann (Brentford)

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Keetch, Paul

      Olner, Bill

      Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Kemp, Fraser

      Öpik, Lembit

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Organ, Diana

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Owen, Albert

      Kidney, David

      Palmer, Dr. Nick

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Perham, Linda

      701

      Picking, Anne

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Pickthall, Colin

      Stoate, Dr. Howard

      Pike, Peter (Burnley)

      Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

      Plaskitt, James

      Straw, rh Jack

      Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

      Stunell, Andrew

      Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

      Tami, Mark (Alyn)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

      Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

      Prescott, rh John

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Primarolo, rh Dawn

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Pugh, Dr. John

      Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

      Purchase, Ken

      Timms, Stephen

      Purnell, James

      Tipping, Paddy

      Quin, rh Joyce

      Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Tonge, Dr. Jenny

      Rammell, Bill

      Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Trickett, Jon

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

      Truswell, Paul

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Rooney, Terry

      Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

      Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

      Viggers, Peter

      Ruane, Chris

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Ruddock, Joan

      Ward, Claire

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

      Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

      Salter, Martin

      Watts, David

      Sanders, Adrian

      Webb, Steve (Northavon)

      Savidge, Malcolm

      White, Brian

      Sawford, Phil

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Williams, Betty (Conwy)

      Sheerman, Barry

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Sheridan, Jim

      Willis, Phil

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Wills, Michael

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Wilson, Brian

      Singh, Marsha

      Winnick, David

      Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

      Wood, Mike (Batley)

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe &Lunesdale)

      Woodward, Shaun

      Woolas, Phil

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Worthington, Tony

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Wray, James (Glasgow Baillieston)

      Soames, Nicholas

      Soley, Clive

      Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

      Southworth, Helen

      Spellar, rh John

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Squire, Rachel

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

      Wyatt, Derek

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Stevenson, George

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

      Mr. Nick Ainger and

      Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Bill reported, without amendment.
      Order for Third Reading read.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Jane Kennedy.]
      8.12 pm
      Rev. Ian Paisley: All I say on behalf of the electors whom I represent is roll on 29 May. Let us have the result of the election and let the House take proper democratic note of the same.
      8.13 pm
      Lembit Öpik: The Minister heard the earlier debate. It is vital that the Government define acts of completion. They must also ensure that there is parity of treatment in terms of information for Northern Ireland parties.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: The House will now be suspended for 10 minutes. The Division bell will ring for three minutes before we commence the statements.
      8.14 pm
      Sitting suspended.
      On resuming—

Iraq
8.24 pm
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement in respect of Iraq and the debate that will be held in the House tomorrow.
As the House will be aware, in the Azores yesterday my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, Prime Minister Aznar of Spain, President Bush of the United States and Prime Minister Barroso of Portugal called on all members of the Security Council to adopt a resolution—which would have been its 18th on Iraq—to challenge Saddam to take a strategic decision to disarm his country of his weapons of mass destruction as required by Security Council resolution 1441. Such a resolution has never been needed legally, but we have long had a preference for it politically.
There has been intense diplomatic activity to secure that end over many months, culminating in the past 24 hours. Yesterday evening, our ambassador to the United Nations, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, consulted his fellow permanent representatives from other Security Council member states. Just this morning I spoke to my Spanish, American, Russian and Chinese counterparts.
Despite those final efforts, I regret to say that we have reluctantly concluded that a Security Council consensus on a new resolution would not be possible. On my instructions, Sir Jeremy Greenstock made a public announcement to that effect at the United Nations at about 3.15 pm UK time today.
What we know about the Iraqi regime's behaviour over many years is that there is the greatest chance of their finally responding to the United Nations obligations on them if they face a united Security Council. So, over the months since resolution 1441 was unanimously adopted by the Security Council in early November, the Prime Minister and I, and our ambassador to the United Nations, have strained every nerve in search of that consensus which could finally persuade Iraq, by peaceful means, to provide the full and immediate co-operation demanded by the Security Council.
Significantly, in all the discussions in the Security Council and outside, no one has clairned that Iraq is in full compliance with the obligations placed on it. Given that, it was my belief, up to about a week ago, that we were close to achieving the consensus that we sought on the further resolution. Sadly, one country then ensured that the Security Council could not act. President Chirac's unequivocal announcement last Monday that France would veto a second resolution containing that or any ultimatum "whatever the circumstances" inevitably created a sense of paralysis in our negotiations. I deeply regret that France has thereby put a Security Council consensus beyond reach.
I need to spell out that the alternative proposals submitted by France, Germany and Russia for more time and more inspections carry no ultimatum and no threat of force. They do not implement resolution 1441 but seek to rewrite it. To have adopted such proposals would have allowed Saddam to continue stringing out inspections indefinitely, and he would rightly have
704
drawn the lesson that the Security Council was simply not prepared to enforce the ultimatum that lies at the heart of resolution 1441: in the event of non-compliance, Iraq, as operational paragraph 13 spells out, should expect "serious consequences."
As a result of Saddam Hussein's persistent refusal to meet the UN's demands, and the inability of the Security Council to adopt a further resolution, the Cabinet has decided to ask the House to support the United Kingdom's participation in military operations, should they be necessary, with the objective of ensuring the disarmament of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, and thereby the maintenance of the authority of the United Nations.
From the outset of this crisis the Government have promised that, if possible, the House would have the opportunity to debate our involvement in military action prior to the start of hostilities and on a substantive motion. The House will have that opportunity tomorrow. Copies of the motion, proposed by the Prime Minister and Cabinet colleagues, have been placed in the Vote Office.
In addition to dealing with military action the motion states that in the event of military operations the House requires that
"on an urgent basis, the United Kingdom should seek a new Security Council Resolution that would affirm Iraq's territorial integrity, ensure rapid delivery of humanitarian relief, allow for the earliest possible lifting of UN sanctions, an international reconstruction programme, and the use of all oil revenues for the benefit of the Iraqi people and endorse an appropriate post—conflict administration for Iraq".
In addition, the resolution goes on to endorse the middle east peace process as encapsulated in the imminent publication of the road map. I understand, Mr. Speaker, that you will be specifying the time by which amendments to this motion must be received. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office will make a short business statement immediately after the proceedings on this statement.
To inform the debate, I have circulated several documents to all right hon. and hon. Members today. These include a copy of the response from my noble and learned Friend the Attorney-General to a written question in the House of Lords in which he sets out the legal basis for the use of force against Iraq, as well as a detailed briefing paper summarising the legal background which I have sent to the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee. I have also made available a note summarising Iraq's record of non-compliance with resolution 1441. A new Command Paper comprising key recent United Nations documents, including the 173 pages of Dr Blix's paper on "Unresolved Disarmament Issues: Iraq's Proscribed Weapons Programmes", which was published on 7 March in the Security Council, is now available in the Vote Office.
The debate tomorrow will be the most important in the House for many years. Some say that Iraq can be disarmed without an ultimatum, without the threat or the use of force, but simply by more time and more inspections. That approach is defied by all our experience over 12 weary years. It cannot produce the disarmament of Iraq; it cannot rid the world of the danger of the Iraqi regime. It can only bring comfort to

705
tyrants and emasculate the authority of the United Nations. It is for these reasons that we shall tomorrow be asking the House to endorse and support the Government's resolution.
Mr. Michael Ancram: May I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement and for giving me early sight of it? His statement is indeed a sombre one. Put bluntly, the talking is over, diplomacy is at an end and tonight we face the grim prospect of war. We are where we are tonight because Saddam Hussein has contemptuously failed to take the final opportunity that resolution 1441 offered him. Hopes that he might accept the inevitable this time and disarm have been dashed. Instead, he has chosen to take the international community to the wire.
There was a chance that a clear, unequivocal and united voice from the international community might yet have persuaded him to disarm or to go. France put paid to that. I hope that in Paris they will reflect tonight on what they have achieved.
There will be many different and deeply held feelings in the House tonight and during the debate tomorrow. It would be very strange if there were not. But while we may not agree with each other, I hope and believe that none of us will do other than totally respect the sincerity with which these views are held.
Saddam Hussein, in possession of weapons of mass destruction, is a threat to international peace and security. No one, not even France, denies that. It is not just a threat within the middle east but to the international community at large, including ourselves. That is why we believe that action to disarm him can no longer be delayed. We will, of course, debate all this tomorrow, and we will vote on it. I do not intend to preempt that debate or that vote tonight, but there are questions that I must ask.
What discussions has the Foreign Secretary had with his Turkish counterpart to ensure that action in Iraq will not provoke unrest between northern Iraq and Turkey?
What preparations are in place to ensure a swift delivery of humanitarian aid and relief to the people of Iraq, who have suffered for so long under the heel of Saddam Hussein?
What discussions has the Foreign Secretary had with the Secretary-General of the United Nations in accordance with the motion proposed for tomorrow to ensure that a representative Administration can swiftly be set up in Iraq under United Nations auspices to ensure the speedy rehabilitation of that country?
Again, in accordance with the motion proposed for tomorrow, what steps is the right hon. Gentleman taking to follow up President Bush's statements on Israel-Palestine and, in particular, to ensure that there is a genuine and sustained momentum towards the two-state solution? What talks has the Foreign Secretary had with other members of the Quartet, including Russia, to make real progress on that front? And what other steps will he take to reassure the Islamic community that military action in Iraq is not an attack on Islam but can bring long-term benefit and stability to the Muslim world?
Our thoughts tonight must be with our armed forces as they face the prospect of conflict. We ask much on their behalf, and our prayers must be with them and
706
their families. They must know that from these Benches they have our unqualified support. We will offer the Government our support in the decisions that must now be made. We will do so because they have reached the same conclusions as us on the threat posed by Saddam Hussein and the legality of taking action. We believe that they are acting in the national interest, and as long as that is the case we will continue to support them. Her Majesty's Opposition will do what in our hearts we know for our country is right.
Mr. Straw: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks, and shall deal briefly with his points. I picked up the first when he said that we should respect the sincerity with which a wide variety of views are held in the House, which is absolutely right. At the same time, we should accept that nobody—no single individual—has a monopoly of wisdom or morality on this issue. People have both strong views and different points of view. I speak for myself, but I think that I speak for the whole House too, when I say that for each of us the prospect of having to endorse and support military action, whatever the cause, is extremely difficult. Speaking for myself, I shall of course vote for the motion tomorrow, as I endorsed the idea of military action today in Cabinet. I believe that now it is only by the use of "all necessary means", to quote United Nations resolution 678, that it is possible to secure the disarmament of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman that had it been possible for the international community, through the Security Council, to speak with the same united voice as was assembled when we passed resolution 1441, we would not now be in this situation. However, I believe that we have striven as hard as we possibly could for that kind of unity, and I greatly regret that it was not possible to achieve it.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me a number of specific questions, including one about discussions with my Turkish counterpart. I personally have not had discussions with my Turkish counterpart because who he was was in a state of flux. The Foreign Minister in Turkey changed just a few days ago from Foreign Minister Yakis to Foreign Minister Gul. I intend to talk to him in the next couple of days, but our excellent ambassador in Ankara, Peter Westmacott, has been in very close touch with the Turkish authorities.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about measures on swift humanitarian aid, which are indeed spelt out in the text of the resolution. We are not just talking about it—in the event of military action we would seek an immediate and strong United Nations mandate for that. The right hon. Gentleman asked if I had discussed the matter with Secretary-General Kofi Annan. I did indeed, at a face-to-face meeting with Kofi Annan in New York on 6 March.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about relations between Israel and Palestine. I obviously understand that in some quarters in the House there is scepticism about the position of the United States in respect of Israel-Palestine, but I would point out to the House that it is under this US Administration, for the first time ever, that the United States and through it, with a consensus, the United Nations, have supported the concept of a two-state solution, with a secure state of Israel and a viable and secure state of Palestine. That has been

707
encapsulated in resolution 1397. We have been seeking to ensure the implementation of that resolution. I have spoken twice in the past two weeks to Chairman Arafat of the Palestinian Authority, and since the middle of January we have been actively involved with the Palestinian Authority in assisting with the process of its reform. Largely because of that, it has been possible for Chairman Arafat to nominate the excellent Abu Mazen as the Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority, and hopefully for the Palestine Legislative Council to endorse the appointment and for it to be accepted, perhaps tomorrow or the next day. I hope that that will be followed by the full publication of the road map, and I hope that the House will be united in its determination. The message that we send, yes, to the Israelis and the Palestinians, and also to the members of the Quartet, including the United States, is that we are determined to see the full implementation of the road map as early as possible.
The right hon. Gentleman raised two further points. One was in respect of support for the armed forces. It goes without saying that our thoughts are with our armed forces. There cannot be a single Member of the House who does not have constituents with relatives in the armed forces in the Gulf or in the theatre. I have been talking to the parents of my constituents who are out there. I know the anxiety that this period will inevitably cause them. Of course, our hearts and prayers go out to them.
The right hon. Gentleman's very important last point was about the Muslim communities around the world. When I discussed the matter with some of my Muslim friends in my Blackburn constituency on Friday, a leading Muslim told me that he had asked some of his colleagues how many Muslims had been murdered by Saddam Hussein. The answer came back: well over a million. Then he had asked how many countries Saddam Hussein had invaded. The answer is two sovereign nations, both of them Muslim. The simple truth is that Saddam Hussein has murdered and terrorised more Muslims than any other tyrant in recent history. The world, and the Muslim world particularly, will be a great deal better when he is disarmed.
Mr. Michael Moore: I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for his statement and for the advance copy that I received. The whole House will be united in regret that we have reached the point where military action against Iraq is imminent. Our thoughts this evening are with our armed forces and their families.
A few hours ago, the Secretary—General of the United Nations said that if military action takes place without the backing of the Security Council, its legitimacy will be questioned and the authority for any action will be diminished. In the light of those comments, does the Foreign Secretary accept that the disarmament of Saddam Hussein's evil regime should continue under United Nations auspices? Does he also accept that at this moment, when the weapons inspectors have been
708
preparing timetables to complete their work, the right decision would be to allow them to continue their endeavours and not to go to war at this time?
Mr. Straw: Of course it would have been better if it had been possible to achieve a consensus in the United Nations for a second resolution, but there is no question about the legality of the action that we propose to take.[Interruption.] No. That goes back to resolutions 678 and 687. I put the resolutions before the House, so they are plain for everybody to see. I am extremely familiar with the negotiating history of resolution 1441. As I have told the House on many occasions, France and Russia informally proposed that there should be a lock in resolution 1441 requiring that before any military action or any enforcement of the system of disarmament proposed—by force—there had to be a second resolution. France and Russia dropped that proposition. They never even put it forward as a formal amendment. Instead, what was finally agreed in the resolution was a process by which it was declared in operational paragraph 1 that Iraq had been and remains in material breach; in operational paragraph 2, a final opportunity to Iraq to disarm; in operational paragraph 4, a statement of what constitutes a further material breach—namely, a false declaration and other failure to comply; then a process, if Iraq was in further material breach, which it has been for weeks, setting out further discussions in the Security Council, which have already taken place; and in operational paragraph 13, which states in words that everybody understands that if Iraq failed to comply, serious consequences would follow. It is in pursuit of the authority of the United Nations that we are moving the motion tomorrow in order to secure the disarmament that the United Nations has been seeking for the past 12 years.
So far as a further timetable for the inspectors is concerned, let me say that this issue arises under Security Council resolution 1284. One or two members of the Security Council are now clutching resolution 1284 as if it were their own. Resolution 1284 was finally agreed by the Security Council after very difficult negotiations in 1999. France sought to water down the inspection regime time and again. It was agreed in order to get any resolution through, for example, that presidential palaces would be exempted from the inspection. France then refused to back that resolution, and because it was not supported by any credible threat of force, Iraq refused to comply with it. What that tells us is that unless we have a tough resolution and back it with a credible threat of force and, as we are now getting to the point, the use of force, we will never ever get this tyrannical regime to comply with its United Nations obligations.
Mr. Clive Soley: Is it not a fact that, if the United Nations had acted in 1991 when the ceasefire was first breached and the following resolutions of that year were also breached, we would not be in our current position? Is not the awful lesson of the 12 years that have intervened, in which there have been so many deaths and genocidal activities in Iraq, that we cannot go on passing resolutions unless we are resolved to act?
Mr. Straw: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I say to the House that we need to think about where we

709
would be if we failed now to act. We know that this man has weapons of mass destruction. That sounds like a slightly abstract phrase, but what we are talking about is chemical weapons, biological weapons, viruses, bacilli and anthrax—10,000 litres of anthrax—that he has. We know that he has it, Dr. Blix points that out and he has failed to account for that. If we allow these weapons to remain in the possession of Saddam Hussein and do nothing about it, we cannot complain when the regime becomes further empowered to act in a tyrannical way with his neighbours and also if such weaponry finds its way into the hands of other rogue states or terrorist groups and then inflicts destruction very much nearer home.
Tony Baldry: I am sure that the Foreign Secretary will agree that we as a nation will be judged not only on the effectiveness our military campaign, but on the efficiency of the humanitarian relief that we bring to Iraq. Will he give a clear undertaking to the House that Her Majesty's Government shall will the means to ensure that proper humanitarian relief is provided for the people of Iraq and also that we will provide the leadership that is necessary to supply humanitarian relief to a country where, tragically, two thirds of the people are already dependent on food aid? Whenever the Cabinet considers the military campaign, can it please also consider the humanitarian campaign?
Mr. Straw: I entirely endorse what the hon. Gentleman says. I read out a key part of the motion that will be put before the House tomorrow, in which we shall seek a new Security Council resolution that deals with the whole question of humanitarian relief.
I also point out that one of the many terrible things that Saddam Hussein has done to his own people has been to impoverish a very rich nation. This was a nation that had the same living standards, if you please, as Portugal or Malaysia 25 years ago. It is now one of the poorest nations on earth, where 60 per cent. of the people have been plunged into poverty not because of sanctions, but because of a quite deliberate policy by the Saddam Hussein regime to divert money that should and could have gone to the wonderful people of Iraq to its military spending and luxury goods for the regime's friends.
Kali Mountford: The people of Iraq have now languished under the tyranny of Saddam for far too long. Is not this cynical use of the process of the United Nations bringing it into disrepute? Are we not now in a position where, after the cynical protection of oil interests in Iraq, the cynical attempt to hide the fact that France vetoed any effort to indict Saddam and shying away on sales of weapons to Iraq, there is no prospect of unity in the United Nations and thereby no prospect of saving the people of Iraq?
Mr. Straw: It is for each member state of the United Nations to explain its own policy, and I am happy to explain ours. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. We passed resolution after resolution in respect of Iraq, which I have presented to the House first in this Command Paper, then in the supplementary Command Paper. I say to any hon. Member who is still unpersuaded about the need for action and the fact that
710
Iraq has failed to comply with its disarmament obligations that they should simply read that which is now available to every Member in the document in the Vote Office—the 173 pages of Dr. Blix's report published on 7 March. That sets out chapter by chapter—in 29 chapters on more than 100 separate disarmament obligations—how Saddam, after 12 years, plainly has no intention whatsoever of meeting his disarmament obligations.
Mr. Ian Taylor: Does the Foreign Secretary recognise that many of us believe that the United States, having looked for Osama bin Laden, has quickly focused on the tangible target of Saddam Hussein, and that the irony is that the person who will be most pleased in the next few days is Osama bin Laden because of the risk from terrorism? Is he aware that the way in which the United States has conducted its campaign over the past few months has led to the fracture of the United Nations, the fracture of NATO and the fracture of the European Union? How is that in the British national interest?
Mr. Straw: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. I just say this to him: I do not believe that the fight against international terrorism and the need to deal with rogue states are alternatives. They are not alternatives at all. We have to deal with international terrorism; we have to deal, too, with the threat of rogue states. I understand what the hon. Gentleman says, but the simple truth is that if that was the reason why the United States had gone to the United Nations, no other member of the United Nations would have supported it. It was because the case against the Iraqi regime, spelled out in 17 successive resolutions of the United Nations, is overwhelming. It is the United Nations that has been saying over 12 years that Iraq represents a threat to international peace and security.
As for the hon. Gentleman's point about the fracture of the United Nations, it is a fact, so far as NATO is concerned, that NATO, at its Prague summit at the end of November, fully and unanimously endorsed resolution 1441. I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that if he is thinking about the issue of assistance to Turkey, the decision to provide assistance to Turkey was supported by 16 of the 19 member nations of NATO and opposed by only three.
Jim Dowd: Will my right hon. Friend accept my thanks for his efforts, application and dedication in seeing UN resolution 1441 brought to fruition and pursued? Does he accept that had everybody who voted unanimously for that resolution meant what they said at the time, we would not now be in this position? Can he tell me when he first realised that those who signed up for "serious consequences" for non-compliance actually meant "zero consequences" for non-compliance? Can he tell me that the Government, once the current storm has abated, will do all that they can to resurrect the worldwide credibility of the UN, which has been so seriously undermined by those who have been playing games with what the international community should have done many years ago?
Mr. Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his opening remarks. We have done all that we can to secure

711
a peaceful resolution to the crisis. It is still possible, let me say, for it to be resolved peacefully by Saddam Hussein's agreeing to go into exile. Should that be the case, as I have said on a number of occasions, we would support a United Nations Security Council resolution to provide Saddam Hussein with immunity from prosecution so that he could go into exile and enjoy a retirement of the kind that he has denied to so many of his own people. I am willing to accept that terrible compromise to try to avoid a war. I hope and believe that the whole House would also do that.
My hon. Friend asks whether I concluded that some members of the Security Council were trying to rewrite 1441. I reached that conclusion a week ago, but I had suspected it for some time. I attended successive Security Council meetings in which Dr. Blix and Dr. el-Baradei pointed out that Iraq had not complied with clear obligations to make full and complete disclosure by 7 December. Instead, it recycled the incomplete, mendacious and deceitful disclosures that it had made in the past. It failed in every other respect to comply fully with the resolution.
The issue raises a question about United Nations authority, which is at stake. It is incumbent on all Security Council members to mean what they say and to say what they mean. We have done that; I regret that others have failed to do so.
Mr. Alex Salmond: But is not the reality that the Government do not have a majority in favour of their position on the Security Council and that they have never had a majority for early recourse to war? Most countries perceive a clear alternative and doubtless believed the United States ambassador when he told them that 1441 was not a trigger for war. Instead of blaming the French, will the Government reflect on their responsibility for turning a 30-nation coalition that expelled Saddam Hussein from Kuwait into the four countries whose representatives met yesterday in the Azores? Two of them are not even committing troops to the engagement.
We are all worried and we all support our troops—[Interruption.] But are there worse circumstances under which to take a country to war than no consent at home and no consensus in the international community?
Mr. Straw: I have been in the House long enough to recall that the hon. Gentleman described our action in Kosovo, which was entirely right, as an unpardonable folly.
David Winnick: If the military action that everyone now expects takes place, will not British troops be fighting a murderous tyranny? Do not those troops deserve support from all hon. Members because they will be doing right? Does my right hon. Friend agree that a large majority of people in Iraq will welcome liberation from tyranny? They have been imprisoned long enough, and it will be surprising if our troops are not treated as liberators when the time comes.
Mr. Straw: I entirely agree. My hon. Friend has been steadfast in his support for implementing 1441.
Mr. Crispin Blunt: Four years ago, the Foreign Secretary was part of a Government who
712
committed British troops to an offensive operation with no United Nations authority. Four years later, those troops remain deployed. Does he believe that criticism of his strategy today, when operating under United Nations authority, with an exit strategy of an Iraq free of tyranny—and free of foreign troops in months if not years—is justifiable from those who were a party to the decision to launch the Kosovo operation?
Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman raises the legal base for the action in Kosovo. That was questioned because there was a threat of a veto from Russia and securing a resolution was therefore not possible. I well remember that the action, which I fully supported, was controversial. However, events have shown that it was justifiable. We are currently following through the recent injunctions of resolution 1441, which the United Nations passed unanimously only four months ago.
Jeremy Corbyn: Does the Foreign Secretary accept that rejecting the road of peace and a legal solution to the problem means that tomorrow or the day after, cluster bombs, depleted uranium, cruise missiles and a panoply of weapons of huge destruction will be unleashed on the people of Iraq? Many will die. Many soldiers on all sides will die. What, in the Foreign Secretary's view, will be the long-term consequences for other conflicts throughout the middle east?
Mr. Straw: What I say to my hon. Friend first is that, as I said earlier, no one in the House has a monopoly on wisdom or morality on this issue, and I hope that we all respect each other's positions. Decisions about military action are very difficult because—my hon. Friend is right—people will be killed if military action is taken. Innocent civilians will be killed. However much the military strive, as they do, to avoid civilian casualties, some will be killed.
My hon. Friend asked what would be the result of military action. Yes, people will be killed, but the result will be better than the result of not taking military action. I am quite clear about that. If we fail to take military action, many thousands more will perish at Saddam Hussein's hand, and the ongoing instability of the region—caused by Saddam Hussein's armaments and weapons of mass destruction—will continue. It is my belief that, just as we found in Afghanistan—an imperfect country, but far, far better than the Taliban regime before—that military action has helped to stabilise the regime and, above all, to liberate the benighted people of that country, so we shall find the same in respect of Iraq.
John Barrett: How will the Foreign Secretary proceed if the Government lose the vote tomorrow, or would that be dismissed as an "unreasonable" vote?
Mr. Straw: We are not intending to lose the vote tomorrow, although we are certainly not relying on the Liberals.[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Martin O'Neill: Does my right hon. Friend realise, as one of those who opposed the march

713
on Baghdad, that we now face a very different situation from the one that we faced 12 years ago? Is he also aware that those who choose to oppose resolution 1441 now are doing so in the certain knowledge that there will be no military action or military sanctions until November or December of next year, and that to do that is to give away to Saddam Hussein an inordinately long period of negotiation and obfuscation, which has marked the way in which he has behaved in the international arena all these years? We must act now, and we must act quickly.
Mr. Straw: I agree with my hon. Friend. I must also point out to the House that the reason why there was not a march on Baghdad was that the United States Government and the chief of their military staff, the then General Powell, wished to follow United Nations resolutions and decided that they had no United Nations mandate to complete the action on to Baghdad. Many will say, "Would that they had been able to undertake that action to rid the world of Saddam," but I certainly supported the decision not to take action at that stage, because it would have been against the mandate of the UN.
Mr. George Foulkes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, with the publication of the road map for Palestine having given real hope for the people of Palestine, the agreement that Iraq's oil should be for the benefit of the people of Iraq and that the United Nations should lead a massive programme of reconstruction and humanitarian support, and the likelihood that we would have got a second UN resolution if it had not been for the French veto, there are now no valid reasons whatever for any Labour MP not to support our Government tomorrow?
Hon. Members: Want to bet?
Mr. Straw: Yes. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that very difficult question, and I agree with him. Of course this is a difficult issue, but I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends, as well as Opposition Members, who take a different view to spell out in detail what the alternative is.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: Inspectors.
Mr. Straw: I hear an hon. Member saying "Inspectors", but all I say is that to continue with inspectors and to offer more time is not to disarm Saddam Hussein but to allow him to re-arm.
Mr. Julian Brazier: The Foreign Secretary knows of the absolutely solid support that he has from the Conservative Benches at this difficult time for the actions that will be undertaken shortly by the men and women of our armed forces. May I ask him, none the less, whether he agrees that the real test of the operation will be whether moderation or fundamentalism ends up being strengthened in the region as a whole? Will he accept it from the many Members of the House with experience of that part of the world that the key test for moderate Arab and Islamic opinion will be whether we and the Americans deliver on the so-called road map, and do not merely talk about it afterwards?
Mr. Straw: Yes, I entirely agree with what the hon. Gentleman says. If we think of all the issues that have led
714
to an alienation of Arab and Islamic countries from the west, Iraq is not among them. Most of them are contemptuous of Saddam Hussein, whom they regard, quite correctly, as a terrible follower of Islam. The issue in question is justice for the Palestinians, as well as a viable state of Palestine, within the borders broadly laid down under resolution 242 in 1967, with its own capital, and not just an end to settlements but a removal of settlements and a solution to the refugee crisis. That is absolutely essential at all times, and that need is reinforced by the current crisis.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: I welcome what the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Government motion say about the fundamental importance of the road map to middle eastern peace, but will my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance, especially taking into account the terrible slaughter of Palestinian children by Israeli forces during the past few days, that it will not be Ariel Sharon's Government who make the decisions about progress on the road map, but that that will be done by the Quartet and by our own Government, and that the Government will yield nothing on moving towards a just peace settlement with security for Israel and a decent national settlement for the Palestinian people?
Mr. Straw: Yes, I give my right hon. Friend that assurance, and I point out to him, in support of that, that when, I think in great error, the Prime Minister of Israel decided to ban representatives of the Palestinian Authority from travelling to the United Kingdom for a meeting to discuss Palestinian Authority reform, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was determined that that meeting should go ahead. Therefore, we indeed went ahead by using video screens. That was far less satisfactory than a face-to-face meeting, but it sent out a very clear message that we wished, whatever the obstacles, to assist the Palestinians in their reform process and, in doing so, to bring justice to the Palestinians. We shall continue in that endeavour.
Rev. Martin Smyth: We on the Ulster Unionist Benches supported the Government seeking a second resolution and we regret that it has not been achieved, but is it not unfair of people to undertake an anti-American vendetta and fail to recognise that perhaps Russia and France have their own interests as well? May I therefore press this question: we talk about humanitarian relief afterwards, but what percentage of the $30 million that has already been subscribed to the UN's $130 million humanitarian appeal fund has come from the dissenting nations in the UN? If they are not joining the effort to get rid of Saddam, are they joining the effort to look after the humanitarian interests of the people?
Mr. Straw: I am sorry that I do not have a detailed answer for the hon. Gentleman, but I shall write to him.
Mike Gapes: My right hon. Friend knows that the Saddam regime practised ethnic cleansing of the Shi'a Marsh Arabs and of the Kurds. He will also be aware that, in the past week, 600 Kurdish families have been driven out of Kirkuk. Does he find it surprising that some people who were prepared to

715
support military action against ethnic cleansing in Kosovo without a UN resolution in 1999 are now prepared to oppose action in support of UN Security Council resolutions 1441, 678 and 687?
Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend points to an inconsistency and he is right. People are now passionate about this issue, but I remind the House that people became very passionate and, to a degree, divided over Kosovo; yet in many ways the decisions that we took then were more difficult, because there was no clear legal base, than the decisions that we ought to be taking now in respect of Iraq.
Dr. Julian Lewis: Given that, in the past, the Government successfully took military action in the Balkans without authorisation from the United Nations, has it not turned out to be a serious mistake by the Prime Minister to expend so much effort in persuading our American allies to go down the flawed route of an unnecessary second United Nations resolution?
Mr. Straw: No, I do not accept that. Yes, we played our part in persuading the United States Government to go down the UN route but, in the end, they are, of course, responsible for their own decisions. It is my belief that the standing of the United States in the world, as well as the authority of the United Nations, has been greatly reinforced by the decision that President Bush made, and announced on 12 September last year at the General Assembly, to support the UN, not only in respect of its actions on Iraq but in many other ways. If, as I believe it is, it turns out to be necessary for military action to occur in Iraq, international consent will be greatly broadened by the fact that we tried every diplomatic means possible to resolve the crisis peacefully and under the aegis of the United Nations. What we are now doing is seeking to enforce the authority of the United Nations when it said many years ago, and repeated just four months ago, that, if necessary, serious consequences would follow for Iraq for its failure to comply with UN obligations.
Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews: The Foreign Secretary will be aware that many Members on both sides of the House and many people in the country believe that the much-demonised French are not isolated in the Security Council or in international chambers in their opposition to this war. In those circumstances, why have we not had the courage to go back to the Security Council in order to test, at the very least, the true weight of world opinion?
Mr. Straw: I thought that I had explained that to the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am not demonising anybody; I am simply laying out the facts of the matter and they are straightforward. My hon. and learned Friend is acquainted with the words of the law so I am sure that he will be almost as familiar as I am with the terms of 1441. As I have already explained to the House, that laid out a clear set of obligations on Iraq and a process for the United Nations. We were following that process because of Iraq's non-compliance. We were
716
close to achieving a consensus and were in exactly the same situation as we were shortly before we achieved consensus on 1441. Then, a week ago today, President Chirac came along and said in terms that, whatever the circumstances, France would veto a second resolution. That is what he said and it paralysed the negotiation process. The responsibility for there not being a second resolution, which was never needed legally although we would have preferred it politically, does not rest on the shoulders of the United Kingdom Government.
Gregory Barker: Although we now face the bleak prospect of war, the Foreign Secretary has gone out of his way in recent weeks and months to keep the House up to speed with all the developments in the diplomatic field. Likewise, we have received numerous statements about military preparations. However, we have been kept woefully ignorant about contingency planning for the humanitarian crisis that will surely follow military action. When can we expect the Secretary of State for International Development to stop grandstanding in the media and actually come to the House, face up to her responsibilities, make a statement and answer questions. If she will not come to the House, will the Foreign Secretary send her successor tomorrow?
Mr. Straw: I believe—I say this in all seriousness—that no one in the House has done more for the cause of international development than my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. That happens to be true. Her dedication and commitment to the cause is huge.
The hon. Gentleman asked a serious question. We were reluctant to come to the House and spell out the detailed arrangements with respect to humanitarian aid because we were hoping against hope that there could be a peaceful, diplomatic solution to the crisis which, yes, would keep Saddam Hussein in place—so the issue of humanitarian relief would not arise—but would at the same time disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction. I accept that we have almost certainly passed that point, and of course in the days and weeks ahead statements will be made to the House about our plans for humanitarian relief and reconstruction; but those plans are already contained, in outline, in the motion that we will present to the House tomorrow.
Dr. Gavin Strang: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that when resolution 1441 was passed China, Russia and France issued a joint statement making it clear that their support for the resolution did not constitute an endorsement of military action? Far from the credibility of the UN being safeguarded, is it not the case that this war is not backed by a second resolution because there is currently no support in the Security Council for an attack on a sovereign state?
Mr. Straw: I think there is support for the enforcement of the will of the United Nations. This should not be parodied as an attack on a sovereign state. The only state that has gratuitously attacked other sovereign states without any justification or cause in the last 15 years is Iraq, which attacked first Iran and then Kuwait.

717
It is true that China, Russia and France each issued what is called an explanation of vote—as did we—saying that resolution 1441 did not provide for automaticity in respect of the use of force. We said the same. There was never provision of an automatic figure for the use of force. What resolution 1441 did anticipate was that if Iraq failed to comply with its obligations there would be a process, and serious consequences would follow. That is exactly the procedure, and the law, that we are following.
Lembit Öpik: The Foreign Secretary has the capacity to evade this question, but I hope he will answer it with candour. How will he and the Government respond if over time it can be shown that an attack on Iraq has prompted or caused sustained international terrorism in the United Kingdom and abroad rather than preventing it?
Mr. Straw: I am afraid I do not accept that the way to oppose terrorists is to appease tyrants.
Mr. Stuart Bell: Should the House not be encouraged by the fact that, tomorrow or the day after, it will have an opportunity to vote for a motion calling on Her Majesty's Government, on an urgent basis, to return to the UN Security Council to pass a resolution providing for Iraq's borders, for the release of its oil, for humanitarian aid, and for human rights for all Iraqis—Shi'ites, Kurds and those in Saddam City?
Is my right hon. Friend aware that the French President will shortly host a meeting of G8 nation states in Paris? Will that not provide an opportunity for members of the international community to join the Security Council in enhancing the international reconstruction to which he has referred?
Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend mentioned the G8 meeting. There are of course differences—well aired today by Members, including me—between international partners; but in all the discussions I have had in the past week with my fellow Foreign Ministers, including the French, Russian, Chinese and German Foreign Ministers, I have emphasised the need for us to ensure that the United Nations stays together as far as possible, and also that we use other international institutions, including the G8, as a means of providing funds for reconstruction.
We say in our motion that the Security Council resolution that we will seek will aim to secure a swift end to sanctions. I think the whole House is united on the need for a swift end to sanctions in appropriate circumstances. Again, I ask those who doubt the wisdom of military action what is their alternative. How do we end not only the tyranny of Saddam Hussein but his impoverishment of his own people over 12 weary and long years?
Simon Hughes: Even if Saddam Hussein will only be disarmed by force, can the Foreign Secretary explain why the interests of Britain and Europe, international security and the authority of the UN are better served by taking action this week, backed by only two permanent members of the UN, with no majority in the Security Council, when six or seven more weeks of giving peace a chance and the
718
inspectors a chance might produce all the permanent members, the Security Council and the Secretary-General of the UN, and have real authority? Why is that a less good option?
Mr. Straw: I think that the hon. Gentleman was trying to give a rather poor imitation of the French, German and Chinese proposals.
Simon Hughes: Why is it less good?
Mr. Straw: Let me just explain. Those proposals were to make use of the provisions of resolution 1284, for which those countries did not vote in the first place and which have no teeth whatever. What France is proposing is exactly what the hon. Gentleman is proposing—that there should be 140 days and then a report, then another 140 days and then a report, and then another 140 days.
Simon Hughes: indicated dissent.
Mr. Straw: That is exactly what the hon. Gentleman is proposing. It is a means not of dealing with the issue but of avoiding the issue, which is exactly where the Liberals are on every issue.
Hon. Members: More!
Mr. Speaker: Order.[Interruption.] Order.
Jane Griffiths: In the difficult days and weeks that lie ahead, will my right hon. Friend find the opportunity to continue his efforts to persuade his counterparts across the channel in France of the effect that their perfidious action in treating the United Nations with contempt could have, not necessarily for Iraq, but for conflict resolution in the wider world in future?
Mr. Straw: It is fair to say, listening to this debate and taking part in it, that on the whole hon. Members have been unimpressed by the position taken by the French Government.
Glenda Jackson: In the light of my right hon. Friend's previous replies, does he wish the House to believe that the requests, twice made, of the UN inspectors for more time, most recently not for weeks, not for years but for months, was not a genuine request on the part of those UN officials but a request made at the behest of France, Russia, China and Germany?
Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend raises an important issue. She refers, I believe, to the last report of Dr. Blix, the short one, that he presented to the Security Council on 7 March and to which I referred when I spoke in the Security Council that afternoon, but the simple fact of the matter is that Dr. Blix—his report is published in the Command Paper before me—was referring to the possibility of the inspection process taking not weeks, not years but months in the context of Iraq's full compliance. As I pointed out to the Security Council that afternoon, no one—not the inspectors and no member of the Security Council—has

719
ever been able to say that Iraq is in full compliance with the Security Council resolutions that were required of it on 8 November.
Mr. Neil Gerrard: Does the Foreign Secretary not recognise that what really destroys the credibility of the United Nations is not France or any other country following the rules of the UN, but Governments preparing for months for war and planning for war while simultaneously saying that they are going down the UN route but will not accept the use of the veto? As for the use of the veto in the UN, the UK and US Governments between them are responsible for more than 40 per cent. of the occasions on which it has been exercised. The US alone has used it 75 times, mostly on the middle east.
Mr. Straw: Each member of the permanent five of the Security Council has made use of the veto to a varying extent. Let us be clear about this: the difference between 1284 and 1441 was not just the words on the paper, although that was a big difference; the only reason for the difference between Iraq's refusal to let in the inspectors at all after the passage of 1284, and our getting them back, at least, with the passage of 1441—with some compliance on process, but reluctant compliance on substance—is the fact that we backed our diplomacy with a credible threat of force. My hon. Friend must face up to the fact that that is spelled out in chapter VII of the United Nations charter, and that it is others who are undermining the UN's authority if they fail to back this credible threat of force in order to maintain the authority of the UN.
Mr. Tony Banks: May I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend, and to the Prime Minister, for all their efforts to get a peaceful resolution to this situation, and for using the United Nations in doing so? However, ultimately we have to accept that we have failed. Regrettably, we are now almost isolated in Europe, which must be very bad for this country. Will my right hon. Friend tell the House what military and political support we expect to get from our European colleagues when the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq takes place?
Mr. Straw: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for the warm tribute that he paid to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and me, and in view of it I very much look forward to his support in the Lobby tomorrow evening. However, it is a parody to suggest that this issue has separated Europe from America, or the Anglo-Saxons from the Europeans. That is simply not the case; more European countries, across the 25 current or putative members of the European Union, support the position that we take than support the opposite point of view. That has been made very clear in a number of letters from the Vilnius 10 and from the Group of 8, and in a succession of resolutions passed by the European Council and by the NATO Council, which endorse the position that we have taken.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Would not those countries that believe in proper reconstruction
720
of Iraq as a peaceful nation do better to come to London, rather than go to Paris and follow in the footsteps of Mugabe?
Mr. Straw: The French have the chairmanship of the G8, and we look forward to constructive discussions with them about the reconstruction of Iraq.
Joan Ruddock: Sadly, I am unable to support my Government in this action, but I should tell my right hon. Friend that I believe that the whole House will appreciate what he has said about keeping civilian casualties to a minimum. For many of us, the test of that policy will be no cluster bombs, no depleted uranium weapons, and no targeting of water and food supplies.
Mr. Straw: I acknowledge what my hon. Friend says, and I am sorry that she feels unable to support the Government in the Lobby tomorrow. I will have a separate discussion with her about what she feels are the alternatives, now that we have reached the end of the diplomatic road, I am afraid to say. If I felt that there were a further peaceful alternative apart from the exile of Saddam Hussein, I would take it, because, like everybody else in this House, I hate the idea of war. I no more want military action to be taken than does anybody else.
As for targeting, we have to acknowledge the fact that people will be killed if there is military action, and that some of them will be innocent people. That is the nature of warfare, but I can tell my hon. Friend that every effort is being taken, and will be taken, to ensure that, so far as is humanly possible, the targeting will be very careful, proportionate and designed, obviously, to attack military and legitimate targets, and not anybody else.
Mr. Chris Bryant: Notwithstanding the statement by the French President last week that he would veto a second resolution in any circumstances—if anything has been reckless in the past few months, that was—surely France and Russia will be critically important if we are to rebuild Iraq, especially if we are also to maintain its territorial integrity. When and how does the Foreign Secretary hope to start negotiations with France and Russia to ensure that that happens?
Mr. Straw: As I have already explained to the House, discussions with our French and Russian—and, indeed, Chinese and German—colleagues continue, and I have made it clear that while there is unquestionably a difficulty between us on this issue, we must not let that get in the way of co-operation on a wide range of other issues, including the humanitarian reconstruction of Iraq should that prove necessary.
Helen Jackson: Is it not the case that having decided to go down the collective route through the United Nations, which carried the unanimous approval of this House, and securing resolution 1441, it was incumbent on the Government to continue to go with the collective view of the UN? Does not the failure of the US and Britain to carry their point of view through the Security Council stand us in poor stead as a precedent for dealing with further difficulties that may arise this century?
Mr. Straw: As my hon. Friend knows from her involvement in one of our party's policy commissions on

721
foreign affairs, it was the Labour party's preference to seek a second resolution, but it was not a requirement. We have sought to follow the policy of the party as laid out in a clear mandate at party conference and on 27 January. It is a matter of regret that we were not able to achieve a consensus in the Security Council, but it was not for want of trying.
The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell)—whose absence is regretted on both sides of the House—said:
"We must remember that the United Nations is not some third party to whom we have subcontracted our security responsibilities. It is no more and no less than the sum of its members."—[Official Report, 24 September 2002; Vol. 390, c. 45.]
My regret is that some members of the Security Council, having said one thing in the resolution in November, decided to change the meaning of that resolution this year.
Dr. Brian Iddon: Tomorrow's Government motion refers to
"the imminent publication of the Quartet's roadmap".
What does "imminent" mean in that context? Does it mean tomorrow? Will we be informed of the contents of the road map so that we may have a properly informed debate tomorrow?
Mr. Straw: "Imminent" means that we are hoping to see the full publication of the roadmap once Abu Mazen has been endorsed and has accepted the post. There will then be an interlocutor for the Quartet to deal with. Informal copies of the road map are publicly available on the website and I shall ensure that one is placed in the Library of the House.
Tony Wright: I thank my right hon. Friend for fulfilling his commitment to enable the House to vote again on this issue, although we all recognise that we are probably at the end of the road tonight. Does he understand why some of us who are not anti-American or pacifists, and who have supported every other military action that the Government have taken, have found it difficult in these circumstances to support this military action? We knew that Saddam Hussein could be disarmed only through a process that was like drawing teeth, and that we had to back that with the use of force, but is not this the first time in this country's history that we will wage war on a country that is actually getting rid of some of its weaponry under UN auspices?
Mr. Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. I have been in the House now through four different sets of military action and it is fair to point out that this is the first time—and I am glad that it has been supported on all sides—that the Government have followed a clear process of ensuring that every debate takes place on a substantive resolution. I know that there was some scepticism that we would not introduce a resolution until after military action had taken place, but I hope that the House is reassured that we are doing exactly what we said we would do and are ensuring that the House has both the power and the responsibility in respect of this matter before any action is taken, not after. I am glad that we have set that precedent for the future.
722
Let me pick up on my hon. Friend's analogy about drawing teeth. Drawing teeth is not just difficult but is possible only if the patient has his mouth open. In the case of Saddam Hussein, if I may continue the analogy, we have a patient who most of the time has his mouth closed and who from time to time bites the dentist. In those circumstances, achieving compliance from this so-called patient to draw the teeth becomes impossible.
Mr. Stephen McCabe: I acknowledge the efforts of my right hon. Friend and the enormous efforts of the Prime Minister to try to secure the additional UN resolution that so many of us wanted. Is not the choice before us now stark? People can, however unintentionally, give further succour to this dangerous, evil tyrant, or they can support our armed forces and show the will and determination that are needed finally to disarm this butcher.
Mr. Straw: Like my hon. Friend, I do not impugn the motives of anybody in this House, but we all have to think very carefully about the consequences of what we are doing. If we were to weaken our resolve at this stage, it would be Saddam Hussein who would be emboldened and millions and millions of Iraqis who would be plunged into further desperation and despair as they saw the one hope of liberation disappear.
John McDonnell: I hope that we will have time tomorrow to debate the rights and wrongs of this war, but may I make this one appeal? I return to the point that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) about civilian casualties. Today, reports are coming through from Baghdad of parents who are desperately trying to find room on buses to Jordan for their children. Would it be possible—through the United Nations and perhaps through an independent country such as Jordan—to make an offer to evacuate the children of Baghdad before the bombing starts?
Mr. Straw: I doubt very much whether that would prove possible. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I am about to explain why. The reason why I think that it would not be possible is that I do not think, for a start, that there would be any compliance by Saddam Hussein. I recall, during the last Gulf war, that, far from trying to ensure that children in Baghdad were placed in safe places, he ensured that they were used as human shields.
Mr. Tony McWalter: My right hon. Friend has given a clear indication tonight that he does not think that the process of inspection could ever produce the effective decommissioning of weapons of mass destruction—which is the object of this whole enterprise—even though that process did achieve significant results in 1998. As the inspectors themselves have never claimed that the process would prove futile, does my right hon. Friend have no confidence in the weapons inspectors whatsoever?
Mr. Straw: I have every confidence—and I have expressed that confidence—in the weapons inspectors. With respect, my hon. Friend misunderstands what I have been saying. Weapons inspection systems can work, and weapons inspectors can work, where there is

723
compliance by the country concerned. When South Africa came into compliance, I understand that it took nine inspectors just three months to verify South Africa's disarmament of its nuclear installations. Twelve years after Iraq was ordered within 45 days fully and completely to comply with its disarmament obligations and to begin the disarmament process with the inspectors, the weapons inspectors have still laid out 29 separate chapters, in 173 pages, of incomplete disarmament obligations. As long as this regime is in place, and as long as it is refusing to co-operate, the inspection process becomes well-nigh impossible.

Business of the House
9.40 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a short statement about the business for tomorrow.
There will now be a debate on Iraq on a Government motion. The business for the remainder of the week will remain unchanged and there will be the usual statement on Thursday.
May I say how sorry I am that my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) is not making this statement? I hope that the whole House will join me in paying tribute to the outstanding contribution that he made as Leader of the House.
Mr. Eric Forth: May I echo the Minister's words about the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook)?
I very much welcome the statement. It is right that we debate the matter tomorrow. Will the Minister confirm, however, that the debate will start at 12.30 pm and continue until 10 o'clock, when the votes will be held?
Mr. Bradshaw: Yes, I can confirm that.
Mr. Andrew Stunell: May I add our words to those of the Minister and the shadow Leader of the House in support of the work carried out by the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) in his role as Leader of the House?
I remind the Minister that the Foreign Secretary—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members must let the hon. Gentleman speak.
Mr. Stunell: The Foreign Secretary told the House just a few moments ago that there was a tendency for nations that have voted on 1441 to change their interpretation of it.
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a business statement. The time for the hon. Gentleman to raise that issue has passed. Perhaps he will catch my eye tomorrow.
Mr. Simon Thomas: May I associate Plaid Cymru and the Scottish National party with the Minister's comments on the former Leader of the House?
Tomorrow's vote will be desperately important and many of us will want to oppose the Government. Although they are not legally bound to pay attention to the vote, will the Minister give an undertaking—an assurance—that the Government will be honour bound to pay attention to it? If so, every Member's vote will count, and it will therefore be a real vote on whether we should go to war or not. Will he also give an undertaking that if the vote goes against the Government, they will not go to war?
Mr. Bradshaw: The Government have bent over backwards to honour their commitments to the House and I am confident that they will do so again tomorrow by giving the House an unprecedented opportunity to express its will.
Chris Grayling: Will the Minister tell the House whether the Prime Minister will lead the debate tomorrow and how much time he will spend in the Chamber?
Mr. Bradshaw: Yes, the Prime Minister will lead the debate tomorrow. I do not know how much time he will spend in the Chamber, but I suspect that it will be a lot.
Mr. Speaker: I have a statement that may help the House.
The Secretary of State invited me in the course of his statement to specify a time by which amendments to the Government's motion on Iraq must be submitted. Members who want their amendment to appear on the Order Paper tomorrow morning must, of course, table it before the House rises tonight, but I will consider for selection any amendment that is submitted in good order before 10 am tomorrow.

Personal Statement
9.44 pm
Mr. Robin Cook: This is the first time for 20 years that I have addressed the House from the Back Benches. I must confess that I had forgotten how much better the view is from here. None of those 20 years were more enjoyable or more rewarding than the past two, in which I have had the immense privilege of serving this House as Leader of the House, which were made all the more enjoyable, Mr. Speaker, by the opportunity of working closely with you.
It was frequently the necessity for me as Leader of the House to talk my way out of accusations that a statement had been preceded by a press interview. On this occasion I can say with complete confidence that no press interview has been given before this statement. I have chosen to address the House first on why I cannot support a war without international agreement or domestic support.
The present Prime Minister is the most successful leader of the Labour party in my lifetime. I hope that he will continue to be the leader of our party, and I hope that he will continue to be successful. I have no sympathy with, and I will give no comfort to, those who want to use this crisis to displace him.
I applaud the heroic efforts that the Prime Minister has made in trying to secure a second resolution. I do not think that anybody could have done better than the Foreign Secretary in working to get support for a second resolution within the Security Council. But the very intensity of those attempts underlines how important it was to succeed. Now that those attempts have failed, we cannot pretend that getting a second resolution was of no importance.
France has been at the receiving end of bucketloads of commentary in recent days. It is not France alone that wants more time for inspections. Germany wants more time for inspections; Russia wants more time for inspections; indeed, at no time have we signed up even the minimum necessary to carry a second resolution. We delude ourselves if we think that the degree of international hostility is all the result of President Chirac. The reality is that Britain is being asked to embark on a war without agreement in any of the international bodies of which we are a leading partner—not NATO, not the European Union and, now, not the Security Council.
To end up in such diplomatic weakness is a serious reverse. Only a year ago, we and the United States were part of a coalition against terrorism that was wider and more diverse than I would ever have imagined possible. History will be astonished at the diplomatic miscalculations that led so quickly to the disintegration of that powerful coalition. The US can afford to go it alone, but Britain is not a superpower. Our interests are best protected not by unilateral action but by multilateral agreement and a world order governed by rules. Yet tonight the international partnerships most important to us are weakened: the European Union is divided; the Security Council is in stalemate. Those are heavy casualties of a war in which a shot has yet to be fired.
I have heard some parallels between military action in these circumstances and the military action that we took in Kosovo. There was no doubt about the multilateral

727
support that we had for the action that we took in Kosovo. It was supported by NATO; it was supported by the European Union; it was supported by every single one of the seven neighbours in the region. France and Germany were our active allies. It is precisely because we have none of that support in this case that it was all the more important to get agreement in the Security Council as the last hope of demonstrating international agreement.
The legal basis for our action in Kosovo was the need to respond to an urgent and compelling humanitarian crisis. Our difficulty in getting support this time is that neither the international community nor the British public is persuaded that there is an urgent and compelling reason for this military action in Iraq.
The threshold for war should always be high. None of us can predict the death toll of civilians from the forthcoming bombardment of Iraq, but the US warning of a bombing campaign that will "shock and awe" makes it likely that casualties will be numbered at least in the thousands. I am confident that British servicemen and women will acquit themselves with professionalism and with courage. I hope that they all come back. I hope that Saddam, even now, will quit Baghdad and avert war, but it is false to argue that only those who support war support our troops. It is entirely legitimate to support our troops while seeking an alternative to the conflict that will put those troops at risk.
Nor is it fair to accuse those of us who want longer for inspections of not having an alternative strategy. For four years as Foreign Secretary I was partly responsible for the western strategy of containment. Over the past decade that strategy destroyed more weapons than in the Gulf war, dismantled Iraq's nuclear weapons programme and halted Saddam's medium and long-range missiles programmes. Iraq's military strength is now less than half its size than at the time of the last Gulf war.
Ironically, it is only because Iraq's military forces are so weak that we can even contemplate its invasion. Some advocates of conflict claim that Saddam's forces are so weak, so demoralised and so badly equipped that the war will be over in a few days. We cannot base our military strategy on the assumption that Saddam is weak and at the same time justify pre-emptive action on the claim that he is a threat.
Iraq probably has no weapons of mass destruction in the commonly understood sense of the term—namely a credible device capable of being delivered against a strategic city target. It probably still has biological toxins and battlefield chemical munitions, but it has had them since the 1980s when US companies sold Saddam anthrax agents and the then British Government approved chemical and munitions factories. Why is it now so urgent that we should take military action to disarm a military capacity that has been there for 20
728
years, and which we helped to create? Why is it necessary to resort to war this week, while Saddam's ambition to complete his weapons programme is blocked by the presence of UN inspectors?
Only a couple of weeks ago, Hans Blix told the Security Council that the key remaining disarmament tasks could be completed within months. I have heard it said that Iraq has had not months but 12 years in which to complete disarmament, and that our patience is exhausted. Yet it is more than 30 years since resolution 242 called on Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories. We do not express the same impatience with the persistent refusal of Israel to comply. I welcome the strong personal commitment that the Prime Minister has given to middle east peace, but Britain's positive role in the middle east does not redress the strong sense of injustice throughout the Muslim world at what it sees as one rule for the allies of the US and another rule for the rest.
Nor is our credibility helped by the appearance that our partners in Washington are less interested in disarmament than they are in regime change in Iraq. That explains why any evidence that inspections may be showing progress is greeted in Washington not with satisfaction but with consternation: it reduces the case for war.
What has come to trouble me most over past weeks is the suspicion that if the hanging chads in Florida had gone the other way and Al Gore had been elected, we would not now be about to commit British troops.
The longer that I have served in this place, the greater the respect I have for the good sense and collective wisdom of the British people. On Iraq, I believe that the prevailing mood of the British people is sound. They do not doubt that Saddam is a brutal dictator, but they are not persuaded that he is a clear and present danger to Britain. They want inspections to be given a chance, and they suspect that they are being pushed too quickly into conflict by a US Administration with an agenda of its own. Above all, they are uneasy at Britain going out on a limb on a military adventure without a broader international coalition and against the hostility of many of our traditional allies.
From the start of the present crisis, I have insisted, as Leader of the House, on the right of this place to vote on whether Britain should go to war. It has been a favourite theme of commentators that this House no longer occupies a central role in British politics. Nothing could better demonstrate that they are wrong than for this House to stop the commitment of troops in a war that has neither international agreement nor domestic support. I intend to join those tomorrow night who will vote against military action now. It is for that reason, and for that reason alone, and with a heavy heart, that I resign from the Government.[Applause.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have motions to put before the House.

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

  IMMIGRATION
  That the draft Asylum (Designated States) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 11th February, be approved.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
  The House divided: Ayes 328, Noes 43.

  Division No. 116]

  [9: 56 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Coaker, Vernon

  Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Ainger, Nick

  Cohen, Harry

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Colman, Tony

  Alexander, Douglas

  Connarty, Michael

  Allen, Graham

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

  Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

  Cooper, Yvette

  Corston, Jean

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Cousins, Jim

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Crausby, David

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Cruddas, Jon

  Austin, John

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Baird, Vera

  Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

  Banks, Tony

  Barron, rh Kevin

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Battle, John

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Darling, rh Alistair

  Beard, Nigel

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Begg, Miss Anne

  David, Wayne

  Benn, Hilary

  Davidson, Ian

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

  Berry, Roger

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Best, Harold

  Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Betts, Clive

  Dawson, Hilton

  Blackman, Liz

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Denham, rh John

  Boateng, rh Paul

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Borrow, David

  Dismore, Andrew

  Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Brennan, Kevin

  Dodds, Nigel

  Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

  Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Doran, Frank

  Browne, Desmond

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Bryant, Chris

  Drew, David (Stroud)

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Burden, Richard

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Burnham, Andy

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Byers, rh Stephen

  Edwards, Huw

  Caborn, rh Richard

  Efford, Clive

  Cairns, David

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Farrelly, Paul

  Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

  Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Fisher, Mark

  Caplin, Ivor

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Casale, Roger

  Flint, Caroline

  Caton, Martin

  Follett, Barbara

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Foster, rh Derek

  Challen, Colin

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

  Chaytor, David

  Clapham, Michael

  Foulkes, rh George

  Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Gardiner, Barry

  Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  730

  Gilroy, Linda

  Love, Andrew

  Goggins, Paul

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  McCabe, Stephen

  Grogan, John

  McCafferty, Chris

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  McCartney, rh Ian

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  MacDonald, Calum

  Hanson, David

  McIsaac, Shona

  Harman, rh Ms Harriet

  McKechin, Ann

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  McNulty, Tony

  Healey, John

  McWalter, Tony

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  McWilliam, John

  Hendrick, Mark

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Heppell, John

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Hesford, Stephen

  Mallaber, Judy

  Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Heyes, David

  Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Hodge, Margaret

  Martlew, Eric

  Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

  Meacher, rh Michael

  Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

  Merron, Gillian

  Hoon, rh Geoffrey

  Michael, rh Alun

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  Milburn, rh Alan

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Miliband, David

  Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

  Miller, Andrew

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Howells, Dr. Kim

  Mole, Chris

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

  Moonie, Dr. Lewis

  Moran, Margaret

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Morley, Elliot

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Mountford, Kali

  Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

  Mudie, George

  Hutton, rh John

  Mullin, Chris

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Illsley, Eric

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Ingram, rh Adam

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

  Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Jamieson, David

  Olner, Bill

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

  Organ, Diana

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Owen, Albert

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Paisley, Rev. Ian

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Perham, Linda

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Picking, Anne

  Kaufman, rh Gerald

  Pickthall, Colin

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  Plaskitt, James

  Keen, Ann (Brentford)

  Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

  Kemp, Fraser

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Primarolo, rh Dawn

  Kidney, David

  Prosser, Gwyn

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

  Purchase, Ken

  Purnell, James

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Quin, rh Joyce

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Lammy, David

  Raynsford, rh Nick

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

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

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Lepper, David

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

  Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Linton, Martin

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  731

  Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Ruane, Chris

  Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Timms, Stephen

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Salter, Martin

  Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Trickett, Jon

  Sawford, Phil

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Sheerman, Barry

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Sheridan, Jim

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

  Singh, Marsha

  Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

  Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

  Ward, Claire

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

  Watts, David

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  White, Brian

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Soley, Clive

  Williams, Betty (Conwy)

  Southworth, Helen

  Wills, Michael

  Spellar, rh John

  Wilson, Brian

  Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

  Winnick, David

  Squire, Rachel

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Wood, Mike (Batley)

  Stevenson, George

  Woodward, Shaun

  Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

  Woolas, Phil

  Worthington, Tony

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Straw, rh Jack

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

  Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe and

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Mr. Jim Murphy

  NOES

  Allan, Richard

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Barrett, John

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Breed, Colin

  McDonnell, John

  Burnett, John

  Moore, Michael

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Öpik, Lembit

  Chidgey, David

  Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Cotter, Brian

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  Doughty, Sue

  Salmond, Alex

  Ewing, Annabelle

  Sanders, Adrian

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  George, Andrew (St. Ives)

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Gidley, Sandra

  Thurso, John

  Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

  Tonge, Dr. Jenny

  Webb, Steve (Northavon)

  Harvey, Nick

  Weir, Michael

  Heath, David

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Hermon, Lady

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Holmes, Paul

  Willis, Phil

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Wishart, Pete

  Keetch, Paul

  Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Mr. Andrew Stunell and

  Lamb, Norman

  Bob Russell

  Question accordingly agreed to.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With the leave of the House, I shall put together the Questions on motions 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6 )(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE
  That the Local Government Finance (England) Special Grant Report (No. 113) on the Special Grant in aid of the revenues of the London Borough of Hackney for 2002–03, a copy of which was laid before this House on 24th February, be approved.

  INDUSTRIAL ORGANISATION AND DEVELOPMENT
  That the draft Apple and Pear Research Council (Dissolution) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 25th February, be approved.
  That the draft Horticultural Development Council (Amendment) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 25th February, be approved.

  REHABILITATION OF OFFENDERS
  That the draft Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) (Amendment) (England and Wales) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 25th February, be approved.

  POLICE
  That the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Codes of Practice) (Codes B to E) (No. 2) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 27th February, be approved.—[Mr. Fitzpatrick.]
  Question agreed to.

PETITION

  Iraq
  10.7 pm
  Annabelle Ewing: I am pleased to present what could not be a more timely petition on behalf of my constituents in the Strathearn Coalition for Justice Not War, who have collected 444 signatures from people across Strathearn in a short time. At this eleventh hour, my constituents are making a direct appeal to this House to exert its influence over Tony Blair and the UK Government to step back from the brink of war.
  To lie upon the Table.

Press Complaints Commission
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]
10.8 pm
Ian Lucas: I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss this important issue. I approach the debate with some trepidation, because there is often a great difficulty in raising issues that relate to confidentiality and children. It is very important to try to respect the anonymity of children in any description of their difficulties, so I shall refer to actual cases, but not to any names, although I trust that all the facts that I lay before the House will be entirely correct.
By common consent, children are one of the most vulnerable groups in our society and are deserving of special protection. The Children and Young Persons Act 1933 affords the protection of anonymity to children who are suspected of committing criminal offences and, indeed, to those who are convicted of committing criminal offences. For the most part, that legislation is uncontroversial. It is well recognised and accepted that adverse publicity can prejudice children's futures and that the press could affect those children's futures if names were to be reported. Generally speaking, the press respect the law and do not publish the names of suspected young offenders. However, some recent cases have highlighted a very serious discrepancy in the way that some children are affected by adverse publicity. When children are victims of a crime, they may be protected by the law. The court can make an order that such children should not be identified. The position is much less satisfactory, however, in two particular circumstances.
The first of those circumstances is where an offence may have been committed, but no charge has been preferred. The court has no power to issue orders in such circumstances. Equally, if an offence is committed abroad the legal protections do not apply. In both cases, the law does not protect the child involved. It is fair to say, however, that an intended measure of protection is offered by the Press Complaints Commission code, which includes a section that specifically relates to children. It recognises, as does the law, that children deserve special protection. In the light of recent cases, however, I am not certain that the code offers sufficient protection.
It is worth pausing to consider how profound can be the effect of media attention on an individual in the modern world. In a previous role, when I was a solicitor, I represented an individual who was the victim of a crime that attracted worldwide media attention. The press are absolutely relentless in such circumstances. Many members of the press believe that they have a right to question such a victim, to highlight and invade their personal life and to tell the world about it. Some reporters do not seem to understand that the long-term effect that such attention can have on a person is very potent. When the story no longer has "legs", the press move on, but the victim still has to deal with its aftermath.
The Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport is investigating the subject, and I look forward to seeing its report. I have attended one of its evidence sessions because of my particular interest. I hope that some of
734
the press reports that I have read, which suggest that the Government will reject its concerns out of hand, are inaccurate.
I want specifically to concentrate on how press reporting can affect children. In two recent cases, young girls under 16 appear to have been the victims of crime. I will not identify them, although at all stages the newspapers and broadcasting media have done so. One girl disappeared in this country and the other disappeared abroad. Both appeared to be having relationships with older men. The Press Complaints Commission code says at paragraph 7.1:
"The press must not, even where the law does not prohibit it, identify children under the age of 16 who are involved in cases concerning sexual offences, whether as victims or witnesses."
In one of the cases to which I refer, a national newspaper seemed to have no doubt as to the nature of the adult's relationship with the child. It interviewed other women who had had a sexual relationship with the man concerned and published their findings. One, who was identified as having been "bedded" by the same man, said:
"He's obviously a pervert."
I believed that a series of articles about the child were in breach of the Press Complaints Commission code, especially when I read in its preamble that it should be
"honoured not only in the letter but in the full spirit."
I therefore wrote to the PCC.
I was surprised by the letter that I received in return, which stated:
"we could not investigate anything without the co-operation of the child's parents."
The code does not specify that. I was also told that I should have complained about the story within one month of publicaton. The code does not state that. either. When I read the letter, as a former solicitor, I took the view that it was a good defence response to an allegation by the prosecution. I had not understood that that was the PCC 's role. Its objections were further undermined by additional reporting of the same story within two weeks of my complaint.
The further reporting provided the additional detail that the child had been put on a school "runaway watch". The child's comments about her treatment at school were quoted and the school was identified. Even the timing of her private tuition lessons was published.
In the second case, the child's school was identified after she had been traced. Her home address was also identified. The central irony is that if either girl had, committed a criminal offence rather than been the victim of such an offence, it would have been illegal to print all that information.
I decided to take a different tack and write to two of the editors. They took the view that as the children's names were in the public domain, their obligation was simply to inform their readers of the facts. They had no comprehension of or sympathy for the interests of the child. Those interests were irrelevant to them.
I should therefore like the Minister to consider the discrepancy in the law and examine two possible courses. In the first instance, I have been dissatisfied with the response from the PCC. I acknowledge that legislation on such matters is sensitive, difficult and a step that no Government wish to take. Freedom of the

735
press is intensely valuable. However, it is limited by law in the case of individuals, including children, who commit criminal offences.
I believe that the press should accept that it is in the general public interest not to broadcast or publish the names of children who are victims of crime. I hope that that argument is uncontroversial. The press work within such limits regularly when they report from the courts, and I believe that they appreciate that children need special protection. I ask the Minister to join me in making representations to the PCC and to consider carefully the way in which it report; cases that involve children, especially when such cases are salacious, have a sexual element or have a profound effect on the individuals.
Those young people have the rest of their lives to experience what the press has told the general public about them. When the press moves on to the next story, it does not appreciate the way in which the publication of the private affairs of young children can remain fresh in their community, town and life for all their days. If we are to be honest and straightforward about deciding that we have an obligation to the 'youngest and most vulnerable people in our society, we have an obligation to act and to try to persuade the press to be more responsible in the way in which it reports these matters.
I sincerely hope that the Press Complaints Commission will see the validity and strength of these arguments, but if it does not, and if it takes the view that the victims of crime deserve less protection than those who commit crimes—even though they may be juveniles—the Government should look closely at amending current legislation to ensure that the protection given to those who commit criminal offences is extended to the victims of offences, whether the offences are committed in this country or abroad.
10.20 pm
The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Dr. Kim Howells):I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) for raising this important and topical subject. He spoke eloquently about two particular cases. It is not for me to offer judgment in individual cases. I have great sympathy for members of the public who find themselves suddenly thrust into the public eye. That can be a harrowing experience, particularly as that exposure often comes at a time when they are particularly sensitive or vulnerable, but I know that my hon. Friend agrees that we need to have a sense of perspective when considering these issues.
Every week, some 162 million newspapers are sold in this country. This is a hugely successful industry that reflects, and has an impact on, every aspect of our lives. We cannot, and do not, expect to like or agree with everything that is printed. Governments, in particular, would occasionally like the media to agree with them, and to appear to understand them. I have reason to know that that is not often the case. But, although this is sometimes a cause for frustration, I am, on the whole, glad of it. We have a vibrant and irreverent press that is undoubtedly free, and we know that this country would be a far poorer place without it.
736
That certainly does not make our press perfect, but, considering the vast number of publications, copies distributed, and articles that they contain, the number of complaints and concerns is actually very small. All can be considered against the newspaper industry's own code of practice, which is overseen by the Press Complaints Commission. The code is voluntary, but practically every publication in the country signs up to it, although a few small, independent newspapers do not. It contains 16 clauses covering, among other things, accuracy, privacy, harassment, intrusion into grief or shock, and children. Some of those clauses contain exclusions that apply if publication can be demonstrated to be in the public interest. The public interest is not an easily defined commodity, and lawyers, journalists and politicians debate it every day. It can include the detection or exposure of a crime, the protection of public health and safety, and the prevention of the public from being misled. It is not defined as whatever the public are interested in, or whatever they might find amusing, titillating, or frankly outrageous.
Last year, 2,630 people complained to the PCC about items in newspapers and magazines. About one third of all complaints were outside the remit of the PCC, covering legal issues or issues of taste and decency, or were from people not directly concerned. The commission is not in the game of offering legal advice; nor is it a censorship body in any shape or form. As a rule, the commission considers complaints only from people who are directly involved, although, in exceptional circumstances, it will act of its own volition, often provoked by letters from members of the public.
Of the properly constituted complaints, most were about inaccuracy, while about a quarter were about some aspect of privacy. After investigation, no breach was found in 26 per cent. of cases, and in most other cases, the PCC helped the complainant and the newspaper to reach a satisfactory agreement, such as the publication of a letter setting the record straight, or of an apology. In only 36 cases was a full adjudication needed; 17 cases were upheld and 19 rejected.
In addition, newspapers are bound by the general law that binds us all, but the code goes further than the law in many respects. For instance, the use of listening devices is not illegal, but the code bans it for journalists hoping to obtain information. As the code is voluntary rather than statutory, it has built-in flexibility to respond to new challenges where necessary, and there have been changes since it was established in 1991. They include prohibitions on some uses to which telephoto lenses are put. We have to accept, however, that no matter how well intentioned and how well thought through the code is, it does not cover every eventuality.
Any code or law is always open to some interpretation, so there is often still a debate to be had. One area that still attracts debate is the handling of cases involving children. All areas of the code cover children, so they have the same protection as adults from misleading or inaccurate reporting, intrusions into their privacy and so on, but sections of the code are specifically devoted to the coverage of stories involving children.
There are additional restrictions on what a newspaper may print about a child, and the tenets are these: young people should be free to complete their time at school without unnecessary intrusion; journalists must not

737
interview or photograph a child on subjects involving the welfare of the child, or of any other child, without the consent of a parent or guardian; pupils must not be approached or photographed while at school unless the school authorities have given permission; there must be no payment to children or parents for stories involving the welfare of the child unless it is demonstrably in the child's interest; and where material about a child is published, there must be justification for publication other than the fame or notoriety of his or her parents.
Ian Lucas:One area that I am concerned about is that it appears in certain cases that parents perhaps do not act in the best interests of the child. That could be the cause of grave anxiety. I was concerned to learn that the PCC would not countenance a complaint, even from a Member of Parliament, when the parents did not agree to it. Could that be looked at?
Dr. Howells: I intend to come to that in a few moments, if my hon. Friend will bear with me, because it is an important point that needs careful deliberation.
In cases concerning sexual offences, the PCC rules are even tougher. Even where the law does not prohibit it, the press must not identify children involved in a sexual offence, whether as victims or as witnesses. My hon. Friend has raised that issue, inside and outside the Chamber. An adult may be identified, but the word "incest" must not be used if that could lead to identification of a witness or a victim, and care must be taken to ensure that the relationship between an accused and a child could not be inferred from anything in the report.
That all sounds very clear and straightforward, but there are always "what ifs". My hon. Friend has just raised one. What if the child is the victim of a sexual offence, but does not consider himself or herself to be one? What if a child and his or her family willingly talk about the story? What if a child goes missing and the family eagerly recruit the press to maximise public awareness, but it then turns out that he or she has been the victim of a sexual offence?
We have seen examples of all those recently, and my hon. Friend has spoken to us this evening about two such cases. One shows several of those elements. It seems that the girl at the centre of the case and her parents chose to speak out, which is the point that he just raised. They have the right to do so. At that point,
738
there was no suggestion that she was the victim of any offence. The details were widely published, and it is possible that they may have helped the police to find the girl and reunite het with her family. I do not know; my hon. Friend will know more about that. At that stage, there were again comments to media organisations, and again, the family had the right to make such comments.
Although so many details are already in the public domain—they cannot, of course, be retracted—there is still protection under the terms of the code. If the girl in that case, and her parents or guardians, now wish to remain silent, even though they have spoken to the press before, they have the right to do so, and they will have the protection of the code. Furthermore, if they believe that there was a breach of the code, they should contact the PCC immediately. As my hon. Friend has had experience of dealing with the PCC, I am certain that he will assist the family in their endeavours.
Those facts, without speaking particularly about that case, highlight certain moral issues. Decisions about whether a child should speak to the press are, in effect, made by parents or guardians on their behalf. Sometimes there are doubts about whether allowing a child to speak to the press really could be said to be in that child's best interests. We may believe that in certain cases it is not, but that is a matter of opinion, and as long as parents behave within the law, it is a matter for their judgment. We may not agree with their decision but, in principle, I believe that we must support their right to make decisions for their children.
Sadly, there are times when parents make very wrong, or even—as my hon. Friend has pointed out—harmful decisions for their children, and that is when social services might become involved. However, unless that is the case, parents have the right to speak to the press about their child as they see fit. We have no right to complain about their comments, and must keep our disapproval to ourselves.
I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that we at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport have listened to what he said and that we are extremely sensitive to the important issue that he raised. I thank him once again for giving the House the opportunity to hear his analysis of a difficult but important subject.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes to Eleven o'clock.

CABINET OFFICE

  Advertising Expenditure (Scotland)
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how much the Department spent on advertising in Scotland in each year since 1999 on(a) television, (b) newspapers, (c) radio, (d) magazines, (e) billboards and (f) sporting events. [102325]

  Mr. Alexander
  Due to the format in which advertising information is held, to provide the information as requested would result in disproportionate costs.

  Public and Advisory Bodies
  Tony Wright
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what the criteria are for classifying public and advisory bodies as(a) executive non-departmental public bodies, (b) advisory non-departmental public bodies, (c) task forces, (d) ad hoc advisory groups and (e) reviews; and what particular qualities or characteristics distinguish these bodies from each other. [102521]

  Mr. Alexander
  Generally, executive non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs) operate under statutory provisions and are legally incorporated; their functions cover a national remit (including the devolved assemblies); appointments to the Board of the NDPB are made by Ministers, or by the Queen on ministerial advice; such appointments must be made in accordance with the Code of Practice of the Commissioner for Public Administration (OCPA); the chief executive is accountable to the Board; the NDPB has its own budget; staff are employed directly by the body itself (and are not civil servants); and Ministers are answerable to Parliament for the NDPB and have the powers to wind it up subject to, where appropriate, the approval of Parliament or, where a Royal Charter has previously been granted, of the Queen.

  Advisory NDPBs are usually set up administratively by Ministers, or by the Queen on ministerial advice, without the need for legislation; those appointed to the Board are independent of Government and drawn from outside the public sector; the NDPB should be a standing body existing for more than one year and meeting at least annually; the Board has a defined membership and clear terms of reference; as with executive NDPBs, appointments are subject to the OCPA Code of Practice and the remit tends to have a national focus; the Board is usually supported by staff from within the sponsoring department but is not part of a department or agency; generally the NDPB does not prepare its own accounts and instead is accounted for through the books of the sponsoring department; and Ministers are answerable to Parliament for the body and may wind it up.
  500W
  There is little to distinguish between task forces, ad hoc advisory groups and reviews. These bodies can be defined in various ways. However, the Government's response to the Sixth 'Report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life' gave 3 criteria as a definition:
  Membership drawn from the wider public sector and/or voluntary organisations and/or the private sector
  A lifetime normally of less than 2 years;
  A remit focused on a single issue.

  Some of these bodies may go on to become classified as NDPBs where the need for the body's advice continues beyond its original life span e.g. the Better Regulation Task Force, Skills Task Force and the New Deal Task Force.

  Finally, as their name indicates executive NDPBs will be largely concerned with an operational or executive function while an advisory NDPB would be more likely to provide specific advice in a specialised field. Both executive and advisory NDPBs tend to be more formal and likely to run for longer than task forces, ad hoc advisory groups and reviews. The choice of the most appropriate body to be set up in a given situation will depend upon all of the criteria described here, and ministerial judgment about what would be most suitable for the intended purpose.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Agriculture/Horticulture
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures she is taking to raise public understanding of agriculture and horticulture in the UK; and how much her Department has spent, broken down by category, on such measures since 1997. [102439]

  Alun Michael
  The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is responsible for policies on sustainable farming and food, including plant health, plant variety rights and all aspects of horticulture. The activities and actions of the Department and its Ministers are aimed at developing and promoting these policies as cost-effectively and efficiently as possible. Defra aims to promote sustainable, diverse, modern and adaptable farming through domestic and international actions and to promote a sustainable and safe food supply chain which meets consumers' requirements.

  Defra produces a number of agricultural publications, including "Agriculture in the United Kingdom", which is published annually in association with the devolved administrations. In response to a recommendation of the EFRA Select Committee in its recent report "The Future of UK Agriculture in a Changing World", Defra will publish an annual assessment of the state of the agriculture industry and its future prospects in an international context.

  Defra was formed in June 2001. The Department does not maintain records of its publicity expenditure in the categories set out in the hon. Gentleman's question. To undertake attempts to identify the closest equivalents to them would incur disproportionate cost.

  Capita
  Mr. Paul Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to the reply of 20 February,Official Report, column 83W, on Capita, if she will list for each of the contracts awarded by her Department to Capita since 8th June 2001 (a) start and finish date of contract, (b) value of contract, (c) evaluation mechanism for successful delivery of contract, (d) penalty charges for failure to deliver, (e) penalty charges incurred, (f) service level agreements and (g) contract numbers; and if she will make a statement. [100458]

  Alun Michael
  Between June 2001 and December 2002 the Department made payments of £1,551,203 to the Capita Group in connection with the services identified in the Official Report, column 83W of 20 February. From information held centrally the Department is not aware that any contractual or legal remedies for specific non-performance have needed to be invoked and considers that the Capita Group has delivered the contracted services to the standards required.

  The terms of contracts between the Department and its suppliers are commercially confidential.

  Further information can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Chewing Gum
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans her Department has to tackle discarded chewing gum. [102598]

  Alun Michael
  Defra's consultation document "Living Places— Powers, Rights, Responsibilities", includes two options relating to chewing gum: R8—to include discarded chewing gum as litter to which existing litter

  Scheme

  Total Number of agreements approved

  Number of agreements approved between 2000–021,2

  Scheme budget 2000–06 (£ million)

  Countryside Stewardship Scheme

  13,858

  6,290

  481

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas

  12,300

  1,677

  330

  Organic Farming Scheme

  N/a

  1,085

  141

  Woodland Grant Scheme

  32,748

  7,058

  139

  Farm Woodland Premium Scheme/Farm Woodland Scheme

  10,059

  2,389

  77

  Energy Crops Scheme

  N/a

  31

  32

  Hill Farm Allowance2

  N/a

  9,953

  254

  Note:

  Figures for number of approved agreements are provisional as some agreements for 2002 remain to be processed. Agreements entered into before 2000 are excluded.

  For Hill Farm Allowance, figure relates to number of payments made on claims received in 2002 rather than agreements approved over the years 2000 to 2002.

  It is not possible directly to compare the value of approved agreements in a givenyear with the budget for that year, because (a) the majority of agreements under the land-based schemes are for commitments lasting ten years or more and with payments made annually; (b) first payments under individual agreements may not always be made in the same year as the agreement is approved; and (c) much of the current budget for land-
  502W
  duties and powers apply, and F3—restricting the availability of chewing gum in areas degraded by persistent littering. The consultation closed on 14 February 2003. We are now in the process of assessing all the comments and considering, with other Government Departments and stakeholders as necessary, how best to take matters forward, including, where appropriate, proposals for legislation.

  English Rural Development Programme
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will publish her proposed expenditure for each of the next three years under the English rural development programme, broken down by scheme. [103146]

  Alun Michael
  The proposed expenditure on schemes under the England rural development programme is:

  £million

  Scheme

  2003–04

  2004–05

  2005–06

  Countryside Stewardship Scheme

  81

  96

  111

  Environmentally Sensitive Area Scheme

  48

  48

  48

  Organic Farming Scheme

  22

  23

  23

  Farm Woodland Premium Scheme

  11

  12

  13

  Woodland Grant Scheme

  21

  22

  22

  Hill Farming Allowance

  35

  27

  27

  Rural Enterprise Scheme

  24

  36

  36

  Processing and Marketing Grant

  8

  8

  8

  Vocational Training Scheme

  4

  4

  4

  Energy Crops Scheme

  5

  5

  5

  The table does not include possible new schemes that would require modification of the ERDP and are subject to Commission approval. For example, we recently launched a pilot entry level agri-environment scheme and we have said that if this pilot is successful we intend to introduce the full scheme in England in 2005. Additional funding would have to be made available in 2005–06 to operate the scheme.

  based schemes is expended on commitments entered into before the ERDP began in 2000.

  In financial year 2000–01, 83 per cent. of the total budget available for the ERDP land-based schemes was spent, and in financial year 2001–02, 89 per cent. of the total budget available for the ERDP land-based schemes was spent.

  GM Crops
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs against what criteria the outcome of the public debate on genetically modified crops will be judged. [103053]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government will judge the outcome of the public debate on the opportunities that it has presented people to gain a fuller understanding of the wider issues surrounding genetic modification and to reach their own judgement. The Government set up an independent public debate steering board that announced its own indicators against which it would assess the success of the debate. These include the extent to which people felt they were able to participate, their awareness of the debate, whether it was credible and innovative, and whether it improved the present understanding of public views.

  GMOs
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to prepare draft legislation on(a) health, (b) environmental and (c) economic liability arising from the release of GMOs. [103052]

  Mr. Meacher
  The European Commission has issued proposals, which are being considered by the Council and the European Parliament, for an EU environmental liability regime covering the release of GMOs. This focuses on potential damage to biodiversity. The Government will consider whether domestic rules on GMO liability might be needed after it is has received a report due this summer from the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission.

  Greenhouse Gas
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps her Department is taking to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the form of methane from disused coal mines; and what estimate she has made of the cost of tackling such pollution. [102069]

  Mr. Meacher
  As yet there is no reliable measure of the amount of methane escaping from disused coal mines. Current estimates vary from 0.3 per cent. to 2 per cent. of UK greenhouse gas emissions. My Department, in consultation with the industry, have commissioned an independent study to provide an accurate estimate of methane emissions from this source which will report in two years time.

  Defra supported the coal mine methane industry in its application for exemption from the climate change levy. This application was successful, and secured for the industry an 80 per cent. discount on the levy subject to state aid approval from the European Commission. This will improve the viability of the industry.

  Since the launch of the UK emissions trading scheme in April 2002 Defra has worked with the industry to overcome obstacles to their entry into the scheme. Defra is also engaging with the European Commission on their proposal for extending the EU emissions trading scheme
  504W
  to include a project mechanism in due course, which may allow credits to be claimed for coal mine methane projects.

  The Government consider that extending the renewables obligation to include coal mine methane would not be consistent with the objectives of the obligation, since coal mine methane is, self-evidently, not a renewable. However, we are very supportive of this industry and are keen to help it expand so that it can continue to reduce emissions throughout the UK.

  Until there is an accurate estimate of what is actually being emitted from disused mines in the UK, it is not possible to make an accurate estimate of the cost of tackling the issue.

  Nappies
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will estimate the total(a) energy, (b) resource use, (c) volume of waste and (d) water use; from (i) a real nappy and (ii) a disposable nappy; and if she will make an assessment of their overall relative environmental impacts. [99246]

  Mr. Meacher
  The environmental impact of disposable nappies is adverse; however we don't at present have quantifiable data on this.

  The Environment Agency is currently carrying out a life cycle analysis which compares the environmental impact of re-usable a nd disposable nappies and clarifies information already contained in the existing life cycle analysis. We expect the work to be completed in early summer.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of(a) how many disposable nappies would be used if all those who used real nappies were to switch to the use of disposable nappies and (b) the overall environmental impact of such a change. [99248]

  Mr. Meacher
  Assuming that 10 per cent. of parents use re-usable nappies (current estimates give a figure of 5 per cent. to 15 per cent.), a switch to disposable nappies is estimated to lead to a 0.2 per cent. to 0.3 per cent. increase in the proportion of the municipal waste stream constituted by nappies. This would increase the current level from 2 per cent. to 3 per cent. to approximately 2.2 per cent. to 3.3 per cent., and worsen the overall environmental impact, although the effects cannot at present be quantified.

  The Environment Agency is currently carrying out a life cycle analysis which compares the environmental impact of re-usable and disposal nappies and clarifies information already contained in existing life cycle analysis. We expect the work will be completed in the early summer.

  Ruddy Ducks
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the estimated cost is of her Department's plans to reduce the numbers of the ruddy duck. [102339]
  505W
  Margaret Beckett
  The Department has completed the ruddy duck control trial and will spend an additional £100,000 this financial year on research work into refining control methods for the ruddy duck. Further research will be undertaken in 2003–04. Final decisions have not yet been taken on the allocation of the research budget, but the expected expenditure is around £¼ million. We also propose to participate in a white-headed duck workshop to be held later this year in Morocco. The workshop will consider various control methods used on ruddy ducks throughout Europe and North Africa. Expenditure in future years has not been decided.

  Secondments
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to the reply of 11 March,Official Report, column 150W, on secondments, if she will list the NGOs who have seconded staff to her Department. [103438]

  Alun Michael
  [pursuant to his answer, 11 March 2003, Official Report, column 150W], the NGOs concerned are:

  Chemical Industrial Association

  Envirowise

  Forum for the Future

  Groundwork

  Global to Local

  Imperial College

  Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (2)

  Tidy Britain Group (Environmental Campaigns)

  TXU Warm Front

  Warwick University

  World Wildlife Fund (2)

  Tyres
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the environmental impact of(a) retread and (b) new tyres, using a life-cycle analysis approach. [99235]

  Mr. Meacher
  In 2001, BLIC (the liaison office of the European rubber industry) produced a life cycle analysis of car tyres. The report did not specify the environmental load of retreaded tyres, but did highlight the importance of rolling resistance as a factor in determining its benefits.

  Retreaded tyres, nevertheless, would seem to offer a number of advantages as an end-of-life recovery option because of the reduced requirement for raw materials in their manufacture, as compared with new tyres, and by

  1 January to 31 December 2001

  HCI

  S02

  NOx

  CO

  PM

  Cd and TI

  Hg

  Other Metals1

  HF

  Dioxins

  VOCs2

  NH 32

  Total

  Dudley (MES)

  10

  1

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  -

  -

  13

  Wolverhampton (MES)

  4

  0

  1

  2

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  -

  -

  9

  Billingham (SITA)

  1

  1

  2

  20

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  -

  -

  25

  Coventry (C and S WDC)

  29

  2

  3

  57

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  -

  -

  94

  Tyseley (Onyx)

  0

  0

  1

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  -

  -

  3

  Nottingham (WRE)

  2

  0

  4

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  -

  -

  6

  Sheffield (Onyx)

  14

  1

  0

  21

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  -

  -

  36

  Stoke (MES)

  12

  1

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  -

  -

  15

  506W
  providing the tyre with another life, thereby reducing the numbers of new tyres needed, and subsequently requiring disposal.

  The Department of Trade and Industry has recently commissioned a further study to examine the environmental credentials of tyre retreading.

  Waste Management
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what the Government's policy is on building new(a) incinerators and (b) waste to energy plants; [100475]

  (2) what guidance she has issued to local authorities about building new (a) incinerators and (b) waste to energy plants; [100476]

  (3) what percentage of UK waste the Government expect to dispose of through (a) incinerators and (b) waste to energy plants in the next five years. [100474]

  Mr. Meacher
  Waste Strategy 2000 (Cm4693-2) sets out our policies for sustainable waste management and the steps to achieving them. Minimising waste production and maximising re-use and recycling of waste are central to that policy.

  Our policy on municipal waste incinerators or other energy from waste facilities is that they should only be considered where it can be shown that they are appropriately sized so that they would not "crowd out" recycling. They should also include, wherever possible, combined heat and power systems which produce electricity and provide effective heating for homes and businesses.

  The Government have no plans for the number of incinerators or other energy from waste facilities that local authorities should provide, nor are there any targets for the production of energy from waste. The Regulatory Impact Assessment of Waste Strategy 2000 (published in Annex C of Part 2 of the strategy) assessed a variety of waste management scenarios and provided broad ranges for numbers of required facilities. Variables included different projections for waste growth, different mixes of waste management facilities, and differing levels of participation in recycling schemes. A similar exercise was carried out by the Strategy Unit and published in their report "Waste not, Want not" in November last year.

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the self-reported breaches of emissions regulations by waste incinerator operators for(a) 2001 and (b) 2002. [102204]

  Mr. Meacher
  The numbers of breaches of emission limits recorded by the Environment Agency for municipal waste incinerators in(a) 2001 and (b) 2002 are shown in the table.
  507W

  1 January to 31 December 2001

  HC1

  S02

  NOx

  CO

  PM

  Cd and TI

  Hg

  Other Metals1

  HF

  Dioxins

  VOCs2

  NH 32

  Total

  Edmonton (LW)

  2

  0

  6

  29

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  -

  -

  39

  Lewisham (Onyx SELCHP)

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  -

  -

  1

  Bolton (GMW)

  5

  0

  0

  3

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  -

  -

  9

  TOTAL

  79

  6

  19

  135

  11

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  -

  -

  250

  1 January to 31 December 2001

  HC1

  SO2

  NOx

  CO

  PM

  Cd and TI

  Hg

  Other Metals3

  HF

  Dioxins

  VOCs

  NH3

  Total

  Dudley (MES)

  9

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  10

  Wolverhampton (MES)4

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Billingham (SITA)

  2

  11

  3

  11

  2

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  30

  Coventry (C and S WDC)4

  2

  1

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  4

  0

  9

  Tyseley (Onyx)

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  Nottingham (WRE)4

  1

  0

  4

  1

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  9

  Sheffield (Onyx)4

  1

  0

  0

  15

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  16

  Stoke (MES)3

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Edmonton (LW)

  2

  0

  0

  8

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  10

  Lewisham (Onyx SELCHP)

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  Bolton (GMW)

  1

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  Huddersfield(SITA)4.5

  3

  2

  0

  8

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  13

  TOTAL

  23

  16

  8

  47

  5

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  4

  0

  105

  Notes

  1 Antimony, arsenic, lead, chromium, cobalt, copper, manganese, nickel, vanadium and their compounds taken together in total

  2 VOC and ammonia breaches recording commenced in 2002

  3 1 January to 30 September 2002

  4 January to 30 June 2002

  5 Commenced operation in 2002

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs where(a) incinerators and (b) waste to energy plant, feature in the Government's waste hierarchy. [100692]

  Mr. Meacher
  The waste hierarchy, in Waste Strategy 2000 (Cm 4693–1) sets out the order in which options for waste management should be considered based on environmental impact. Following the hierarchy the best option is reduction (waste minimisation) followed in order by re-use, recycling, composting, energy recovery, and disposal.

  Wood (Fuel)
  Mr. Lindsay Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the environmental impact of(a) burning wood as a fuel and (b) increasing the use of wood as fuel. [101292]

  Alun Michael
  Burning of wood from sustainably managed forests for energy production does not contribute to the UK's carbon dioxide emissions as the gas released through combustion will be absorbed by new tree growth. Wood combustion does contribute to the UK's emissions of methane and nitrousoxide. These gases have a global warming potential, but even when this is taken into account, the overall impact, in terms of greenhouse gas emissions per unit of energy input, is unlikely to exceed 15 per cent. of the impact of fossil fuel combustion for wood burnt domestically in open grates, or 5 per cent. of the impact of fossil fuel combustion for wood burnt in combustion plant.

  Emissions associated with the management, harvesting and transportation of wood are small relative to total energy content of the wood. Nevertheless minimising transportation distances and improving the
  508W
  efficiency of transportation should be included as factors in the evaluation of proposals for new wood fuel developments.

  The combustion of wood, as opposed to coal or oil, produces low emissions of sulphur dioxide as wood has a lower sulphur content. Wood also tends to be burnt at lower temperatures than coal or oil which, in general, results in lower emissions of oxides of nitrogen compared to those from other fuels. Burning wood can also produce small amounts of benzene, particles, lead and polycylic aromatic hydrocarbons. Estimates of emissions of the main air pollutants from domestic and industrial wood combustion, compared with the UK totals, are set out in the Appendix.

  Depending on the soil in which the biomass is grown, wood can contain heavy metals which on burning are retained in the ash. Inefficient burning can leave some carbon in the ash therefore polyaromatic hydrocarbons must also be considered. If concentration thresholds for either are exceeded, ash should be disposed of in a controlled manner. However a recent compilation of data on UK wood suggests that heavy metal concentration in ash will not constitute a hazard to human health or the environment. Since ash contains a range of important nutrients there is the possibility of returning it as a fertiliser to forests.

  An overall assessment of the emissions impact from an increase in the use of wood as fuel depends on the fuel it replaces, the efficiency of the combustion systems and the abatement technology used.

  Greater use of wood fuel can assist in limiting CO2 emissions, and other emissions can be minimised by maximising the efficiency of the combustion process, and by installing appropriate abatement control. Increases in the use of wood will be largely based on efficient and environmentally friendly systems

  509W
  developed to meet stringent emission standards. Grant schemes introduced recently to encourage greater use of biomass specify highly efficient combustion and abatement systems.

  Additional markets for wood will encourage more active management of forests which in turn will

  Pollutant

  Unit

  Domestic

  Industrial

  National total

  Domestic as percentage of national total

  Industrial as percentage of national total

  Benzo[a]pyrene

  Kg

  1,170

  0.0518

  10,800

  10.8

  0

  Dioxins

  Grams

  0.216

  9.3

  360

  0.06

  2.58

  Cadmium

  Tonne

  0.072

  0.074

  5.2

  1.38

  1.42

  Mercury

  Tonne

  0.027

  0.074

  8.5

  0.32

  0.871

  Lead

  Tonne

  0.82

  0.037

  496

  0.17

  0.007

  Benzene

  Kilotonne

  1.44

  0.182

  16.4

  8.75

  1.11

  Carbon monoxide

  Kilotonne

  89.3

  5.23

  4,170

  2.14

  0.125

  Nitrogen oxides

  Kilotonnes

  0.650

  2.38

  1,510

  0.04

  0.157

  Particles (PMio)

  Kilotonnes

  7.11

  0.326

  172

  4.13

  0.189

  Sulphur dioxide

  Kilotonnes

  0.0333

  0.0274

  1,170

  0

  0.002

  Volatile organic compounds

  Kilotonne

  4.87

  0.594

  1,680

  0.29

  0.035

  Methane

  Kilotonnes

  3.25

  0.357

  2,430

  0.13

  0.015

  Nitrous oxide

  Kilotonne

  0.0349

  0.0511

  141

  0.02

  0.036

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Afghan Refugees
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment her Department has made of the number of Afghan refugees in(a) Pakistan and (b) Iran; and what financial support she is giving to each group. [102741]

  Clare Short
  The numbers of refugees still in exile fluctuate constantly. At the beginning of this year, UNHCR estimated that two million refugees remained in Iran and 1.5 million in Pakistan.

  DFID is supporting refugee programmes through various UN agencies and NGOs. Overall we have contributed over £5.8 million for refugee programmes administered by UNHCR and a further £1 million to a variety of other agencies also involved in refugee assistance.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on levels of(a) malnutrition and (b) violence against women among Afghan refugees in refugee camps in (i) Pakistan and (ii) Iran. [102743]

  Clare Short
  Neither DFID nor its implementing partners that assist refugees (UNI-ICR, WFP, ICRC) have specific information on malnutrition or levels of violence in refugee camps.

  WFP estimates that over 50 per cent. of children under five in Afghanistan are chronically malnourished while acute malnutrition affects less than 10 per cent. of the population. I have just approved a further £700,000 for WFP's operations in Afghanistan that include food assistance to vulnerable people still in camps.

  We have contributed £5.8 million this financial year to UNHCR's programmes for refugees in Pakistan and Iran. These include a component for monitoring of camps, protection officers and funding for legal aid for vulnerable people including women.
  510W
  encourage their regeneration whilst improving structural diversity and biodiversity.

  Appendix estimates of emissions of main air pollutants from domestic and industrial wood combustion compared with UK total (National Atmospheric Emission Inventory 2000):

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment her Department has made of the number of internally displaced people in Afghanistan; and what support she is providing for them. [102742]

  Clare Short
  According to UNHCR reports there are still around 700,000 internally displaced people (IDPs) in Afghanistan. The continuing drought in the South is I understand, causing further displacement.

  During 2002, international agencies helped over 250,000 IDPs to return home. And a further 200,000 are estimated to have returned home on their own. In the current financial year we have contributed £5.8 million to UNHCR's programmes for IDPs and returnees, including £1.8 million this month. The continuing challenge in Afghanistan is to help meet the basic needs of the most vulnerable people, whilst building Government capacity for sustainable reconstruction. We remain fully committed to these ends.

  Democratic Republic of Congo
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions her Department has had with leaders in the Democratic Republic of Congo regarding allowing the UN Mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo unlimited access to(a) areas and (b) evidence for its investigations. [103114]

  Clare Short
  The Government have made repeated calls for all parties in the DRC to allow free access to MONUC to fulfil its mandate. We have interceded with different authorities on a number of specific occasions to support the work of MONUC in humanitarian and peace-keeping operations. This has included pressing the Forces Armees Congolaises (FAC) to allow inspectors access to military airports; the Rassemblement Congolaise pour la Democratie-Goma (RCD-G) to allow humanitarian access to the conflict afflicted Haut Plateau; and the Mouvement pour la Liberation du Congo (MLC) to assist investigation into alleged human rights abuses committed by its forces. We continue to
  511W
  press all parties to facilitate MONUC's access to all areas of the DRC and to co-operate fully with its investigations.

  Drugs Re-selling
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment her Department has made of re-selling low-priced drugs from the developing world back to the developed world; and what steps are being taken to address this issue. [103085]

  Clare Short
  The high cost of drugs is a key barrier to poor people's ability to access essential medicines. The pharmaceutical industry, in partnership with the international community and donor governments, provide some medicines at preferential prices to the developing world. The Government have been working with partners to make a major advance towards the widespread and sustainable access to medicines to the world's poor, including through pharmaceutical companies providing medicines for HIV/AIDS, TB and Malaria at close to the cost of manufacture. However there is a risk that such medicines can be diverted and sold by 'middle men' back to developed country markets where they can be sold at a higher price. The extent of this problem can vary. Last year one company reported that roughly 25 per cent. of its preferentially priced AIDS medicines were diverted back to the EU.

  Our High Level Working Group on increasing Access to Essential Medicines examined ways of minimising the problem. In the long-term, strengthening developing country health systems will better equip countries to minimise product leakage. DFID has committed over 1.5 billion since 1997 to health systems strengthening in poorer countries. Other strategies to minimise diversion include, developing distinctive packaging and labelling of preferentially priced medicines, and implementing customs regulations in wealthier markets which prohibit re- importation. The European Union is currently discussing a regulation which would include such measures.

  Global Health Fund (Malawi)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment her Department has made of Malawi's proposal to the Global Health Fund, with particular reference to the issue of an upper limit on proposals; and if she will make a statement. [103106]

  Clare Short
  US$196 million was awarded to the Malawi Global Fund Coordinating Committee in August 2002 for HIV/AIDS. This is currently the largest GFATM award in Africa. A further USD 40 million was approved in February 2003 for scaling up prevention and treatment of Malaria.

  A review of Global Fund proposals in five countries, including Malawi, was undertaken in August 2002. It highlights the challenge in Malawi to absorb the additional finance given the prevailing health service infrastructure. There are major shortages of
  512W
  appropriately trained staff. The public sector is experiencing high attrition both from dissatisfaction with terms and conditions of service and as a direct result of AIDS. The GFATM proposal also requires extensive laboratory facilities which are currently lacking and qualified technicians and are in short supply.

  Accordingly the Global Fund is phased so that initial stages concentrate on building capacity for service delivery. The Global Fund proposal is complemented by several other initiatives in the health sector, including work supported by my Department in strengthening essential medical laboratory services, medical supplies management, and improved mechanisms for coordinating donor support. The DFID mainstreaming strategy will help strengthen the institutional framework for a multi-sectoral HIV response by supporting posts in government and key institutions including WHO, UNAIDS and the World bank.

  Intellectual Property Rights
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what her policy is on the recommendations of the report of the Commission on Intellectual Property rights; and if she will make a statement. [103096]

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the report of the Commission on Intellectual Property Rights in respect of patents. [103634]

  Clare Short
  The Government will publish its response to the report of the Commission on Intellectual Property Rights very shortly and will be available at www.dfid.gov.uk. A written statement will also be made to the House.

  International Organisation for Migration
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what financial resources her Department has allocated to the International Organisation for Migration in each year since 1997. [101734]

  Clare Short
  DFID's funding for IOM's operational budget since 1997 is as follows (figures in US dollars):

  US $

  1997

  300,000

  1998

  1,203,482

  1999

  2,977,297

  2000

  3,120,757

  2001

  5,504,559

  2002

  8,147,087

  The above figures exclude reimbursable services and projects jointly funded with the Home Office that can not be separately disaggregated from other UK Government funding.
  513W
  In addition DFID has contributed 50 per cent. of the UK's membership fees to IOM since the UK rejoined IOM in June 2001. These amounted to £517,242 (DFID share £258,621) in 2001 and £952,470 (DFID share £476,235) in 2002.

  Iraq
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what percentage of people in Iraq she estimates had access to clean water in(a) 1980, (b) 1990, (c) 1996, (d) 1998 and (e) 2000. [101733]

  Clare Short
  It is difficult to find clear statistics on access to clean water in Iraq. The WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme for Water Supply and Sanitation Coverage, the official UN reference system for monitoring water coverage statistics, provides figures for most of the years in question. (Given the difficulties in routinely measuring safe water, their surveys measure the presence of water facilities of different technology types. Improved water supplies are defined as those inherently safer than other types of supplies. They include: household connection; public standpipe; bore hole; protected dug well; protected spring; or rainwater collection. Not improved water supplies include: unprotected well; unprotected spring; vendor-provided water; bottled water; tanker truck-provided water.) In their estimates for 1980–2000, the following figures for access to improved water supplies in Iraq are provided:

  Percentage

  Year

  Urban

  Rural

  1985

  100

  54

  1988

  100

  72

  1990

  93

  41

  1996

  96

  48

  2000 (estimate)

  96

  48

  DFID cannot confirm the reliability of these figures. It should be noted that, while water is supplied to most urban households (and therefore classified as `improved'), a high proportion of this water is not treated. There are also understood to be significant regional disparities in supply coverage within Iraq.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what proportion of UN personnel in Iraq are Iraqi nationals. [102739]

  Clare Short
  Until recently, Iraqi nationals comprised around 80 per cent. of UN personnel in Iraq. However, over recent weeks the numbers of UN international staff have been reducing, resulting in an increase to the proportion of national staff.

  South America (Development Aid)
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the three largest development projects on the South American continent supported by her Department. [102234]

  Clare Short
  DFID has country programmes in Bolivia, Brazil and Peru in South America, reflecting the severity and depth of poverty in these countries. They form part of our regional strategy in Latin America that aims to reduce poverty by working with governments,514W
  civil society and the international community in the areas of pro-poor growth, social inclusion and pro-poor governance.

  Details (DFID figures available by financial year, EC figures by calendar year):

  £ million

  Country

  UK bilateral assistance 2001–02 Includes DFID programmes, CDC investments and debt relief

  DFID share of EC Country assistance 2001

  Bolivia

  31.5

  3.5

  Brazil

  7.0

  9.2

  Peru

  8.9

  2.8

  Further details are available in DFID's Country Strategy Paper for Bolivia which is available in the Libraries of the House. DFID's Country Strategy Paper for Brazil and Country Assistance Plan for Peru are currently being finalised. I will place copies in the House Libraries when they become available.

  West Africa
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what financial resources her Department has allocated to the UN agencies and NGOs that are providing assistance to third country nationals, refugees and returnees in West Africa. [102265]

  Clare Short
  I have recently approved £5 million for several humanitarian interventions in response to the United Nations Consolidated Appeals for West Africa. This comprises contributions to UN organisations, the International Committee for the Red Cross programmes in Cote D'Ivoire, Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone; to Medicins Sans Frontiere (B) for a health project in Liberia and to Merlin for a health intervention in Cote D'Ivoire. This is in addition to substantial contributions from DFID last year.

  World Water Assessment Programme
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what her Department's response is to the World Water Assessment Programme's recent report. [102811]

  Clare Short
  Nearly two thirds of the world's population will be living in countries of significant water stress by the year 2025, with the increasing possibility of conflicts over water becoming more common. One in five people in the world lack access to safe drinking water and nearly half lack access to sanitation. Misuse of resources and poor management have resulted in depleted supplies, falling water tables, shrinking inland lakes and stream flows reduced to ecologically unsustainable levels. In addition water pollution, from mainly human activities, is decreasing the amount of water suitable for many uses. At the Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable Development strong commitments were made for better management of water resources and improved access to drinking water and sanitation and these must now be implemented.

  In this context, initiatives that support the assessment of water resources and build capacity for the sustainable management of available resources are increasingly important. The UNESCO led World Water Assessment

  515W
  Programme (WWAP), has been supported by DFID, from its outset in mid-2000. It is an effective long-term Programme providing assessment, monitoring and reporting of the people-centred status of the world's water. The UN World Water Development Report (WWDR)—Water for People Water for Life' which has just been released, is the first major output from the programme and will be presented at the 3rd world water forum in Kyoto, Japan, this week. The report represents the combined efforts of 23 UN agencies and convention secretariats and is now the most comprehensive and up-to-date information on the state of the world's freshwater resources. The availability of rigorous and authoritative water information at appropriate scales in the public domain will influence actions by others and allow critical issues to be identified.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Iraq
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the legal basis for military intervention against Iraq. [102902]

  The Solicitor-General
  [pursuant to the Prime Minister's answer, 14 March 2003, c. 482W]The Attorney-General has given a written answer to a question from Baroness Ramsey in the House of Lords today in the following terms:

  Authority to use force against Iraq exists from the combined effect of resolutions 678, 687 and 1441. All of these resolutions were adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter which allows the use of force for the express purpose of restoring international peace and security:
  1. In resolution 678 the Security Council authorised force against Iraq, to eject it from Kuwait and to restore peace and security in the area.
  2. In resolution 687, which set out the ceasefire conditions after Operation Desert Storm, the Security Council imposed continuing obligations on Iraq to eliminate its weapons of mass destruction in order to restore international peace and security in the area. Resolution 687 suspended but did not terminate the authority to use force under resolution 678.
  3. A material breach of resolution 687 revives the authority to use force under resolution 678.
  4. In resolution 1441 the Security Council determined that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of resolution 687, because it has not fully complied with its obligations to disarm under that resolution.
  5. The Security Council in resolution 1441 gave Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" and warned Iraq of the "serious consequences" if it did not.
  6. The Security Council also decided in resolution 1441 that, if Iraq failed at any time to comply with and co-operate fully in the implementation of resolution 1441, that would constitute a further material breach.
  7. It is plain that Iraq has failed so to comply and therefore Iraq was at the time of resolution 1441 and continues to be in material breach.
  8. Thus, the authority to use force under resolution 678 has revived and so continues today.
  9. Resolution 1441 would in terms have provided that a further decision of the Security Council to sanction force was required if that had been intended. Thus, all that resolution 1441 requires is reporting to and discussion by the Security Council of Iraq's failures, but not an express further decision to authorise force.

  516W
  I have lodged a copy of this answer, together with resolutions 678, 687 and 1441 in the Library of both Houses.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Arts Council of England
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the administrative cost of the Arts Council of England to each Government Office of the Region was in(a) 1999–2000, (b) 2000–01, (c) 2001–02 and (d) 2002–03. [103014]

  Dr. Howells
  There is no cost to the regional Government offices for the running of the Arts Council of England. The full administrative cost is met out of the annual grant-in-aid allocation made to it by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.

  English Heritage
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the security implications of English Heritage's placing of photographs of private buildings on the internet under its Images of England project. [102146]

  Dr. Howells
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has a legal duty to compile and publish lists of buildings of special architectural or historic importance. These lists are in the public domain, and can be accessed through local authorities, records offices, libraries, English Heritage and DCMS. Many other groups will also hold information on listed buildings, including amenity societies and local interest groups.

  English Heritage undertook a security review in 2000 which looked into the implications of placing photographs of private buildings on the internet. The review consulted with the police, insurers and technical experts and concluded that no evidence could be found to support a link between the kind of information English Heritage is publishing on the internet and any physical threats to property security.

  Television Licensing
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what percentage of eligible people were in receipt of a free television licence in the last year for which figures are available. [103048]

  Dr. Howells
  In 2001–02, an estimated 95 per cent. of the eligible population were in receipt of a free television licence.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when she intends to publish the draft guidance on licensing authorities' statement of policy that will be required under the new licensing bill. [102650]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 14 March 2003]The Department published a rough draft of the guidance to local authorities and the police that will accompany the Licensing Bill on 13 February. Section 4 of this rough draft provides guidance to local authorities on the development and preparation of local statements of
  517W
  licensing policy, the general principles that should underpin them, and core content to which licensing authorities would be free to add. The draft guidance was placed in the Libraries of both Ho uses and is available on the Department's website: www.culture.gov.uk.

  Regional Museums
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what progress her Department has made in implementing the recommendations on making regional museums sustainable in the report "Renaissance in the Regions". [102857]

  Dr. Howells
  We will be providing £70 million for regional museums from this year until 2005–06. Resource: The Council for Museums, Archives and Libraries will put their recommendations to Ministers on funding allocations for all nine regional hubs ready for announcement in April. All regional hubs will then be asked to submit a detailed business plan by January 2004, setting out their programme of work for 2004–06.

PRIVY COUNCIL

  Pensions
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the President of the Council if he will make a statement about the Lord Chancellor's pension arrangements. [102849]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  The Lord Chancellor's pension arrangements are set out in the Lord Chancellor's Pension Act 1832 and the Parliamentary and other Pensions Act 1972 as amended by the Ministerial and other Pensions and Salaries Act 1991. The Judicial Pensions Act 1981 additionally makes provision for lump sum benefits and for pensions for dependants.

  The Lord Chancellor's pension is based on his salary at the time of leaving office. At present, this salary is linked to that of the Lord Chief Justice, but the Senior Salaries Review Body has been asked to review the remuneration of the office of Lord Chancellor.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Award Schemes
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the award schemes in(a) 2001 and (b) 2002 promoted by the Department; what their scope was; when the relevant participating organisations are scheduled to be sent results; and whether other parties will be given notification of the results at the same time. [102061]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Department of Trade and Industry promotes the following awards:

  BAFTA Interactive Awards

  DTI has, in the past two years, sponsored categories at the annual BAFTA Interactive Awards. These awards recognise and reward creative talent in interactive media. In 2001. DTI sponsored the category for the BAFTA Award for Online Game and in 2002, sponsored the BAFTA Award for Console Game.
  518W
  The Department has also sponsored awards at smaller trade association events over the past two years. For example, the International Visual Communications Association (IVCA) Awards and the British Interactive Media Association Awards, as well as the Best use of Broadband Award at the annual BizNet Awards run by the IVCA.

  The British Computer Society Awards

  The DTI has, for the last 10 years, sponsored the British Computer Society (BCS) awards. The BCS Annual IT awards recognise both IT excellence and benefit to business and society. The awards are open to any project developed in the field of IT in the UK, and participating organisations who make the final are notified some two to three weeks in advance of the awards ceremony. The overall winners are then announced at the annual awards ceremony. The 38,000 members of the BCS are notified of the entrants, finalists and winners and there is coverage in the press and IT journals.

  The Castle Award

  The DTI run the Castle Award scheme for employers who have made significant progress in bridging the pay gap between the sexes. The award, in the form of a trophy, was given for the first time in December last year. The next presentation will take place this year in December.

  e-Commerce Awards

  The DTI, though UK online for business, is a sponsor of the annual e-Commerce Awards run by Interforum over recent years. The Awards celebrate innovative business uses of Information and Communications Technology.

  Nominations and applications begin in the spring each year. National coverage is achieved through regional awards that lead to a national award event in the autumn when category winners are publicly announced—all competitors attend that event to hear the results. Web and local media coverage has been enhanced by sponsorship from the Daily Express (2001 and 2002) and the Sunday Times Enterprise Network (2003).

  Employer of the Year 2001

  The DTI co-sponsored an award for Employer of the Year 2001 (together with the charity Parents at Work and Lloyds TSB). This award "recognised employers who help their employees juggle their work and home life". The awards covered the UK as well as separate categories for regions and nations; there were separate awards for small, medium and large employers. Winners were announced on 28 November 2001.

  ITBeat Competition

  ITBeat is a competition designed for girls 11–16 years of age to engage them in information technology. The intention behind the competition is to help overcome the often negative perceptions of IT which deter many girls from pursuing the subject in education or as a potential career path. More details can be found at www.itbeat.com.

  ITBeat is managed by e-Skills UK, the former national training organisation for IT and telecoms. The DTI has provided a £40,000 contribution to the costs of running ITBeat. The rest of the costs were to be met by

  519W
  industry sponsorship. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry helped to launch ITBeat in November 2002 through a contribution to the launch press notice.

  In total 852 girls registered for the competition, with 300 finalists being invited to attend the event. The finalists come from around the country including Yorkshire, Lancashire, Suffolk, Wales and Scotland. The event took place on 7 March at the Science Museum.

  Metrology for world class manufacturing

  In 2001 the DTI sponsored Measurement awards within "Metrology for world class manufacturing", with the themes:

  Frontier Science and Measurement

  Innovative Metrology

  Measurement for Manufacturing Excellence

  Champions of Metrology

  Materials Measurement

  These awards were made to the winning participants at the September 2001 award ceremony and also made public in that year. There were no awards made within 2002.

  The Queen's Award for Enterprise

  The DTI supports the Queen's Awards for Enterprise. The Queens Awards is an interdepartmental scheme and the responsible minister is the Prime Minister, advised by an Advisory Committee chaired by the Head of the Home Civil Service. The Queen's Awards were instituted by Royal Warrant in 1965, as "The Queen's Awards to Industry". All organisations—large, medium or small—which operate regularly as a `business unit' of the UK economy, and which can meet the criteria, are eligible to apply; they do not need to be sponsored or nominated and usually apply on their own behalf.

  The Queen's Award has three separate categories: International Trade, which recognises and rewards not only export earnings but any return on overseas investment; Innovation, which covers marketing, sales and support associated with technological innovation; and Sustainable Development, which spans environmental, social, and economic sustainability. The common theme across all three categories is that successful applicants must be able to demonstrate commercial success.

  Successful applicants are notified in March to allow the media to prepare publicity, under embargo, ahead of the public announcement on 21 April; The Queen's personal birthday. In early April, all unsuccessful applicants receive feedback on the assessment of their applications. The names of all the winners are published in a supplement to the London Gazette, they appear on The Queen's Awards website (www.queensawards.org.uk), and are listed in special supplements in The Times, Financial Times, and other broadsheet newspapers.

  Following the announcement, in April, winners are usually invited to a celebratory reception, attended by a member of the Royal family, to mark their success. Later in the year, winners are invited to send three representatives to a reception given by HM The Queen at Buckingham Palace. There is also a formal presentation ceremony, usually during the summer, at the winners' premises by the Lord-Lieutenant of the County as The Queen's representative. All of these events help to
  520W
  generate national and regional coverage. The Awards consist of a Grant of Appointment and a presentational crystal bowl engraved with the Award Emblem.

  The Rosalind Franklin Award

  The DTI is promoting the Rosalind Franklin Award competition, which was announced last year by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to recognise the contribution of Rosalind Franklin to 20th century science. The Secretary of State officially launched the competition on 13 September 2002. It is being run by the Royal Society and encompasses all areas of science, engineering and technology. The Award consists of a medal and a cash award of £30,000 to be spent by the recipient on equipment, study tours or other research related activities. The winner of the first Award will be announced in the early part of 2003.

  The competition is open to both men and women who achieve excellence in their field. Therefore, the Award will help further the aims of the Department in:
  Increasing the participation of women in SET
  Improving the overall international ranking of the UK's science and engineering base

  STEP Solutions: Best Electronic Engineer (BEE) Awards 2002

  The DTI, in conjunction with STEP (Shell Technology Enterprise Programme) promoted the competition for the Best Electronic Engineer, 2002. The BEE final was in three key stages:
  agencies who had arranged electronic engineering projects nominated one candidate for consideration;
  Ten candidates were selected to present their achievements at an event in Newcastle on 10 October;
  Five students were selected to run an exhibition at the UK final at Church House, one of which was awarded the BEE prize.

  The cost of the Newcastle Final and the UK Final exhibition was £6,000. New Electronics sponsored the BEE prize of £1,000 and gave extensive coverage to the events in its Campus Edition. DTI tied in the events to the Department's overall promotion strategies, including the launch of the Accesstoknowledge website (www.accesstoknowledge.co.uk).

  Sunday Times 50 Best Companies to Work for 2001 and the Sunday Times 100 Best Companies to Work for 2002

  DTI supports the research for this annual list and allocated £370,000 over three years in 1999. The DTI renewed its funding for the research for the 2003 list and is exploring options for 2004.

  All organisations employing over 250 employees are eligible and, depending on size, approximately 10 per cent. of the work force will be surveyed. Results are announced at the Gala Winner Event hosted in February or March and a press release is produced post event, with a colour supplement circulated in the Sunday Times following the event.

  Young Electronics Designer Awards (YEDA)

  YEDA is aimed at young people between the ages of 12–25, at school, college or university. Students are invited to design and develop a commercially viable electronics-based device or system for use in an everyday context. Entries are judged on originality, satisfying a genuine need and market and manufacturing potential.
  521W
  The proposed targets for this year's competition as a result of DTI support is expected to be:

  3,500 schools registering

  500 projects entered

  750 students participating (23 per cent. girls)

  350 projects qualifying for regional awards finals

  The DTI has supported YEDA financially for three years, support for YEDA 2001 amounted to £30,000, for YEDA 2002 amounted to £36,500, for 2003 contributing £25,000.

  Cotton Importation
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps her Department is taking to establish a certification process for the import of cotton from the Democratic Republic of the Congo. [99715]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 3 March 2003]No steps are being taken to establish a certification process for the import of cotton from the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Trade measures such as the introduction of a certification regime on imported products fall within the competence of the European Community and not at UK level.

  Export Credit Guarantees
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which UK companies have received Export Credit Guarantees Department support relating to aviation development in Africa since 1997; and what the(a) location and (b) project type was in each case. [102795]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 14 March 2003]ECGD has provided support for one project relating to aviation development in Africa since 1997. Support was provided to Skanska Africa who were part of a consortium upgrading Kotoka International Airport in Accra, Ghana.

  ECGD has also supported a number of other aerospace related projects in Africa, including civil airliners and flight simulators.

  Import Controls (Congo)
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps are being taken to implement effective regulatory import controls on natural resources from the Democratic Republic of the Congo(a) directly and (b) via other states, to the UK; and if she will make a statement. [99716]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 3 March 2003]No steps are being taken to implement regulatory import controls on natural resources from the Democratic Republic of the Congo received into the UK directly or via other states. Trade measures such as regulatory import controls fall within the competence of the European Community and not at the UK level.

  Iraq (Falluja Chemical Plant)
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what(a) financial and (b) other assistance was
  522W
  given by the UK Government between 1980 and 1990 for the construction of the Falluja 2 chemical plant in Iraq; and if she will make a statement. [102434]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 12 March 2003]In 1985 the Export Credits Guarantee Department (ECGD) provided export credit insurance in support of a £15 million contract by UHDE Ltd., a UK subsidiary of a West German company, for the design supply and supervision of the erection and commissioning of a Chlorine-Alkali-Electrolysis plant at Falluja, Iraq.

  This contract was fully investigated in the 1996 report on the inquiry into the export of defence equipment and dual-use goods to Iraq and related prosecutions by the then Sir Richard Scott (now Lord Scott of Foscote) which concluded that "a unilateral ban by the UK on the export of such plant or chemicals to Iraq would have achieved nothing useful".

  Official Visits
  Dr. Ian Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to her answer of 3 March, ref. 99985, 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 the last six months. [101709]

  Ms Hewitt
  My noble Friend the Minister for Science, regularly meets representatives from various companies and institutions at his office in the Department of Trade and Industry and at other neutral venues, for example conference centres. We have defined the term 'visit' to mean an occasion when the event was hosted, wholly or in part, by the organisation at whose venue the event was held. This could mean that the Minister met at least one representative from the host organisation as part of the visit even if the actual event was for a different purpose.

  For example:
  10 September: University of Leicester (British Association Science Festival)—Leicester

  In the last six months, the Minister for Science has visited the following:

  Companies

  11 September: TAG McLaren Group—Woking, Surrey

  13 September: Micro Chemicals Systems Ltd.—Hull

  13 September: Reckitt Beckinser Healthcare Ltd.—Shine Knowledge and Innovation Park—Hull

  13 September: Europarc Innovation Centre—Hull

  19 September: Airbus UK—Filton, Bristol

  26 September: Peakdale Molecular Ltd.—Peakdale Science Park, High Peak

  16 October: Kent Innovation Centre—Broadstairs, Kent

  22 October: Panda Electronics Group—Nanjing, China

  28 October: SK Telecom—Seoul, South Korea

  8 November: Inmarsat Ltd.—London EC1

  22 November: COM DEV Europe Ltd.—Triangle Business Park, Aylesbury, Bucks

  23 January: Manchester Incubator Ltd.—Manchester Innovation Ltd.—Manchester

  23 January: Renovo Ltd.—Manchester

  23 January: Kaiku Ltd.—Manchester Science Park

  523W
  Universities:

  6 September: City University (International Spinal Research Trust's Conference)—London EC I

  10 September: University of Leicester (British Association Science Festival)—Leicester

  18 September: Imperial College (AURIL Conference)—South Kensington, London

  7 October: University of Surrey—Advanced Technology Institute and Centre for Vision—Guildford, Surrey

  10 October: Queen Mary College, University of London—Medical Engineering Laboratories—London, El

  23 October: Nanjing South East University—China

  23 October: Nanjing University—China

  20 November: University of Cambridge—Cambridge

  8 January: University of Surrey (Higher Education Working with Business and the

  Community Conference)—Guildford, Surrey

  13 January: Institute of Education, University of London—London, WC1

  16 January: London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine—London, WC1

  7 February: Cranfield University—Cranfield Innovation Centre—Cranfield, Bedfordshire

  12 February: University of Birmingham—School of Engineering—Birmingham

  17 February: London Metropolitan University—London El and N7

  26 February: University of Cambridge—Centre of Molecular Materials for Photonics and Electronics—Cambridge Science Park

  Organisations

  6 September: Engineering and Techonlogy Board—London, WC2

  9 September: Institute of Electrical Engineers—London, WC2

  20 September: The British Library—London, NW I

  Place

  Date

  Nature of visit

  Stockholm

  5–7 September 2002

  Speech—The Royal Institute of Technology: 175 year Jubilee

  Rayne Institute, 5 University Street, London WC 1E 6JJ

  9 September 2002

  Speech—Biomedical Society

  University of Leicester, University Road, Leicester

  12 September 2002

  Speech—BA Science Festival and tour

  Royal Society

  24 September 2002

  Lunch meeting with Lord May

  Washington DC, Boston, USA

  3–8 October 2002

  Speech; "Science in the UK Government—A View from the Centre", meet with key science figures in washington

  University of Sussex

  9 October 2002

  Speech—"The Marie Jahoda lecture" at SPRU

  Imperial College London

  28 October 2002

  Speech—Graduate School at Imperial College—"Science in the UK today"

  Unilever House, London

  27 November 2002

  Chairman's annual reception, Unilever

  South Africa

  3–8 December 2002

  Speech— "Public Communication of Science and Technology Conference", S&T promotion

  Royal Society, London

  9 January 2003

  Breakfast meeting with Lord May

  Cambridge

  6 February 2003

  Tour of the British Antarctic Survey

  London

  10 February 2003

  IEE board of Trustees' dinner

  Linacre College, Oxford

  13 February 2003

  Speech—"Linacre lecture"

  Federation House, London

  18 February 2003

  Speech—and dinner at the Food Association

  Belfast and Dublin

  19–20 February 2003

  Speech—"Science at a Nation's Core: A View From The Centre of Government"

  Chicago, St. Louis, Los Angeles, Santa Barbara, Washington DC, USA

  23–27 February 2003

  Speech, meeting government officials, promoting UK S&T and visiting major research facilities

  Brussels, Belgium

  4–5 March 2003

  Speech: "Fusion and the Energy Choices" for Europe Conference at the European Parliament, meeting the European Research Commissioner

  524W

  24 September: Darwin Centre—Natural History Museum, London, SW7

  25 September: The Carbon Trust—London, WC2

  4 October—The Ministry for Young People, Education and Research, with Mme Haignere, Minister for Space, Technology and Research—Paris, France

  14 October: Universities UK—London, WC1

  22 October: Jiangsu Software Park—Nanjing, China

  29 October: Korea Games Development Institute—Seoul, South Korea

  29 October: Seoul Metropolitan City Government—Seoul, South Korea

  31 October: The Royal Society (The Ninth Zuckerman Lecture)—London, SW1

  5 November: The British Bankers Association—London, EC1

  7 November: The Royal Society (Content Management Network Meeting)—London, SW1

  13 November—The Royal Aeronautical Society—London NW1

  20 November: Medical Research Council: Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit—Cambridge

  29 November: Culham Science Centre—Abingdon, Oxfordshire

  13 December: Daresbury Laboratory—Daresbury, Cheshire

  17 January: Nature Magazine—Exterior of founding Editor's house, London, SW5

  27 January: The Royal Society/The Daily Telegraph/Novartis `Scientists meet the media' reception at The Royal Society—London, SW1

  11 February: Institute of Electrical Engineers—London, WC2

  14 February: Institute of Electrical Engineers—London, WC2

  21 February: The Royal Society (The Engineer of the 21" Century Inquiry launch)—London, SW1

  26 February: The Royal Society (Athena Awards)—London, SW1

  The visits undertaken by Professor Sir David King during the period 5 September 2002 to 5 March 2003 were:
  525W
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to her answer of 3 March, 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 months. [102996]

  Ms Hewitt
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him today to question No. 101709.

  Overseas Trips
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list each of the overseas trips made by herself and other members of her ministerial team in 2002; and what the(a) purpose and (b) cost of each trip was. [101840]

  Ms Hewitt
  Since 1999 this Government have published an annual list of all visits overseas undertaken by Cabinet Ministers costing £500 or more during each financial year. The Government have also published on an annual basis the cost of all Ministers' visits overseas. Copies of the lists are available in the Libraries of the House.

  Information for 1997–98 was included in the 1999 list. The overall cost of Minister's visits for the years 1995–96 and 1996–97 was most recently provided with the 2001 list. The information for 2002–03 will be published as soon as possible after the end of the financial year.

  Detailed information requested in respect of UK travel is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  All travel is undertaken fully in accordance with the rules set out in the Ministerial Code and Travel by Ministers, copies of which are available in the Libraries of the House.

  Perchloroethylene
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to phase out the use of perchloroethylene by businesses and industries, with particular reference to dry cleaners. [99209]

  Alun Michael
  1 have been asked to reply.

  A risk assessment of perchloroethylene (tetrachloroethylene), conducted under the Existing Substances Regulation (European Community Council Regulation No. 793/93) is being led by the United Kingdom. The Health and Safety Executive acts jointly with my Department to form the United Kingdom Competent Authority for these activities. The risk assessment will critically evaluate the risks to the environment, workers, consumers and the general public from exposure to perchloroethylene. The risk assessment includes exposure as a result of dry cleaning operations.

  At present, the human health sections of the draft report are being updated to take account of new information. Once the risk assessment is finalised, the United Kingdom Competent Authority will consider whether further measures beyond those currently in place are required to control exposure to perchloroethylene. Proposals for marketing and use
  526W
  restrictions are one of a number of further measures that can be considered under the Existing Substances Regulation.

  The Solvents Emissions Directive (1999/13/EC) places limits on emissions of solvents used in a number of processes, including dry cleaning. It also sets timetables for the replacement by less harmful substances of those solvents used in these processes that have been assigned to a risk phrase of R45, R46, R49, R60, or R61. The Directive has already been partly transposed. I expect to begin consultations soon on how the remaining parts of this Directive will be transposed, including the provisions applying to the dry cleaning sector.

  Post Offices
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many(a) Crown Post Offices and (b) sub post offices have closed in London in the past 12 months. [103030]

  Mr. Timms
  I understand from Post Office Ltd. that there were 2 Crown Post Offices closures and net closures of 34 sub post offices in London in the 12 months to December 2002.

  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) how many post office robberies have been committed since 1997 where the post master's hatch has been open; and what advice has been given to the Post Office by(a) the police and (b) the Department on the security of the hatches in sub post offices; [103099]

  (2) how many sub post masters have been disciplined for contributory negligence in relation to robberies since 1997; [103097]

  (3) what concerns have been expressed by unions about the design of safety doors and hatches in sub post offices; and what advice has been given to the Post Office since 1980 on possible design faults in sub post office hatches and doors. [103098]

  Mr. Timms
  These are matters that fall within the day-to-day responsibility of Post Office Ltd. I have therefore asked the Chief Executive to reply direct to the hon. Member.

  Scotland
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many special advisers in the Department(a) have left and (b) will be leaving to work in Scotland for the Labour Party in the forthcoming Scottish parliamentary elections. [103613]

  Ms Hewitt
  None.

DEFENCE

  Aberporth Airfield
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many incidents have occurred in each year since 1990 of private pilots intruding into the range area at Aberporth Airfield while the range was active and being used on behalf of the MOD. [102825]
  527W
  Dr. Moonie
  The following table sets out the number of incidents that have occurred since 1990 of private pilots intruding into the Aberporth Range danger area while the range was active and being used for Ministry of Defence trials.

  Year

  Number of incidents

  1990

  3

  1991

  1

  1992

  5

  1993

  3

  1994

  5

  1995

  8

  1996

  5

  1997

  1

  1998

  5

  1999

  2

  2000

  5

  2001

  5

  2002

  3

  Appropriate safety measures were put into action and worked satisfactorily in each case.

  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what safety measures are in place at Aberporth Airfield to ensure that private pilots do not intrude on the range area while it is being used on behalf of the MOD; and if he will make a statement. [102826]

  Dr. Moonie
  All trials at Aberporth Range are carried out under radar surveillance from fully qualified air traffic controllers. In the event of an infringement which could potentially compromise safety, the trial would be stopped until the incident was resolved. Any such infringements are reported to the regulatory authority for review. In addition, there are arrangements, agreed between the Aberporth Range and the nearby West Wales Airport, which set out the procedures to be used by both parties concerning operations at and around the range.

  Animal Experiments
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what factors underlay his recent conclusion that the information which could be derived from an analysis of the actual effect of wounds to humans required to be supplemented with animal experiments inflicting wounds on animals. [100404]

  Dr. Moonie
  It is unclear as to the recent conclusion that the hon. Member refers.

  However, I will address the necessity to supplement the analysis of the effects of human wounds with vital information gained from scientific research involving the use of animals, which is undertaken at Dstl Porton Down.

  The analysis of the actual effects of wounds to humans is one important facet of developing improved procedures for the medical management of the injured. Studies involving animals enable rational, objective and evidence-based medical management strategies to be developed, which can proceed into clinical trials if appropriate.
  528W
  Research involving the use of animals is undertaken only if absolutely necessary. Additionally, we are continuing to invest in the development of alternatives to the use of animals for the development of medical management strategies for injury and disease caused by conventional, chemical and biological weapons.

  Anti-personnel Mines
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether it is the intention of the US to bring anti-personnel mines ashore onto Diego Garcia in order for them to be used in any attack on Iraq. [102350]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I have been asked to reply.

  The US authorities have been informed that HMG would be unable to allow the US to bring anti-personnel land mines ashore onto Diego Garcia because that would place the United Kingdom in breach of its obligations under the Ottawa Convention.

  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received from the US Government concerning(a) the basing at Diego Garcia of US Navy vessels carrying anti-personnel mines and (b) the possible use in a conflict with Iraq of anti-personnel mines by US military using stocks held in vessels at or near Diego Garcia. [102353]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I have been asked to reply.

  HMG has received no representations from the US Government concerning either the basing at Diego Garcia of US vessels carrying anti-personnel mines or the use of any such mines in a conflict with Iraq.

  Defence Diversification Industry
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his Answer of 13 February,Official Report, column 867W, on the Defence Diversification Industry, where the 18 offices of the Defence Diversification Agency are located. [102406]

  Dr. Moonie
  The 18 offices of the Defence Diversification Agency are located as follows:

  Area

  Aberporth

  Ministry of Defence

  Barrow

  Furness Business Park

  Bromley

  Aquila, QinetiQ

  Cardiff

  Welsh Development Agency

  Doncaster

  Beta Technology Ltd.

  Enfield

  Innova Science Park

  Farnborough

  Cody Technology Park, QinetiQ

  Glasgow

  West of Scotland Science Park

  Lisburn, NI

  Invest Northern Ireland

  Loughborough

  University Business Innovation Centre

  Malvern

  Malvern Hills Science Park

  Manchester

  Quay West

  Melbourn

  Cambridge Technology Centre

  Nelson

  The Innovation Centre

  Porton Down

  DSTL

  Plymouth

  Tamar Science Park

  Rosyth

  Europarc Business Innovation Centre

  Sunderland

  Regional Technology Centre North

  Defence Medical Services
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of the Defence Medical Services are available for operational duty within the United Kingdom. [82157]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 21 November 2003]As of July 2002, there were 6,489 regular personnel in the Defence Medical Services (DMS) excluding student nurses and other new entry trainees. Of these, at any one time some will be unavailable for operational duty within the United Kingdom as a result of medical downgrading. As of November 2002, the latest date for which figures are available, 131 were unavailable for such duty as a result of medical downgrading. In practice, the number of DMS personnel available for operational duty in the United Kingdom will depend on other commitments including deployment on overseas operations, training and exercises, and retained tasks.

  Diego Garcia
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how far British territory extends around Diego Garcia. [102349]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I have been asked to reply.

  Diego Garcia has a territorial sea of three nautical miles.

  Field Hospital Volunteers
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 16 January,Official Report, column 7050, on field hospital volunteers, if he will give the most recent available figures. [102563]

  Dr. Moonie
  As of Tuesday 11 March 2003, 167 members of 202 (Volunteer) Field Hospital have been called up. Of those, 83 individuals do not work for the National Health Service (NHS), instead working either in private health care, or in areas unrelated to health. The remaining 84 individuals are currently employed by the NHS, in the following facilities:Berkshire Healthcare Trust; Birmingham Children's Hospital; Birmingham Heartlands; Teaching; Birmingham Women's Hospital; N Birmingham Mental Health; Christie Hospital Trust; City Hospitals Trust; Dorset Healthcare Trust; Frimley Park Hospital Trust; George Eliot Hospital Trust; Good Hope Hospital Trust; Kingston Hospital Trust; Lothian University Hospitals; Medical Staff Agency; National Blood Service; Newcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals; Oxford Radcliffe Trust; Palliative Care; Primary Care Trust; Princess Royal Hospital; Royal Berkshire Trust; Royal Shrewsbury Trust; Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust; Sandwell and West Midlands; Staffordshire Trust; N Staffs Hospitals Trust; University Hospital Trust; W Midland Ambulance Trust; Walsall Hospitals Trust; New Cross Hospital; West Heath Hospital; Alexandra Hospital; Beccles War Memorial Hospital; Wycombe General Hospital; Walsgrave Hospital.

  The 84 individuals called up work in a variety of roles within the NHS, including:
  Nurses; Biomedical Scientist; Midwifes; Medical Officers; Medical Technicians; Doctor; Surgeons; Acting Chef Executive; Consultants; Surgeons; Physicians; Physiotherapists; Senior House Officers; Driver; Radiographer; Pharmacist.

  Gulf Forces (Equipment)
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many sets of sand goggles have been sent to troops serving in the Gulf; and if he will make a statement. [103018]

  Mr. Ingram
  25,000 pairs of desert goggles have been ordered to meet the requirements of troops deployed to Kuwait with 21,380 pairs having so far been issued. Sufficient stocks of the full desert ensemble have been ordered to meet requirements.

  Iraq
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) British field hospitals and (b) other British medical facilities will be established in the Gulf in the event of conflict in Iraq. [102374]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 11 March 2003]There has been no decision to take military action against Iraq. However, in the event of conflict, there are currently two British Field Hospitals in the Gulf and this will shortly increase to three. These will be supported by a range of medical facilities in the region, including a primary casualty receiving facility, the RFA Argus and The Princess Mary's Hospital in Cyprus.

  Land Sales (Ashford)
  Matthew Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 24 February 2003,Official Report, columns 138–39W, on Land Sales (Ashford), when each sale took place; what area of land was sold; who the land was sold to; and how much the land was sold for in each case. [102658]

  Dr. Moonie
  Oil Pipeline Agency Wye was sold to Folkestone Development Company Limited on 21 November 2001. The price paid was £605,000 plus clawback on receipt of a planning consent. The land measured 7.3acres/2.954 hectares.

  The A20/A28 link road land, which was part of Ashford barracks, was sold on 28 July 1998 to Kent County Council. The price paid was a nominal sum plus the right to construct a roundabout to open up Ashford barracks for improved development. The area measured 5.48 acres/2.219 hectares.

  The land in Ashford barracks that was needed for the channel tunnel rail link was transferred to Union Rail. Payment of £1.4 million compensation has been received. The "sale" was deemed to be completed in 1998 when the site was handed over to Union Rail and the site measured 30 acres/12 hectares.

  The remainder of Ashford barracks was sold to a house builder consortium of Westbury Homes/Wimpy in April 2002. The price was £17 million plus potential clawback. The site area was 95.13 acres/38.5 hectares.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many complaints regarding low flying have been received from residents of Dumfries and Galloway in each of the last six months. [103049]
  531W
  Dr. Moonie
  During the period 1 September 2002–28 February 2003, a total of 40 complaints were received from residents of Dumfries and Galloway by the Ministry of Defence. Of these, 22 were from members of the public who complained on more than one occasion during this period. Broken down on a monthly basis, the figures are as follows:

  Month

  Complainsts

  September 2002

  11

  October 2002

  16

  November 2002

  2

  December 2002

  6

  January 2003

  3

  February 2003

  2

  MOD Ranges (Security)
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his policy is on minimum standards of security for part-time MOD ranges. [103050]

  Dr. Moonie
  In general, security at Ministry of Defence (MOD) ranges is provided in accordance with their use and purpose, taking account of the prevailing threat assessment. When ranges are temporarily in use by military personnel, the standards for security of personnel and their equipment, is the same as those which apply at permanent MOD establishments and sites. Some ranges, for example the one at West Freugh, are MOD owned but managed by QinetiQ, a commercial company. Security at these sites is the responsibility of the contractor, and is normally implemented by a civilian guard force, supported by the local constabulary. As a commercial company, QinetiQ complies with Government-wide security regulations issued by the Cabinet Office, rather than with MOD security procedures. MOD reserves the right, however, to take such additional measures as we consider necessary to protect our Service personnel and materiel when making use of these ranges.

  I am withholding details of security measures implemented within the MOD, under Exemption 1 of Part II of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  NBC Suits
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the respirators on NBC suits issued to UK servicemen in the Gulf have been checked for effectiveness; and if he will make a statement. [103017]

  Mr. Ingram
  All NBC respirators issued to service personnel are periodically tested during training in a Hazardous Environment Chamber to ensure they function correctly and are the correct size for the individual concerned. A new Respirator Test System is being delivered into service. It allows respirators—including those issued to deployed personnel—to be tested to an even higher standard.

  Operational Welfare Package
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what arrangements have been made for(a) mail and
  532W
  (b) parcel deliveries for troops in Kuwait; and what arrangements have been made for (a) telephone and (b) email availability for these troops. [102697]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 13 March 2003]All elements of the Operational Welfare Package (OWP) listed by the hon. Member are provided to all United Kingdom military personnel already deployed to the Gulf in support of Operations RESIN ATE and ORACLE. We are building up the OWP as quickly as possible for UK military personnel deploying overseas in preparation for possible operations against Iraq.

  QinetiQ
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the proposed sale by QinetiQ of Longcross Tanklands to Crest and Mowlem Ltd. [101653]

  Dr. Moonie
  We understand that Longcross Tanklands is an informal local term used to describe a former test track, which forms part of what the Ministry of Defence and QinetiQ know as the Chertsey South site. The freehold of the Chertsey site was transferred to QinetiQ when the company was vested as a Plc in July 2001 and is scheduled for disposal. Negotiations are currently underway with potential purchasers.

  Under the terms of the deal signed with The Carlyle Group to acquire a stake in QinetiQ, the Chertsey site forms security against an outstanding loan note from QinetiQ to MOD. QinetiQ will receive no proceeds from the sale of the site until the loan note is repaid in full.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the financial contracts entered into by his Department since 1 January 2002 where QinetiQ have acted as advisors to the Government. [102483]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Department places a large number of contracts each year with QinetiQ—in excess of 1,000 in calendar year 2002. These contracts typically cover a number of tasks, which may include the provision of impartial specialist technical and scientific advice, conducting independent research and the supply of testing and evaluation services. There is no centrally held list identifying all the specific instances in which QinetiQ has acted as advisers and such information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Recruitment and Retention
  Mr. Paul Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what methods are used by the Ministry of Defence to forecast(a) social trends and (b) risks in relation to (i) recruitment and (ii) retention; and if he will make a statement. [100173]

  Dr. Moonie
  The armed forces employ a number of methods to identify and assess factors—including social trends and risks—that impact on recruitment and retention. The Department has its own analytical capability situated in the Defence Analytical and Services Agency, where much of this groundwork is undertaken. Social trends are identified primarily through commissioned research. This provides access to a wide range of research information across Government Departments, for example labour trends, demography, and census statistics. Targeted research
  533W
  contracts are also placed, as necessary, to improve our understanding of the employment market in which we compete. Recruiting risks are identified from this research and from very close scrutiny of the emerging performance of the recruiting machine.

  As far as retention is concerned, a key part of the pay and workforce strategy for the armed forces is the identification of high level risks and the levers that can be used to ameliorate those risks. Within that strategy, underpinning policies are reviewed in the light of evidence obtained both from routine surveys (for example Continuous Attitude Surveys) and from discrete research on specific topics.

  Security Vetting
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what security vetting is carried out on consultants employed by MoD. [102549]

  Dr. Moonie
  Consultants employed by the Ministry of Defence to work with protectively marked information or materials, or who will require access to Defence facilities, are security cleared in accordance with the Government's vetting policy. The level of security clearance will depend on the nature of the work involved, as judged by the sponsor.

  Wage Bill
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what financial savings were made to the overall wage bill between 1 April 2001 and 1 April 2002 due to the introduction of Pay 2000 for soldiers, sailors and airmen; and if he will make a statement; [102612]

  (2) what the projected savings are in the period 1 April 2001 to 1 April 2010 in the wage bill due to the introduction of Pay 2000 for soldiers, sailors and airmen; and if he will make a statement. [102610]

  Dr. Moonie
  There are no actual or projected savings for the period 1 April 2001 to 1 April 2010 in the wage bill of the armed forces as a result of the introduction of Pay 2000 for Service personnel. Pay 2000 was introduced in April 2001 to provide a more responsive pay system for the needs of Service personnel—up to and including one-star level—serving in the 21st century. It was not intended to be a cost saving measure.

TRANSPORT

  Congestion Charging
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the impact of the London congestion charge on economic activity in London; and if he will make a statement. [101907]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Mayor and Transport for London (TfL) will monitor the scheme's effects, including its impact on business and the economy, and the Department will consider fully the results of this work.

  Airports
  Mr. John Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what implications the inclusion in his re-issued airport consultation document of possible 534W
  expansion of Gatwick airport has for prospective levels of demand for civil aviation services out of Birmingham airport. [102899]

  Mr. Jamieson
  It is the number of runways in the south east of England, rather than their location, which significantly affects the levels of demand at Birmingham International Airport.

  Therefore, the inclusion of Gatwick options in the ongoing consultation does not alter the forecast levels of demand for Birmingham.

  Mr. John Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what guidance he plans to issue to residents of the Midlands region on the account they should take of his re-issued airports consultation document for the south east in returning their revised questionnaires in respect of airports in the midlands. [102898]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We are writing to all consultees previously contacted directly, and those who have submitted responses, to inform them of minor revisions to the midlands consultation paper. The sole revision to the midlands questionnaire is the addition of 'Gatwick airport' to question 4(b).

  All responses received so far will continue to be regarded as responses to the consultation. Respondents have the option to add to, replace or amend their responses, if they wish to.

  Automated Traffic Management
  Mr. David Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress he has made in establishing the proposed automated traffic management system for the west midlands motorways(a) M5, (b) M6, (c) M40, (d) M42 and (e) M54. [102855]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The west midlands area multi modal-study, which is currently being considered by the Secretary of State, recommends the use of active traffic management (ATM) on the west midlands motorway box (M42 junctions 1–7, M5 junctions 1–4A and M6 junctions 4–10A) as part of the overall strategy. I refer to the announcement made by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport, on 27 July 2001 that junctions 3A to 7 of the M42 have been chosen as a trial site for active traffic management (ATM). The outcome of the trial will be assessed very thoroughly before any decision is taken about application to other motorway links on the west midlands motorway box.

  Bus Services
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many bus services were operated from(a) Tadcaster and (b) Selby on the most recent date for which figures are available. [103139]

  Mr. Jamieson
  On Thursday 13 March 2003 104 bus services were scheduled to operate from Tadcaster and 176 from Selby.

  Car Number Plate Reader Project
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency's automatic number plate reader project. [102787]
  535W
  Mr. Jamieson
  DVLA currently has 11 automatic number plate reader vans in operation across the UK, with a further four becoming available by mid 2003. They form part of the Agency's deterrent to combat vehicle excise duty (VED) evasion and were first introduced on a phased basis in October 2001.

  The vans are continually involved in joint police/DVLA VED enforcement campaigns. They attract useful media coverage and receive positive support from the motoring public.

  Over the last year the automatic number plate readers have provided DVLA with 30,000 VED offence reports.

  Departmental Spending
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what his latest estimate is of the spending funded by his Department and its predecessors on(a) railways, (b) trunk roads (maintenance), (c) trunk roads (new build), (d) local roads, (e) London Transport, (f) aviation and (g) buses, in each year from 1990–91 (planned) to 2005–06 (planned); and if he will make a statement. [101638]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Information on these programmes between 1990–91 and 2003–04 is set out in the relevant expenditure tables of the annual departmental reports for the Department of Transport, the Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions, and the Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions, although not on a comparable basis across the entire period. Updated information for the Department for Transport, with plans to 2005–06, will be published in the 2003 departmental report shortly.

  Hydraulic Tail Lifts
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it a requirement(a) that vehicles with hydraulic tail lifts should clearly display the weight of such lifts and (b) that notices should be displayed on vehicles warning that the weight of such lifts has to be included in the calculation for the legal permitted weight load capacity; and if he will make a statement. [103091]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 require that the maximum weight that a vehicle can operate at is to be displayed on a plate fixed to it. This weight will include that of any equipment fitted to the vehicle and load carried on it. The Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998 require all lifting equipment and lifting accessories to be marked with a safe working load. Tail lifts do not normally carry any load while the vehicle is travelling on a road.

  London Underground
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the main problems are which the shadow running of the London Underground PPP has highlighted; and if he will make a statement. [101320]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government understand that London Underground Ltd. has made some limited changes to the contracts, including in respect of performance management and the way access is granted to the infrastructure, as a result of shadow running.
  536W
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to his answer of 10 March, ref 101751, what indirect role the Government have played in assisting London Underground PPP consortia to obtain(a) grants and (b) loans from (i) the European Investment bank and (ii) other financial institutions; and if he will make a statement. [102816]

  Mr. Jamieson
  As I said in my earlier reply, the method by which the consortia finance their obligations under the PPP, and how they raise the necessary funding, is a matter for them.

  The minutes that my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions presented to Parliament on 20 March last year and that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport made to Parliament on 4 December drew Parliament's attention to certain letters to be issued and steps to be taken in order to enable the PPP contracts to proceed. Factual explanations of the matters set out in the letters have been given to some financial institutions, including the EIB, in response to requests.

  M60 (Compensation)
  Andrew Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether all the compensation to householders resulting from the construction of the M60 has been paid; what steps are in place to reduce the fees for agents involved in these pay outs; and whether claimants will be paid interest on late pay outs. [102642]

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

  Letter from Tim Matthews to Andrew Bennett, dated 17 March 2003:
  I have been asked by the Transport Minister, David Jamieson, to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking if all the compensation to householders resulting from the construction of the M60 had been paid; if there are any steps in place to reduce fees for agents and if claimants are being paid interest for late pay outs.
  I believe that you are referring primarily to compensation under Part I of the Land Compensation Act 1973 (as amended). Such claims, for the depreciation in the value of property arising from the use of a new or altered highway, can be made for a period of 6 years from the first claim date which falls 12 months after the road is opened to traffic. In the case of the M60 Manchester Outer Ring Road construction was undertaken in four contracts, resulting in a variety of claim periods.
  The main body of construction work (Contracts l&3) led to the road being opened on 30 October 2000 and a first claim date of 30 October 2001. We have received over 14,000 claims to date and continue to receive them at the rate of approximately 300 per month Around 1,000 claims have been settled so far. On Contract 4, for which the claim period closed last month, we have 22 cases awaiting settlement. Another 322 cases remain unsettled on Contract 2, for which the claim period remains open until December 2004. In all cases interest, calculated from the date the claim is received (or the first claim date, if later) until the date that compensation is paid, is added to the compensation.
  In addition to Part 1 compensation, we have also compensated people for the acquisition of land and property in connection with the construction of the road. Around 200 such cases have yet to be finalised. In these types of cases interest, calculated from the date of entry on to the land until the date that compensation is paid, is added to the compensation.

  537W
  Following the abolition of the non statutory Ryde's Scale, which fixed surveyors fees in proportion to the level of compensation paid, claimants' surveyors must now demonstrate that the fees proposed have been properly incurred, are reasonable and proportionate to both the compensation at stake and the complexity of the claim, and commensurate with the time, effort and expertise required to deal with the case.

  Railways
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to announce his decision on the Central Railway Project. [103060]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on 11 March,Official Report, column 120W.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the credit rating is of Network Rail. [101196]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Network Rail expects to secure ratings later this year.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when safety liaison meetings between ASLEF, management and other partners took place in each of the last five years; and what the normal frequency of such meetings should be. [102395]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) advise that meetings between managers, safety representatives and trade union representatives are important in ensuring the discharge of the legal duty under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 requiring employers to provide such information, instruction, training and supervision as is necessary to ensure the health and safety of their employees. HSE however do not hold details of the dates of such meetings.

  Senior management of the HSE Railway Inspectorate (HMRI) hold regular meetings with the general secretaries of all the principal rail unions to discuss issues of strategic safety importance. 'These meetings are held 2–3 times a year. These high level meetings are complemented by a wide range of local liaison initiatives with ASLEF officials and Trade Union members, including regular local meetings between HMRI inspectors and trade union officials. Details of local liaison meetings are not held centrally.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with LUL about the restoration of services on the(a) Waterloo and City line and (b) Central line. [102396]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My right hon. Friend and ministerial colleagues meet London Underground representatives on both a regular and ad hoc basis, to discuss a variety of relevant matters.

  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the(a) Trans-Pennine rail franchise and (b) Northern franchise. [103137]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Strategic Rail Authority is replacing the existing First North Western and Arriva Trains Northern franchises by reconfigured TransPennine Express and Northern franchises. Connex Transport UK Limited and a consortium of FirstGroup and Keolis SDA have been short-listed as bidders for the TransPennine 538W
  Express franchise. Expressions of interest have been invited for the Northern franchise and the firms pre-qualified to receive invitations to tender will be announced later this year.

  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps the Strategic Rail Authority plans to take regarding Virgin Trains' recent announcement on changes to the timetable in services in Gloucester; and whether this is in breach of the passenger service requirements. [103345]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The increased timetable which Virgin Cross Country introduced in October 2002 has proved to be unworkable in various respects. The Strategic Rail Authority has agreed timetable changes, including changes affecting Gloucester, and is granting the necessary derogations from the passenger service requirements. The aim is to improve the performance and reliability of services overall. At Gloucester the withdrawal of Virgin Cross Country services (save for one morning and one evening peak service to Birmingham) will be offset by a new, more reliable pattern of services operated variously by Central Trains, Wessex Trains and Wales and Borders.

  Road Building
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what his estimate is of the total cost to the Government of all central Government funded new road building in each year from 2001–02 to 2010–11; and if he will make a statement. [101532]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The 10-Year Plan for Transport provided for investment of £15 billion over 10 years for roads in England. This investment is for new roads and the improvement of existing roads through widening and junction improvements. It is funded directly and indirectly by central government through the Highways Agency, local authorities and makes use of private finance.

  A year by year breakdown is as follows:

  Investment in new roads

  £ million

  Public

  Private

  2001–02

  714

  73

  2002–03

  1,005

  73

  2003–04

  1,001

  62

  2004–05

  1,332

  150

  2005–06

  1,084

  325

  2006–07

  1,217

  425

  2007–08

  1,366

  400

  2008–09

  1,693

  300

  2009–10

  1,778

  200

  2010–11

  1,825

  200

  Total

  13,015

  2,208

  Actual expenditure will depend upon the schemes that come forward as well as the planning process.

  Roads in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are the responsibility of the devolved Administrations.

  Road Safety (Traffic Counters)
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received concerning the road safety implications of the use of Nu-Metrics Hi-Star traffic counters installed in road surfaces. [102838]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The British Motorcyclists Federation has written to my Department expressing concern for the safety of powered two wheel vehicles passing over this device, asking in particular whether it needed "type approval". My officials have met the importers of the device. Having examined a sample, they consider that it does not require type approval. It is for the relevant highway authority to consider whether and how such counters should be used on their roads.

  Vehicle Emmissions
  Dr. Andrew Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the Road Traffic (Vehicle Emissions) (Fixed Penalty) (England) Regulations 2002; [103552]

  (2) how many fixed penalty notices have been issued under the Road Traffic (Vehicle Emissions) (Fixed Penalty) (England) Regulations 2002. [103553]

  Mr. Jamieson
  It is too early to determine the effectiveness of these regulations. However we will review them in July 2004, after which I will report our conclusions to the House.

  We do not keep records of fixed penalties that have been issued. However I understand that none has been issued under these regulations for idling engine offences and only five for illegal emissions offences. The intention of the regulations was that the fixed penalties should provide a deterrent.

TREASURY

  Al-Qaeda
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what funds belonging to al-Qaeda network have been frozen since September 2001. [102690]

  Ruth Kelly
  As I indicated in my written answer of 18 February 2003,Official Report, column 184W, to the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk), more than £10 million has been frozen by UK financial institutions since 11 September 2001 under Orders applying United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1267 and 1390. Funds used by the Taliban have since been made available to the legitimate Government of Afghanistan. However the al-Qaeda and Taliban (United Nations Measures) Order provides for the continued freezing of accounts belonging to al-Qaeda. UK financial institutions indicate that amounts totalling £337,900 remain frozen under that Order.

  Charities (VAT)
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to introduce VAT recovery relief for charities. [103554]
  540W
  John Healey
  Charities benefit from special VAT zero rates and exemptions worth around £200 million a year. However, long-standing formal agreements with our European partners mean there is no scope to extend the range of these reliefs or introduce any new ones.

  The Government recognise the valuable contribution that voluntary groups and charities make in delivering services, and realise that the question of irrecoverable VAT provides difficulties for some charities. The Review of Charity Taxation looked carefully at the problem of irrecoverable VAT and concluded, for reasons of principle and affordability that no changes should be made. In response to representations during the recent Cross-Cutting Review of the Role of the Voluntary and Community Sector in Service Delivery, the Government considered the issue afresh to determine once and for all whether the obstacles presented by irrecoverable VAT could be overcome. Having considered all the options available, including a targeted compensation fund, the Government concluded that no fundamental change should be made to the way the VAT system operates and the available resources would be better deployed through the new investment fund, futurebuilders'. This is a one-off £125 million investment, over the three years of the 2002 Spending Review. specifically to assist voluntary and community sector service-providing organisations in their public service work. The Treasury is leading on the design of luturebuilders' in close co-operation with the voluntary and community sector, and the Government intend to conduct wide consultation between April and June this year.

  Earnings
  Mr. Adrian Sanders
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his estimate is of the percentage of the workforce earning below(a) £75, (b) £100, (c) £120, (d) £150, (e) £175, (f) £200, (g) £225, (h) £250, (i) £275, (j) £300, (k) £325, (l) £350, (m) £375 and (n) £400 per week within each parliamentary constituency. [100398]

  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 Adrian Sanders, dated 17 March 2003:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question on the percentage of the workforce earning below various levels within each parliamentary constituency.
  I am placing the requested information in the House of Commons Library. The tables provided show the proportion of people earning below the different thresholds you listed. Some of the data requested have been suppressed in the answer. This is because the New Earnings Survey (NES) has not been designed to provide estimates at this very detailed level.
  The NES can provide earnings data for small geographical areas. The release of NES data is restricted to figures that are derived from a sufficiently large sample of employees, and have an acceptable level of accuracy. I have provided the available data only for the constituencies where the samples are large enough. These are based on the 2002 NES, the latest survey for which data are available.

  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of full-time workers in(a) Scotland, (b) each of the unitary local authority

  541W
  areas in Scotland and (c) Great Britain have hourly earnings gross pay (i) including and (ii) excluding overtime below (a) £7.97, (B) £7.32, (C) £5.38 and (D) £4.10 for the categories (1) male manual, (2) male non-manual, (3) all male workers, (4) female manual, (5) female non-manual, (6) all female workers, (7) all manual, (8) non-manual and (9) all workers. [99977]

  Ruth Kelly
  [holding answer 3 March 2003]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Annabelle Ewing dated 17 March 2003:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question on the distribution of average hourly earnings for workers in Great Britain, Scotland and the unitary authorities in Scotland. (99977)
  I am placing the requested information in the House of Commons Library. The tables provided show the proportion of people earning below the different thresholds you listed, both including overtime (Table 1) and excluding overtime (Table 2). Some of the data requested have been suppressed in the answer. This is because the New Earnings Survey (NES) has not been designed to provide estimates at this very detailed level.
  The NES can provide earnings data for small geographical areas. The release of NES data is restricted to figures that are derived from a sufficiently large sample of employees, and have an acceptable level of accuracy and I have provided the available data for Scotland, the unitary authorities in Scotland and Great Britain only for those areas where the samples arc large enough. These are based on the 2002 NES, the latest survey for which data are available.

  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list for(a) Scotland and (b) each of the unitary local authority areas in Scotland (i) weekly median earnings and (ii) the per cent. distribution of earnings for those earning (A) under the point below which 10 per cent. of earners fall and (B) the point above which 10 per cent. of earners exceed, broken down by the categories (1) all manual, (2) all non-manual, (3) all workers, (4) male manual, (5) male non-manual, (6) all male workers, (7) female manual, (8) female non-manual and (9) all female workers [99978]

  Ruth Kelly
  [holding answer 3 March 2003]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Annabelle Ewing dated 17 March 2003:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question on the distribution of weekly earnings for workers in Scotland and the unitary authorities in Scotland. (99978)
  I am placing the requested information in the House of Commons Library. The tables provided show median weekly earnings including and excluding overt [me and the earnings at which 10 per cent. of people earn more and 10 per cent. earn less. Some of the data requested have been suppressed in the answer. This is because the New Earnings Survey (NES) has not been designed to provide estimates at this very detailed level.
  The NES can provide earnings data for small geographical areas. The release of NES data is restricted to figures that are derived from a sufficiently large sample of employees, and have an acceptable level of accuracy and I have provided the available data for Scotland and the unitary authorities in Scotland only for those areas where the samples are large enough. These are based on the 2002 NES, the latest survey for which data are available.

  Euro
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his answer of 20 January 2003,Official Report, column 54W, on the euro, when his Department plans to conduct the next survey of small and medium-sized companies; and if he will make a statement. [102891]

  Ruth Kelly
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answers I gave him on 13 January 2003,Official Report, columns 414–15W, 20 January 2003, Official Report, column 54W and 3 February 2003, Official Report, column 29W.

  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has made or plans to make an assessment of the optimum exchange rate for the United Kingdom to join the euro. [102925]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government have consistently made clear that they will complete a comprehensive and rigorous assessment of the five economic tests within two years of the start of this Parliament.

  As set out in the paper of 6 September 2002 for the Treasury Committee on the Treasury's approach to the preliminary and technical work, a number of supporting studies will be published alongside the assessment of the five economic tests. A supporting study will be published "Analysing different approaches to the sustainable real exchange rate".

  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the level of European economic reform described in the report Meeting the Challenge: Economic Reform in Europe will be taken into consideration when making an assessment of the second test for euro entry. [102929]

  Ruth Kelly
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 11 March 2003,Official Report, column 126W.

  House Price Inflation
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of house price inflation in each year since 1997. [102924]

  Ruth Kelly
  HM Treasury do not estimate house price inflation. National house price indices are available from the Office for the Deputy Prime Minister, the Nationwide and the Halifax. ODPM: http://www.housing.odpm.gov.uk/statistics/live/index.htmtthm Nationwide: http://www.nationwide.co.uk/hpi/ Halifax: http://www.hbosplc.com/view/housepriceindex/historical dataspreadsheet. asp

  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent discussions officials from his Department have had with representatives of(a) building societies, (b) the estate agent industry and (c) consumer groups on (i) the state of the housing market and (ii) future estimates of house price inflation; and if he will make a statement. [102928]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Chancellor regularly meets representatives of a wide range of organisations to discuss important economic issues.

  Iraq
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what provision he has made for the cost of war with Iraq. [103450]

  Mr. Boateng
  I refer the hon. Lady to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Llew Smith) on 12 March 2003,Official Report, column 283W.

  Personal Income
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what(a) the average gross income and (b) the average annual net disposable income has been for each quintile of the income in distribution in each year since 1996. [102986]

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

  Table A: Average annual gross household income:

  United Kingdom

  £per year

  Quintile group of all households1

  Bottom

  2nd

  3rd

  4th

  Top

  All Households

  1996–97

  7,080

  11,250

  18,070

  26,180

  45,870

  21,690

  1996–97

  7,080

  11,250

  18,070

  26,180

  45,870

  21,690

  1997–98

  7,300

  11,780

  19,120

  28,000

  48,720

  22,980

  1998–99

  7,740

  12,430

  20,010

  28,720

  52,340

  24,250

  1999–2000

  7,720

  12,810

  21,010

  30,040

  55,540

  25,420

  2000–01

  8,420

  14,290

  22,080

  32,000

  56,850

  26,730

  1 Quintile groups of all households randed by equivalised disposable income before deducting housing costs.

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics, 'The effects of taxes and benefits and on household income,' published annually on the ONS website and in Economic Trends

  Table B
  Average annual net disposale household income 1996–97 to 2000–01:

  United Kingdom

  £per year

  Quintile group of all households1

  Bottom

  2nd

  3rd

  4th

  Top

  All Households

  1996–97

  6,360

  9,810

  14,890

  20,770

  35,150

  17,400

  1997–98

  6,550

  10,280

  15,760

  22,140

  37,280

  18,400

  1998–99

  6,830

  10,730

  16,330

  22,590

  39,680

  19,230

  1999–2000

  6,830

  11,000

  17,210

  23,640

  42,450

  20,230

  2000–01

  7,440

  12,200

  17,960

  25,060

  43,550

  21,140

  1 Quintile groups of all households ranked by equivalised disposable income before deducting housing costs.

  Source

  Office for National Statistics, 'The effects of taxes and benefits and on household income,' published annually on the ONS website and in Economic Trends

  Public Sector Pensions
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the public sector pension schemes which are funded; when was the last actuarial valuation of each scheme; what the value was of the assets at the last actuarial valuation of each scheme; and what deficit is disclosed by the last actuarial valuation of each scheme. [103346]

  Mr. Boateng
  Of the major public service schemes, only the Local Government Pension Scheme is funded. That scheme is the responsibility of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.
  544W
  Letter to David Willetts from Len Cook, dated 17 March 2003:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question asking for the average annual gross and net household income for each quintile of the income distribution since 1996. (102986)
  Estimates for 1996–97 to 2000–01 are shown in the following tables. They are based on the analysis "The effects of taxes and benefits on household income 2000–01", published on the National Statistics (ONS) website on April 19th 2002 and in Economic Trends for May 2002. The analysis and those for earlier years can be obtained from the House of Commons library. They include measures of income inequality for the United Kingdom as a whole based on data from the Family Expenditure Survey.
  Estimates are given for all households in the United Kingdom and split by quintile groups ranked by disposable household income. Gross income includes income from employment, investment and cash benefits. Net disposable income is obtained by deducting income tax and national insurance contributions and local taxes. Local taxes include council tax, domestic rates, water and sewerage charges and are net of discounts, benefits and rebates.

  In addition some of the small public service schemes are funded. In the wider public sector, corporations such as the BBC and the Post Office have their own funded schemes. Responsibility for the se schemes rests with the relevant sponsoring department.

  Detailed information on the valuations of funded public sector pension schemes is not held centrally.

  Recycling
  Tony Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to encourage recycling
  545W
  initiatives through exemptions for recycling plants from landfill tax. [103140]

  John Healey
  Landfill tax is a tax on waste, and is applied to all waste disposed of by way of landfill at a licensed landfill site, unless that waste is specifically exempted. Recycling plants are therefore not liable to tax. Indeed, landfill tax is designed to encourage recycling—by making the disposal of waste to landfill more expensive, it encourages waste producers to recover more value from waste, for example through recycling or composting. Landfill tax also contains provisions for tax-free areas on landfill sites to encourage site operators to recycle material sent to their sites for disposal.

  Stamp Duty
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when stamp duty on share transactions was reduced from(a) 2 per cent.and (b) 1 per cent. [103626]

  Ruth Kelly
  The rate of stamp duty on share transactions was reduced from 2 per cent. to 1 per cent. in 1984. At that time the scope of stamp duty was widened to include bearer instruments.

  In 1986 the rate was further reduced to 0.5 per cent. which is when Stamp Duty Reserve Tax was enacted. The Finance Act 1986 also introduced a 1.5 per cent. charge for shares entering a clearance service or depository bank.

  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the financial secretary to the Treasury will reply to the letter of the honourable Member for Taunton which referred to her comments on reduction of stamp duty on share transactions,Official Report, 23 January, column 425. [103627]

  Ruth Kelly
  I have already done so.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Abducted Children
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will consult parents who have had their children abducted on ways to improve the services provided by her Department in such cases. [102238]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Parents are consulted through our work with reunite—International Child Abduction Centre which works closely with the parents involved. We consult reunite regularly. My Department also receives information from parents through meetings and correspondence from them and hon. Members, which all inform our consideration of service provision. Consultation takes place before Special Commissions of the Hague Conference, as they occur.

  Domestic Violence
  Stephen Hesford
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will make a statement on the Lord Chancellor's Department's policy on reducing domestic violence. [102182]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Government are committed to tackling domestic violence. My Department's main responsibility as a member of the Inter-Ministerial 546W
  Group on Domestic Violence is to develop coordination between the criminal, civil and family courts to make sure that victims of domestic violence and their families have a swift and effective route to protection, and perpetrators of violence are brought to justice. We intend to do this through improving training and raising awareness amongst the professional judiciary and magistrates.

  My Department recently launched a guide on civil remedies and criminal sanctions against abusers aimed to assist those who advise victims of their options.

  Where necessary we will improve court processes through legislation, as we did with the Adoption and Children Act 2002 (ACA 2002) and the Children Act 1989. As a consequence of the ACS 2002, the application form used to apply for contact or residence will be amended so that the applicant can indicate, and give details about, whether abuse has taken place. The respondent will then also have a chance to comment. This will mean that judges will be aware early in the proceedings; that domestic abuse is alleged and findings of fact can be made before contact or residence are considered.

  We have also published guidelines for the courts and other professionals which provide a structured and consistent approach for all court users in how to deal with contact cases where domestic violence is an issue. Their effectiveness is being monitored and evaluated.

  A safety stakeholder group was set up to advise on how to improve our handling of domestic violence in proceedings involving children, and promote safe contact. Representatives from the judiciary, academics, practitioners and parents' and children's organisations are involved.

  We have carried out a mapping exercise of the provision of child contact services, including centres where supervised contact is available, to help us to develop a national network of child contact centres that work to agreed standards. We are supporting child contact centres on their strategy for expanding and improving their services by putting in extra Government funding [over £1.7 million over the past two years] and an additional £2.5 million from Children's Fund announced in February 2003.

  We will be working closely wi;th colleagues in the Home Office and other Departments to take various issues forward through the forthcoming domestic violence consultation paper and proposed subsequent draft bill later in the year.

  With the help of our key stakeholder advisory groups we will continue to identify further action in every area of our responsibilities, and in those areas of responsibility that we share with other Government Departments, to make sure that tackling domestic violence and protecting its victims (adults and children) are given the priority they deserve.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how much was spent by the Department on(a) special advisers and (b) external

  547W
  contracts in each year since 1997; if she will name the advisers and contractors; and if she will place copies of the relevant contracts in the Library. [100843]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  For information on special advisers, I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Minister of State for the Cabinet Office (Mr. Alexander), on 31 January 2003,Official Report, column 1056W.

  For information on external consultancy expenditure I refer the hon. Member to the answers given to the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) on 28 October 2002, Official Report, column 600W and the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) on 24 February 2003, Official Report, column 16W.

  The Department places very many contracts for a wide range of goods and services including products such as all office furniture, transcription tapes, office supplies and stationary. Services range from the provision of IT, office cleaning, court reporting, postage through to utilities.

  Purchasing of such items is generally devolved, so the information requested cannot be readily provided.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with representatives of the US Government regarding(a) compensation and (b) other assistance for the Afghan woman, Orfa, whose house in Bibi Mahru was accidentally bombed by a US F-16; on what date he raised the matter with the US; and what response he has received. [102904]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We have discussed the case referred to a number of times with the US since it was first reported in the Guardian in October 2002. The US have indicated that they do not pay claims for compensation arising from combat activities. The US have assisted Afghanistan as a whole with development funding on a substantial scale. We are still discussing this matter with the US authorities and I will seek to keep my hon. Friend informed if there are any developments.

  Antarctica
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received on the number of tourists visiting Antarctica in each of the past five years by(a) cruise ship and (b) air, and their environmental impact; and if he will make a statement. [103448]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The International Association of Antarctic Tour Operators (IAATO) presents annually a report on tourism in Antarctica at the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting (ATCM). These reports detail tourist visits by cruise ship and air. Scientific monitoring of sites visited by tourists show that there has been no significant impact on the Antarctic environment from tourism.
  548W
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the total UK expenditure on the Antarctic Environmental Protocol Secretariat is for 200–03 and how much is projected for 2003–04. [103449]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  There is no Antarctic Environmental Protocol Secretariat as such. However it was agreed in principle at the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting in 2001 that an Antarctic Treaty Secretariat should be set up. Given that this has yet to be established there has been no UK expenditure to date.

  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions have been held with the Governments of(a) Chile, (b) Argentina, (c) South Africa, (d) Australia and (e) New Zealand concerning the funding of the Antarctic Environmental Protocol Secretariat; and if he will make a statement. [103451]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We are in regular discussions with the Argentineans regarding the proposed Antarctic Treaty Secretariat to be located in Buenos Aires.Negotiations on setting up the Secretariat, including its funding, continue with the Governments of Chile, South Africa. Australia and New Zealand, as with all other Antarctic Treaty Parties, at annual Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meetings (ATCM). The next of these will be held in Madrid (June 2003). Separately, an informal intersessional meeting is scheduled for 1 to 4 April in Buenos Aires to discuss matters relating to the Treaty Secretariat.

  Arms Sales
  Joyce Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the EU code of conduct on arms sales, with reference to sales to Iraq; and if he will make a statement. [101954]

  Mr. Rammell
  The sale of military listed items and dual use items to Iraq is restricted by sanctions. Those which are not automatically prohibited require approval from the UN Iraq Sanctions Committee, of which we are a member. As a member of the Sanctions Committee our evaluation of any application for permission to export such goods, including applications from EU partners, would involve consideration against the criteria of the Code. We consider the Code to be an effective tool to apply when making such decisions.

  Burma
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the human rights situation in Burma. [103045]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The human rights situation in Burma is poor and a matter of grave concern. The UK Co-sponsored a resolution at the United Nations General Assembly in November 2002 that condemned the Burmese regime's record and I issued a public statement on 20 November giving my strong support for the resolution. On 18 February, the European Union issued a statement expressing concern over the deteriorating situation in Burma, including further politically inspired detentions and arrests. With EU
  549W
  partners, we are preparing a resolution for the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in April that will again press for action to address the human rights abuse in Burma.

  China (North Korean Refugees)
  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he will make to the Chinese authorities concerning(a) the repatriation of North Korean refugees in China, (b) the refusal by the Chinese Government to allow the UNHCR access to the North Koreans who have fled into China and (c) China's obligations under the 1951 UN Convention on the Treatment of Refugees. [102594]

  Mr. Rammell
  We regularly raise the issue of North Korean refugees with the Chinese, including at the biannual UK/China Human Rights Dialogue. At the last round of the Dialogue, on 21 November 2002, we urged China to allow the UNHCR access to the border areas and to observe its obligations under the 1951 Refugee Convention. We will continue to encourage greater co-operation between China and UNHCR on this issue.

  Entry Clearance Officers
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when entry clearance officers in(a) New Delhi, (b) Mumbai, (c) Dhaka, (d) Tehran and (e) Nairobi ceased using the pre-assessment procedure for visa applications. [103145]

  Mr. Rammell
  Use of the pre-assessment procedure was ceased in:(a) New Delhi in August 2002; (b) Mumbai in February 2003; (c) Dhaka in January 2003 (but during January to March 2003 Dhaka has been operating a pre-assessment procedure for settlement applications to help accustom applicants to its withdrawal); (d) Tehran in July 2002; and (e) Nairobi in October 2002.

  Family Visitor Visas
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what initiatives to increase family visitor visa applicants' awareness of their appeal rights have been undertaken since 1 January 2002. [103144]

  Mr. Rammell
  All unsuccessful applicants receive at the time of refusal written notices informing them about their right to appeal, and the procedure they need to follow should they choose to exercise this right. So all applicants are aware of their appeal rights.

  India (Nuclear Tests)
  Mr. Purchase
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Indian Government on their intentions towards signing the nuclear test ban treaty.[103036]
  550W
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We regularly raise the issue of Indian accession to the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, and other international Treaties relating to non-proliferation, with the Indian Government.

  Iraq
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the Turkish Government regarding the administration of Northern Iraq following military conflict with Iraq. [102765]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs last met Turkish Foreign Minister Yakis at Copenhagen on 13 December. They did not discuss Iraq.

  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what(a) discussions he has held with and (b) representations he has received from multinational oil companies in relation to the exploitation of Iraqi oil following a conflict in the middle east; [102767]

  (2) what discussions he has held with the US Government concerning the exploitation of Iraqi oil following any conflict which leads to regime change in Iraq; [102766]

  (3) what recent discussions he has had with the US Administration regarding the exploitation of Iraqi oil reserves following military conflict in the middle east; [102764]

  (4) what agreements the UK Government has made with multinational oil companies regarding oil exploitation following a conflict in Iraq; [102769]

  (5) what discussions he has had with other Ministers concerning the exploitation of Iraqi oil following a conflict in the middle east. [102758]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  It is our position that Iraqi oil is owned by the Iraqi people. Its revenues should be used for the good of the people. We make this clear in all our contacts on the subject.

  However, the current situation is not about oil, it is about weapons of mass destruction and the Iraqi regime deliberately flouting the will of the United Nations.

  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to protect the Kurds of Northern Iraq from any advance by the Turkish army, following a military attack on Baghdad by US and UK forces. [102768]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I understand that both the Kurdistan Democratic Party and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan in northern Iraq remain in close touch with the Government of Turkey about developments in the area. I am not aware of any decision by Turkey to advance against the northern Iraqi Kurds.

  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent studies his Department has undertaken of Iraqi oil reserves. [102770]
  551W
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We have not undertaken any new studies of Iraqi oil reserves.

  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make the UNMOVIC Working Document of 6 March on Iraq's unresolved disarmament issues available(a) to hon. Members and (b) through major retail outlets in the UK. [103288]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The document has already been placed in the library of the House. It is also available on the UNMOVIC web site, www.un.org/uniTiovic. Together with the most recent presentations by Dr. Blix and Dr. El Baradei to the UN Security Council and the twelfth UNMOVIC quarterly report it will also be published as a Command Paper (Cm 5785). It will be publicly available through The Stationery Office.

  Khalid Sheikh Mohammed
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the United States Administration in respect of its interrogation of the sons of Khalid Sheikh Mohammad about their father's alleged terrorist activities. [102728]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  None.

  UN Security Council
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what visits are being undertaken by Ministers to non-permanent member countries on the UN Security Council; what visits have been undertaken in the last month; what issues of(a) aid and (b) trade are and have been on the agenda; what offers are and have been made to those countries by the UK Government which are favourable to them, with the financial value of each such offer; whether the communication of a favourable arrangement has been made to any of these countries on behalf of another nation; and if he will make a statement. [100994]

  Mr. Rammell
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister visited Spain on 27–28 February. My noble Friend Baroness Amos visited Guinea, Angola and Cameroon on 25–28 February and again on 10–12 March. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Mike O'Brien) visited Syria on 4–5 March. My hon. Friend the Minister for Europe (Mr. MacShane) visited Bulgaria on 6 March.

  No aid or trade issues have been discussed during the visits. They have not been used to communicate any offers from third countries.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what independent legal advice is available to the Secretariat of the United Nations Security Council. [102073]

  Mr. Rammell
  The Secretariat of the United Nations is advised by the Office of Legal Affairs, which forms part of the Secretariat.

  West Africa
  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions the Baroness Amos had with the Government of Guinea regarding the present dispute between Liberia and Sierra Leone during, her recent visit to Africa; what assessment he has made of the impact of this dispute on the region; what steps his Department is taking to address this situation; and if he will make a statement. [101774]

  Mr. Rammell
  During my noble Friend Baroness Amos's visit to Guinea on 25 February, she had discussions with President Conté about regional issues, including Liberia. The Government of Liberia continues to ignore the demands of the UN Security Council by sponsoring armed groups in the region and encouraging regional instability. Together with our international partners, our objective remains to contain these activities, including by maintaining effective UN sanctions against Liberia.

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

  Officers of the House (Travel)
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission which officers of the House of Commons are allowed to travel by air(a) first class and (b) business class at public expense when on official duties. [102895]

  Sir Archy Kirkwood
  The rules for air travel by officials on the business of the House are set out in the Staff Handbook which is available on the parliamentary intranet. Business class or first class travel is not normally allowed for flights within the UK. For flights outside the UK, officials are required to seek best value for money, including making use of discounted fares where possible. When travelling with Members, however, officials are normally allowed to book seats of the same class as the Members they are accompanying.

PRIME MINISTER

  Government Legal Advice
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Prime Minister what the Government's policy is on the publication of advice provided to the Government by(a) government law officers and (b) members of the private bar. [103471]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) on 14 March 2003,Official Report, column 482W, and the further answer my right hon. Friend, the Solicitor-General has given the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) today.

  UNIKOM
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Prime Minister what UK military forces have been committed to UNIKOM;
  553W
  and whether these forces are mandated to resist all violations of the demilitarised zone on the Iraq-Kuwait border. [103832]

  The Prime Minister
  The UK currently contributes 11 military observers to UNIKOM, one of whom also acts as Commander of the British Contingent.

  UNIKOM is mandated to take physical action to prevent small-scale violations of the demilitarised zone.

HEALTH

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to the answer of 3 March 2003,Official Report. column 823W, on asylum seekers, what measures are in place to ensure that unaccompanied child asylum seekers receive care and support from council social services under the Children Act 1989. [103400]

  Jacqui Smith
  When an unaccompanied child arrives at an English port or airport the im migration service will refer him/her immediately to the relevant local authority social services department, which will be responsible for providing him/her with support under the Children Act 1989. Unaccompanied children can also claim asylum in-country. In such cases, they will either already have presented to a social services department as a child in need, or will be referred on by the immigration service.

  NHS Estates (PFI)
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the public sector team of the fraud squad is investigating the NHS estates PFI scheme; and if he will make a statement. [97530]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 12 February 2003]NHS Estates is not directly involved in any private finance initiative transactions. NHS Estates is, however, in the process of a one-off sale of Retained Estate and its trading arm, Inventures. No suggestion of fraud has come to light concerning the proposed joint venture to derive the best value from the Retained Estate and Inventures.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answers of 27 February, refs. 95076 and 98813, for what reasons the delay in replying to the letters of(a) 21 November and (b) 8 October 2002 occurred. [100941]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 5 March 2003]I apologise for the delays you have been experiencing in receiving replies to your correspondence.

  Unfortunately, during the course of the year there have been several issues, which have contributed to the overall delays in providing response and has led to outstanding correspondence. The introduction of a new information technology system to track correspondence throughout the Department took longer to bed in than expected.
  554W
  The Customer Service Centre was established on 1 December to improve the Department's performance in handling telephone, written and e-mail inquiries from members of the public and their representatives. One of the first tasks of the Customer Services Centre has been to clear outstanding cases and to put systems in place to prevent this kind of backlog from building up again.

  Emergency Medical Personnel
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans his Department has to increase the number of emergency medical personnel(a) on motorbikes, (b) in ambulances and (c) in cars; [101314]

  (2) how many ambulances serve Greater London; and how many paramedics there are (a) in cars, (b) on motorbikes and (c) in ambulances. [101315]

  Mr. Lammy
  Decisions of this nature are for each individual ambulance trust to determine locally. This information is not held centrally.

  Foundation Hospitals
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the role is of the proposed regulator for foundation hospitals; and if he will make a statement. [102180]

  Mr. Hutton
  Our policy on the main functions of the Independent Regulator is set out in paragraph 3.28 of "A Guide to NHS Foundation Trusts". The Health &Social Care (Community Health &Standards) Bill makes provision for the Independent Regulator to authorise applications for national health service foundation trust status; set and revise the terms under which each NHS foundation trust operates and provides additional powers to intervene in the running of an NHS foundation trust in specified circumstances.

  Hospital Amalgamations
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the hospital amalgamations that have taken place in the last five years; and what the total number of acute beds available in those hospitals was(a) before and (b) after the amalgamation. [91588]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is not available.

  Hospital Hygiene
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) of 26 February, 2003,Official Report. column 629W, on hospital hygiene, whether the handwashing provision in existing hospital buildings will be measured against the recommendations from NHS Estates for new buildings. [101950]

  Mr. Lammy
  National health service trust chief executives are responsible for ensuring adequate infection control measures. Infection control teams assist them in this; they will be actively involved in developing policies and monitoring practice. They will use their professional judgment to assess existing facilities and may use NHS Estates' guidelines to help them do so.

  Learning Disability Boards
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he is taking to ensure that local learning disability boards communicate their proceedings to local interested parties; and what plans he has to issue guidance to them on this matter. [103088]

  Jacqui Smith
  Learning disability partnership boards were set up as a key part of the arrangements for implementing the White Paper, "Valuing People: A New Strategy for Learning Disability for the 21st Century" (Cm 5086), published in March 2001. The role and functions of these boards were described in guidance issued in August 2001 (HSC 2001/016; LAC(2001)23).

  The role of partnership boards is broadly to create strong local partnerships between providers of services, learning disabled people and family carers. Their aim is to develop local strategies to improve the opportunities for learning disabled people to be included as fully as possible in society and have greater independence and choice in their lives.

  We hope that partnership boards will try to raise the profile of learning disability issues in their local areas, and to encourage their members, such as local authorities and primary care trusts, to do the same. This would support strongly the aim of greater inclusion of learning disabled people. We would therefore encourage boards to let local people know about their activities.

  It would not be appropriate to issue specific guidance on this matter, which is clearly a matter for local decision. However, the valuing people support team, which has been set up to promote good practice and share practical experience across the country, has given practical advice to boards in its newsletters of July 2002 and February 2003 on making meetings available to the public. We support these messages. The support team website is at http://www.doh.qov.uk/vpst.

  Mental Health
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what training is available to NHS staff responding to the mental health needs of(a) current and (b) former servicemen and women. [101074]

  Jacqui Smith
  The mental health needs of current servicemen and women are met under the auspices of the Ministry of Defence, who are also responsible for ensuring that military and medical personnel receive appropriate training. The national health service provides services, by trained staff, to former service personnel alongside the general public according to their needs. Recent additional investment in mental health services and a comprehensive programme of modernisation will ensure that all those who have mental health needs are able to access appropriate treatment more quickly. Further information about this is available on the Department of Health web site at www.doh.gov.uk/mentalhealth. Additional guidance for general practitioners first issued following the events in the USA on 11 September 2001 was re-issued last year; this specifically draws attention to the needs of service personnel.

  Northwich Park Hospital
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients have been treated in(a) the accident and emergency unit at Northwick Park Hospital and (b) in total at Northwick Park Hospital, broken down by clinical speciality, in each of the last five years. [100597]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is collected by National Health Service trust and not by individual hospital.

  Northwick Park Hospital was part of Northwick Park and St. Marks NHS Trust until 1999, when the Trust merged with Central Middlesex Hospital NHS Trust to form North West London Hospitals NHS Trust. Figures for Northwick Park and St. Marks NHS Trust for 1997–98 and 1998–99 are shown in Table 1.

  Table 2 shows figures for North West London Hospitals NHS Trust from 1999–2000 to 2001–02. For consistency, figures for 1997–98 and 1998–99 are shown for Northwick Park and St. Marks NHS Trust and Central Middlesex Hospital NHS Trust combined.

  Table 1: Northwick Park and St. Marks NHS Trust only.

  Main Specialty

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Not known

  456

  410

  General Surgery

  7,050

  8,096

  Urology

  2,717

  2,865

  Trauma and Orthopaedics

  3,615

  4,125

  ENT

  2,656

  2,676

  Ophthalmology

  24

  30

  Oral Surgery

  333

  339

  Orthodontics

  —

  —

  Plastic Surgery

  —

  —

  Accident and Emergency

  581

  1,109

  Anaesthetics

  307

  41

  Pain Management

  —

  421

  General Medicine

  5,982

  5,818

  Gastroenterology

  4,243

  4,666

  Endocrinology

  239

  99

  Rehabilitation

  57

  69

  Cardiology

  1,797

  1,510

  Dermatology

  27

  22

  Thoracic Medicine

  227

  131

  Infectious Diseases

  1,070

  1,169

  Genito-urinary Medicine

  —

  —

  Nephrology

  —

  —

  Medical Oncology

  —

  —

  Neurology

  1—

  1—

  Clinical Neuro-Physiology

  —

  —

  Rheumatology

  404

  238

  Paediatrics

  6,795

  6,324

  Geriatric Medicine

  39

  20

  Obstet for Patients using a hospital bed or del facilities

  6,071

  5,691

  Gynaecology

  3,948

  4,917

  Midwife Episodes

  —

  —

  Mental Illness

  —

  1—

  Child and Adolescent Psychiatry

  1—

  1—

  Radiotherapy

  —

  —

  Radiology

  7

  9

  Blood Transfusion

  —

  —

  Haematology

  776

  961

  557W

  Table 2: Central Middlesex Hospital NHS Trust and Northwick Park &St. Marks NHS Trust 1997–98 and 1998–99 North West London Hospitals NHS Trust 1999–00 to 2001–02 Finished Consultant Episodes—Count of In Year Admissions

  Main speciality

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Not known

  457

  413

  1—

  6

  7

  General Surgery

  8,724

  9,548

  9,204

  7,500

  8,233

  Urology

  5,354

  5,596

  4,905

  2,880

  2,861

  Trauma and Orthopaedics

  4,825

  5,374

  5,013

  4,088

  3,844

  ENT

  3,281

  3,244

  3,201

  2,526

  2,956

  Ophthalmology

  1,203

  1,625

  2,196

  411

  120

  Oral Surgery

  1,484

  1,604

  1,426

  594

  389

  Orthodontics

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Plastic Surgery

  0

  0

  34

  21

  1—

  Accident and Emergency

  581

  1,109

  916

  2,082

  0

  Anaesthetics

  337

  70

  40

  13

  59

  Pain Management

  0

  421

  391

  315

  183

  General Medicine

  6,006

  5,828

  6,268

  6,775

  7,204

  Gastroenterology

  6,186

  6,906

  6,761

  5,619

  6,766

  Endocrinology

  320

  185

  177

  68

  45

  Rehabilition

  57

  69

  47

  54

  60

  Cardiology

  2,011

  1,669

  1,419

  1,207

  1,135

  Dermatology

  29

  22

  19

  11

  18

  Thoracic Medicine

  489

  387

  265

  129

  452

  Infectious Diseases

  1,070

  1,169

  1.094

  1,074

  1,364

  Genito-urginary Medicine

  14

  13

  10

  1—

  0

  Nephrology

  0

  0

  0

  1—

  0

  Medical Oncology

  7

  1—

  1—

  1—

  6

  Neurology

  67

  82

  89

  17

  7

  Clinical Neuro-physiology

  1—

  1—

  1—

  0

  0

  Rheumatology

  573

  477

  471

  470

  486

  Paediatrics

  9,012

  8,476

  8,361

  5,755

  2,109

  Geriatric Medicine

  205

  108

  93

  17

  12

  Obstet for patients using a hospital bed or Del facilities

  9,645

  8,941

  8.436

  3,559

  161

  Gynaecology

  5,469

  6,627

  5,602

  4,255

  4,074

  Mid Wife Episodes

  0

  0

  432

  1689

  287

  Mental Illness

  0

  1—

  0

  0

  0

  Child and Adolescent Psychiatry

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  0

  Radiotherapy

  1—

  0

  0

  0

  1—

  Radiology

  7

  12

  1—

  0

  1—

  Blood Transfusion

  1—

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Haematology

  1,533

  1,569

  1,679

  1,188

  1,127

  1 Due to reasons of confidentiality, figures below 5 have been suppressed.

  Note:

  1. (RAU) Central Middlesex Hospital NHS Trust and (RFZ) Northwick Park and St. Marks Trust merged to form (RV8) North West London Hospitals NHS Trust with effect from the 1999–2000 data year.

  2. A FCE is defined as a period of patient care under one consultant in one health care provider. The figures do not represent the number of patients, as one person may have several episodes within the year.

  3. Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) arc compiled from data sent by over 300 NHS Trusts in England. The Department of Health and I beg to move, liaise closely with these organisations in order to ensure that data quality is enhanced wherever possible. Inevitably, some shortcomings remain, but our goal is to minimise inaccuracies and bring about improvement over time.

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), Department of Health

  Oldchurch Hospital
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether Oldchurch Hospital in the London Borough of Havering has been inspected by the Commission for Health Improvement. [101985]

  Mr. Hutton
  Oldchurch Hospital has not been inspected by the Commission for Health Improvement.

  Patient Advice and Liaison Services
  Dr. Richard Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the money held by NHS trusts for patient advice and liaison services is ring-fenced; and how many paid employees are working for the patient advice and liaison service in each trust. [102150]
  558W
  Mr. Lammy
  It is for local purchasers of treatment and care to decide upon the relative priorities of their allocations and assign funding accordingly. £10 million was included in the overall allocation for 2002–03, with the expectation that this would be used to support patient advice and liaison services (PALS) in national health service trusts and primary care trusts.

  The Department does not hold details of the number of staff working within PALS. A recent mapping exercise completed in January 2003 showed that 94 per cent. of all trusts have established a PAL service.

  Prison Healthcare
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what changes are planned to the structure of prison healthcare; and if he will make a statement. [103069]
  559W
  Jacqui Smith
  On 25 September 2002, my right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Health announced that funding responsibility for prison health services in England was to be transferred from the Home Office to the Department of Health with effect from April 2003. The Prison Service funding currently used to provide health care for prisoners will be transferred to the Department of Health from April 2003.

  This is the first step in a process aimed at devolving funding and commissioning responsibility for prison health services to primary care trusts (PCTs) by 1 April 2006. PCTs will then become responsible for securing all health services for prisoners in their areas. During the transitional period of the next three years, the majority of funding for prison health services will be passed back to the prison service for allocation through prison establishments to ensure continuity of services.

  Psychiatric Readmissions
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many emergency psychiatric readmissions there were in each of the last five years for(a) under 16s and (b) over 65s; and what the rate of readmission was in each case. [102840]

  Jacqui Smith
  This information is not collected.

  Schizophrenia
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the National Service Framework for Adult Mental Health and its subsequent implementation guidelines for schizophrenia; who is responsible for the implementation; and if he will make a statement. [102686]

  Jacqui Smith
  The national service framework (NSF) for mental health, published in 1999, is a 10-year programme of reform and investment in mental health services and is being implemented in accordance with its targets and milestones.
  560W
  The implementation of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) guideline on schizophrenia will build on the NSF and should form part of the service development plans for each local health community in England.

  The priorities and planning framework for the national health service in England 2003–06 sets key targets for improvements in mental health services including compliance with relevant NICE technology appraisals and clinical guidelines.

  Voting Qualifications (Mental Health)
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health under what circumstances a person would be(a) eligible and (b) ineligible to vote under the provisions in the draft Mental Health Bill. [103147]

  Jacqui Smith
  There are no proposals in respect of voting rights in the Mental Health Bill. In fact there is no such provision in the Mental Health Act 1983.

  My noble Friend the Lord Chancellor, is responsible for the policy on eligibility to vote under the Representation of the People Act 1983 (as amended by the Representation of the People Act 2000).

  I understand that he is considering the implications of the proposals in the Mental Health Bill on his policy for enfranchisement.

  Waiting Lists (Mid-Essex)
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people are waiting for in-patient treatment in the mid-Essex Hospital Trust area. [102538]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 13 March 2003]There were 9,352 patients waiting for inpatient treatment at mid Essex Hospital Services National Health Services Trust at the end of January 2003.

  Source

  DHSC monthly fast track figures.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Advertising (Scotland)
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much the Department spent on advertising in Scotland in each year since 1999 on(a) television, (b) newspapers, (c) radio, (d) magazines, (e) billboards and (f) sporting events. [102328]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The Department has not targeted any of its advertising specifically in Scotland. However, for some media it is impossible to remove coverage in Scotland. These include atellite TV, online, women's magazines, TV listings magazines, youth magazines and some national press titles who do not have Scottish editions.

  Due to the format in which advertising information is collected and held, it will not be possible to provide the information requested without incurring disproportionate cost. Information at the level of detail requested is not available, and where it is possible to disaggregate figures for advertising in Scotland, the information could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  Asylum Seeker/Refugee Children
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) asylum seeker and (b) refugee children there were in schools, broken down by education authority, in each academic year since 1997–98. [102296]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  It is not possible to say how many asylum seeker and refugee children there were in schools in each local education authority (LEA), for the period specified, because there is no requirement on LEAs to provide the Department with this information.

  The most recent information available indicates that there are about 82,000 children from asylum seeking and refugee backgrounds in the UK. Nearly 63,000 of them are resident in Greater London where it is estimated that they comprise 6.04 per cent. of the total school population. Over 14,500 are resident in LEAs in the Home Office designated dispersal areas in the north east, north west, Yorkshire and the Humber, east and west Midlands and south west regions of England.

  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much funding has been allocated for the education of(a) asylum seeker and (b) refugee children since 1997–98 in each education authority. [102297]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  It is not possible to say how much funding has been allocated to Local Education Authorities (LEAs) for the education of children from asylum seeking and refugee backgrounds for the period specified as no specific factors are used to take account of these pupils in the formula for calculating education formula spending shares. It is for LEAs to consider whether to include provision by including relevant factors in their funding formulae.
  562W
  Additional funding has been made available to LEAs supporting the children of asylum seekers dispersed to the Home Office designated cluster areas through the asylum seeker grant. The attached table shows how much funding has been allocated to these LEAs from 2000 to 2003.

  From April 2003 this grant will be subsumed into the vulnerable children grant (worth £84 million) which will provide support for a range of vulnerable children including those from asylum seeking backgrounds. Funding to support all children, including those from asylum seeking and refugee backgrounds, with English as additional language requirements is available to all LEAs through the ethnic minority achievement grant (worth £155 million).

  Asylum Seeker Grant Allocations 2000–03

  LEA Name

  Amount of funding(£)

  Barnsley

  6,6000

  Birmingham

  40,1000

  Blackburn

  5,9000

  Bolton

  23,2000

  Bradford

  20,8000

  Brighton

  14,500

  Bristol

  75,500

  Burnley

  7,000

  Bury

  96,500

  Calderdale

  35,000

  Cheshire

  8,000

  Coventry

  182,000

  Croydon (LB)

  8,500

  Darlington

  2,500

  Derby

  146,500

  Doncaster

  101,000

  Dudley

  131,000

  Exeter (Devon)

  1,000

  Gateshead

  145,500

  Greenwich (LB)

  2,500

  Hampshire

  2,000

  Hartlepool

  9,000

  Hasting/St Leonards

  5,000

  Hertfordshire

  500

  Ipswich

  500

  Kingston Upon Hull

  98,500

  Kirklees

  122,500

  Knowsley

  4,000

  Lancashire (Preston)

  13,500

  Leeds

  345,000

  Leicester City

  110,500

  Leicestershire

  2,500

  Lincolnshire

  4,500

  Liverpool

  66,3000

  Manchester

  91,5000

  Middlesbrough

  94,000

  Nelson

  2,500

  Newcastle

  507,500

  Newham (LB)

  3,500

  North Somerset

  4,000

  North Tyneside

  90,500

  Nottingham City

  284,000

  Oldham

  42,000

  Peterborough

  23,500

  Plymouth

  37,000

  Portsmouth

  26,000

  Redcar

  101,000

  Richmond (LB)

  1,000

  Rochdale

  107,000

  Rotherham

  91,500

  Salford

  261,500

  563W

  Asylum Seeker Grant Allocations 2000–03

  LEA Name

  Amount of funding(£)

  Sandwell

  97,000

  Sefton

  56,000

  Sheffield

  388,000

  Solihull

  2,500

  South Gloucestershire

  17,000

  South Tyneside

  52,000

  Stockport

  42,500

  Stockton-on-Tees

  65,000

  Stoke-on-Trent

  61,500

  Sunderland

  86,500

  Tameside

  56,500

  Trafford

  32,500

  Wakefield

  79500

  Walsall

  68,500

  Wigan

  103,000

  Wolverhampton

  183,500

  Total

  7,287,00009

  Bologna Process
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on his Department's policy on the involvement of British higher education in the Bologna process. [101721]

  Margaret Hodge
  The Government welcome British higher education's involvement in the deliberations and process arising from the Bologna Declaration. We have been working closely with our UK higher education partners and the devolved administrations since we signed the Declaration in 1999 to assess the impact on UK higher education and its relationship with the rest of Europe, and to influence the debate on the way forward. Representatives of the UK higher educations sector are engaged in discussions on the Bologna process, and an official from my Department represents UK interests at the twice-yearly meetings of the inter-Governmental Bologna follow-up group. This will inform the ministerial conference in Berlin in September this year.

  Circular Documents
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list the circular documents that were sent by his Department to(a) primary schools and (b) secondary schools between I September 2001 and 31 August 2002; how many were on teacher workload; and how many pages each document contained. [102558]

  Mr. Miliband
  The following pages show the documents that were sent in the period 1 September 2001 and 31 August 2002 to(a) primary schools and (b) secondary schools. In total 76 documents were sent to all primary schools and 85 documents were sent to all secondary schools. On teacher workload one document was sent to all primary schools and one document was sent to all secondary schools in the period 1 September 2001 and 31 August 2002. Both of the documents on teacher workload contained three pages each.

  Ministers are committed to reducing the bureaucratic burden on schools and the Department has aimed to reduce the number of mailings to schools by 50 per cent. in the current 2002–03 academic year.
  564W
  Details of each document and how many pages each contained have been placed in the Library.

  Closed Circuit Cameras
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many closed circuit cameras have been installed in school classrooms; and if he will make a statement. [101882]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The use of closed circuit television cameras in classrooms is a matter for individual schools and no central record is kept of their number.

  Earned Autonomy
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when he expects to publish his Department's consultation paper on the proposed criteria for earned autonomy. [102140]

  Mr. Miliband
  We are pursuing our plans to publish a consultation paper on Earned Autonomy. This will include proposals on the criteria for Earned Autonomy and on the kinds of flexibility that might be made available. I will write to the hon. Member when we have a firm date for its release and place a copy of the letter in the Library.

  Free School Meals
  Stephen Hesford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on his(a) current and (b) future policy on free school meals. [102858]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  Section 512 of the Education Act 1996 (amended by the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 and the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999), sets out our current policy on free school meals. Children whose parents receive Income Support, Income Based Jobseekers Allowance and support provided under Part VI of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 are currently eligible to receive free school meals.

  From 6 April 2003, section 201 of the Education Act 2002 and its associated regulations will extend free school meals to children whose parents receive the Child Tax Credit, provided they are not entitled to receive the Working Tax Credit and have an annual income (as assessed by The Inland Revenue) that does not exceed £13,230. This change will protect an estimated 87,000 children in England who would otherwise lose their entitlement because of planned changes to the tax credit and welfare system from April 2003. We estimate that an additional 75,000 children will become entitled to free school meals as a result of this change.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what ratio of students on bachelor or higher degree courses to students on foundation degree courses he plans for the additional numbers of students entering higher education by 2010. [101735]
  565W
  Margaret Hodge
  As set out in the Government's White Paper, 'The future of higher education' (Cm 5735), the emphasis in expanding student number will be on two year-work focussed foundation degrees.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he plans to differentiate fee caps by type of higher education institutions. [100303]

  Margaret Hodge
  The Higher Education White Paper sets out the Government's intention to introduce variable fees in 2006–07. A university will be able to set its fee at any level between £0 and £3,000 per year. Universities will have to have Access Agreements approved by the independent Access Regulator before they are allowed to introduce a contribution higher than the current standard fee. We have no plans to apply these proposals differentially to higher education institutions.

  Brian White
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if the funding mechanisms to deliver the proposals set out in the Future of Higher Education White Paper will encompass institutions whose students are not tied to a specific geographical location. [100022]

  Margaret Hodge
  The Graduate Contribution Scheme described in the White Paper 'The future of higher education' (Cm 5735) will apply to full-time undergraduate students only. The Open University is the main higher education institution providing distance learning for students who are geographically remote from its campus. The majority of such students are part-time and will not, therefore, be affected by the Graduate Contribution Scheme. For part-time students, the Open University will continue to set its own fee levels as now. However from 2004–05 students will benefit from a new package of support for part-time students. For those on courses which are equivalent to 50 per cent. or more of a full-time course, there will be means-tested tuition fee support, applied for through LEAs. This replaces the current discretionary fee waiver scheme and doubles the number of part-time students eligible for help with their fees. Students who get fee support will also be able to apply for a £250 grant from their LEA instead of a loan. And students entitled to fee support who have children will get help with their child care from the Access to Learning Fund. Al so from 2004–05, we are extending discretionary fee waivers and hardship support for the first time to certain students on courses which are equivalent to at least 10 per cent. of a full-time course.

  GCSE

  (a)French

  (b)German

  (c)Spanish

  (d)Italian

  (e)Latin

  (f)Greek

  2002

  282,278

  115,907

  41,251

  2,531

  3,274

  93

  2001

  290,992

  121,441

  38,877

  2,397

  3,503

  77

  2000

  283,640

  118,606

  36,176

  2,114

  3,380

  94

  1999

  281,218

  120,495

  33,823

  1,989

  3,303

  97

  1998

  276,180

  117,587

  33,250

  2,115

  3,359

  95

  1997

  273,255

  116,944

  29,013

  1,819

  3,830

  117

  1996

  280,610

  115,208

  28,731

  1,915

  4,115

  116

  1995

  280,266

  109,469

  26,526

  1,928

  4,119

  205

  Individual Learners (EU Assistance)
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills which member states of the European Union assist individual learners by(a) tax relief, (b) government grants and (c) otherwise. [102389]

  Margaret Hodge
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Language Teaching
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many children from refugee and asylum-seeking families in schools in England do not have English as a first language; if he will list the schemes to teach them English; and how much the Department has spent and will spend on such teaching in each year from 2001–02 to 2005–06. [102289]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  Approximately 632,000 (9.3 per cent.) of pupils in maintained schools in England are recorded as having a mother tongue other than English although it is not possible to determine how many of these have an asylum seeking or refugee background as Local Education Authorities (LEAs) are not required to provide such information.

  Support for bilingual learners is through mainstream provision rather than separate schemes to teach English. There is no separate funding for teaching English as an additional language, but the Ethnic Minority Achievement Grant worth £154 million in 2001–02 and £155 million in 2002–03 and 2003–04 provides support for minority ethnic pupils at risk of underachievement and for those whose first language is not English. This includes British born children as well as those from asylum seeking and refugee families. From April 2003 the Vulnerable Children Grant worth £84 million for the next three years will provide support to help schools and LEAs meet the needs of a range of vulnerable pupils including those from asylum seeking backgrounds.

  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many maintained secondary schools taught(a) French, (b) German, (c) Spanish, (d) Italian, (e) Latin and (f) Greek at (i) GCSE and (ii) A-level in each year since 1995. [102560]

  Mr. Miliband
  We do not collect data on how many maintained secondary schools taught French, German, Spanish, Italian, Latin and Greek at GCSE and A-level since 1995. We do hold information on the number of pupils in all maintained schools taking GCSE and A-level examinations in these subjects since 1995. They are as follows:
  567W

  A level

  (a) French

  (b) German

  (c) Spanish

  (d) Italian

  (e) Latin

  (f) Greek

  20021

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2001

  7,613

  4,081

  1,777

  219

  252

  10

  2000

  7,334

  4,008

  1,673

  213

  241

  15

  1999

  8,416

  4,480

  1,792

  185

  269

  11

  1998

  9,136

  4,714

  1,697

  181

  308

  15

  1997

  9.842

  4,555

  1,677

  181

  312

  26

  1996

  10.409

  4,758

  1,525

  156

  327

  20

  1995

  10,407

  4,606

  1,276

  154

  377

  29

  1 2002 A level figures are not currently available.

  Learning and Skills
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how long it takes for a new qualification to be approved under Section 9 of the Learning and Skills Act 2000; what measures he has taken to reduce this period; and if he will make a statement. [102423]

  >Margaret Hodge
  Since August 2002 the approval of external qualifications under Section 96 of the Learning and Skills Act 2000 are agreed monthly. Until then approvals were published on an annual basis. It currently takes, on average, fourteen working days from receipt of advice from the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority to approve new qualifications.

  An examination of the approval process is currently under way to identify any scope for a further streamlining of the process while maintaining the necessary quality and rigour.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when the Learning and Skills Council will provide Essex county council with the information to enable Essex county council to provide schools with their budgets for 2003–04; and if she will make a statement. [103326]

  Margaret Hodge
  Provisional allocations were announced in December 2002. There has been a short delay in setting final allocation but the Learning and Skills Council (LSC) sent final details of school sixth form allocations for the financial year 2003–04 to local LSCs on Thursday 6 March. They have now been passed to local education authorities for incorporation in the calculation of schools' budget shares for 2003–04.

  Lost Working Days
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many working days were lost owing to industrial action by staff in(a) his Department, (b) its agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies in 2002. [101534]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  No working days were lost in my Department or its non-departmental public bodies owing to industrial action in 2002. My Department recognises the importance of, and maintains its commitment to, working in partnership with our trade unions as a means of eliminating industrial action.

  Open University
  Brian White
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what role he plans for the 568W
  Open University to deliver the aims of the Future of Higher Education White Paper; and if he will make a statement. [100021]

  Margaret Hodge
  We expect all higher education institutions to have a role in delivering the aims of the White Paper (Cm 5735). The Open University is particularly well placed to deliver the flexible teaching and learning which is vital to an inclusive higher education sector. Such flexible learning helps attract people with different demands and commitments. In addition, the Open University's modular approach to assessment and accreditation supports the aim of increasing credit based study.

  From 2004–05, students at the Open University will also benefit from a new package of support for new and existing part-time students. For those on courses which are equivalent to 50 per cent. or more of a full-time course, there will be means-tested tuition fee support, applied for through LEAs. This replaces the current discretionary fee waiver scheme and doubles the number of part-time students eligible for help with their fees. Students who get fee support will also be able to apply for a £250 grant from their LEA instead of a loan. And students entitled to fee support who have children will get help with their child care from the Access to Learning Fund. Also from 2004–05, we are extending discretionary fee waivers and hardship support for the first time to certain students on courses which are equivalent to at least 10 per cent. of a full-time course.

  School Buildings
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what figures he collates on an annual basis of the number of schools that have received substantial repairs to buildings. [101838]

  Mr. Miliband
  Because of the bureaucratic burden it would impose both locally and centrally, we do not collect information annually on the number of schools that have received substantial repairs to buildings. As part of asset management planning, we will be asking local authorities in the spring for data from condition and suitability surveys of all their schools, which will show the needs of school buildings. We previously asked for this information in 2000 and will be making the results available at the end of this month. We plan to publish a similar analysis of the 2003 data in the autumn.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how the Department will verify it has satisfied its investment strategy targets of
  569W
  (a) replacing or refurbishing 650 schools by 2004 and (b) addressing the most urgent repairs in 7,000 schools by 2004. [101880]

  Mr. Miliband
  Because of the bureaucratic burden it would impose both locally and centrally, we do not collect detailed information on the number of schools that are benefiting from the £9 billion of funding that we have made available from 2001–02 until 2003–04. However, we are content that our targets will be met: private finance initiative investment on its own will support the renewal of 426 schools in that period. Local education authorities have received over 3 billion of formulaic funding for their investment priorities. All maintained schools in England receive their own direct capital funding: for example, over the period 2001–02 to 2003–04 a typical secondary school of 1,000 pupils will have received more than £146.000 for its priority building needs.

  Scottish University Places
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what discussions he has had with(a) the Scotland Office and (b) the Scottish Executive on measures to ensure that Scottish students will have proportionate access to Scottish university places if there is an influx of English and Welsh students subsequent to the reforms outlined in his statement of 22 January 2003 to the House. [100733]

  Margaret Hodge
  We are in regular contact and meet regularly with both the Scotland Office and the Scottish Executive. As the White Paper 'The future of higher education' (Cm 5735) states, there will be discussions with the devolved administrations about the impact on the other UK countries of the proposals for student and institutional funding for higher education institutions in England. I expect those discussions to take place over the coming months.

  Sex Education
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much funding is being provided by the Government to schools to carry out sex education programmes in 2002–03. [101966]

  Mr. Miliband
  Funding for personal, social and health education (PSHE), which includes sex and relationship education, falls within a larger funding stream for school improvement which is distributed through the Standards Fund. The total fund for 2002–03 is £190 million. It is for individual schools to decide how to allocate these resources to best support their PSHE programmes.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what experts in the area of child and teenage health his Department has consulted on the policies of sexual education taught in schools. [101967]

  Mr. Miliband
  The responsibility for determining a school policy on sex and relationship education rests with governing bodies and head teachers. In July 2000 we provided sex and relationship education guidance to maintained schools which sets out the requirement for 570W
  schools to develop their policies in consultation with parents and to make them available for inspection. That guidance was developed in consultation with a wide range of bodies such as the Sex Education Forum, the National Health Education Group and the Teenage Pregnancy Unit.

  The Department has not consulted on the policies of sexual education taught in independent schools. Independent schools are free to determine their own education programmes. However, they do have to meet minimum standards in relation to the quality of education provided. We would encourage them to have regard to the sex and relationship education guidance for maintained schools, but there is no requirement for them to do so.

  Mr. Andrew Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills who is responsible for setting policy on sexual education curriculum and standards in schools(a) in England and (b) in each region. [101968]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The responsibility for determining a school policy on sex and relationship education rests with governing bodies and head teachers. This applies to maintained schools throughout England.

  In July 2000 we provided sex and relationship education guidance to maintained schools which sets out the requirement for schools to develop their policies in consultation with parents and to make them available for inspection. Students are monitored through inspection undertaken by OFSTED.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what studies he has commissioned into the effect on(a) rates of teenage pregnancy, (b) abortion rates and (c) the rate of sexually transmitted diseases, with particular reference to HIV, of abstinence-only forms of sexual education. [101970]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The Department for Education and Skills has not commissioned any studies into the effect of abstinence only education on the rates on teenage pregnancy, abortion or the rates of sexually transmitted infections (STIs).

  The Department of Health has commissioned the Health Development Agency to review the evidence of effectiveness of interventions to reduce transmission of STIs and HIV. This concluded that there is no strong evidence for the effectiveness of abstinence only education approaches. The findings will be published later this year.

  Standards Fund
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how many officials in his Department are employed to work on the Standards Fund; [102291]

  (2) how many publications have been sent out to schools relating to the Standards Fund in each year since its introduction. [102293]
  571W
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  A circular giving details of the Standards Fund is sent to local education authorities each year. It is for them to determine how that information is passed on to schools. Any additional information is posted on the Department's website or issued to LEAs by e-mail.

  Five officials in the Department are employed specifically to manage the Standards Fund programme.

  Student Fees
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list franchising arrangements between higher education institutions and associated colleges, indicating the proportion of student fees paid to each party. [102318]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 11 March 2003]The data requested is not collected by my Department. However, the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) does collate information on higher education institutions which franchise students to other teaching institutions. I have asked the Chief Executive of HEFCE to send the hon. Member the information he

  Annex D: 2002 financial forecasts—Balance sheet

  £000

  As at 31 July:

  20011

  20022

  20032

  20042

  20052

  20062

  1. Fixed assets

  1a. Tangible assets

  10,813,161

  11,437,226

  12,978,769

  13,774,182

  13,886,588

  13,819,834

  1b. Investments

  357,316

  319,013

  308,851

  308,789

  287,007

  288,555

  1c. Total fixed assets

  11,170,477

  11,756,239

  13,287,620

  14,082,971

  14,173,595

  14,108,389

  2. Endowment asset investments

  2,326,776

  2,219,010

  2,332,832

  2,393,162

  2,457,136

  2,524,118

  3. Current assets

  3a. Stocks and stores in hand

  60,674

  58,470

  60,163

  61,722

  63,262

  64,806

  3b. Debtors

  1,481,799

  1,434,763

  1,489,842

  1,553,143

  1,593,362

  1,613,411

  3c. Investments

  996,075

  995,141

  784,449

  723,384

  735,457

  812,479

  3d. Cash in hand and at bank

  475,253

  467,931

  398,781

  426,070

  456,561

  503,365

  3e. Total current assets

  3,013,801

  2,956,304

  2,733,235

  2,764,318

  2,848,643

  2,994,061

  4. Creditors: amounts falling due within one year

  4a. Creditors

  2,108,734

  2,157,595

  2,177,686

  2,217,462

  2,258,483

  2,309,017

  4b. Current portion of long-term liabilities

  83,237

  98,601

  107,606

  125,298

  121,168

  116,694

  4c. Bank overdrafts

  55.864

  36,883

  75,638

  43,824

  44,034

  43,417

  4d. Total amounts falling due within one year

  2,247,835

  2,293,079

  2,360,930

  2,386,584

  2,423,685

  2,469,128

  5. Net current assets/liabilities

  765,966

  663,225

  372,305

  377,734

  424,958

  524,933

  6. Total assets less current liabilities

  14,263,219

  14,638,475

  15,992,757

  16,853,867

  17,055,689

  17,157,440

  7. Creditors: amounts falling due after more than one year

  7a. Reimbursable by the funding council

  153,570

  141,170

  131,658

  122,437

  113,467

  105,441

  7b. External borrowing

  1,958,021

  2,106,918

  2,504,175

  2,750,179

  2,706,109

  2,694,432

  7c. Other long-term creditors

  167,741

  119,299

  107,134

  102,624

  92,823

  84,291

  7d. Total amounts due after more than one year

  2,279,332

  2,367,386

  2,742,967

  2,975,239

  2,912,400

  2,884,164

  8. Provisions for liabilities and charges

  291,480

  276,280

  253,488

  235,804

  228,405

  224,071

  9. Total net assets

  11,692,407

  11,994,808

  12,996,302

  13,642,824

  13,914,884

  14,049,204

  10. Deferred capital grants

  2,614,673

  3,076,189

  3,970,304

  4,391,061

  4,466,531

  4,419,872

  11. Endowments

  11a. Specific endowments

  1,801,097

  1,722,126

  1,832,221

  1,885,683

  1,942,047

  2,001,148

  572W
  has requested. The proportion of student fees paid to each party is a matter for the individual institutions concerned.

  University Debt
  Mr. Pope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the total debt of universities in England was in the last year for which figures are available. [102398]

  Margaret Hodge
  The Higher Education Funding Council for England published "Outcomes of 2002 financial forecasts and annual operating statements" in January 2003. This report is based on information provided by higher education institutions in July 2002. The forecasts were based on assumptions reflecting the prevailing general economic climate and the funding announcements made at the time and so do not take account of the Spending Review settlement for 2003–04 to 2005–06.

  The table is at Annex D of that report and shows the balance sheet for universities in England based on actual figures as at 31 July 2001 and forecasts to July 2006. Debt is some £4.5 billion as at end July 2001, significantly below the total funds for the sector of £11.69 billion overall. (Debt is quantified by adding 4d and 7d from the following table.)
  573W

  Annex D: 2002 financial forecasts—Balance sheet

  £000

  As at 31 July:

  20011

  20022

  20032

  20042

  20052

  20062

  11b. General endowments

  525,679

  496,884

  500,611

  507,479

  515,089

  522,970

  11c. Total endowments

  2,326,776

  2,219,010

  2,332,832

  2,393,162

  2,457,136

  2,524,118

  12. Reserves

  12a. Revaluation reserve

  3,020,263

  2,846,282

  2,773,944

  2,662,111

  2,599,120

  2,556,747

  12b. Minority interest

  42,418

  4,974

  4,732

  5,377

  6,221

  7,855

  12c. Income and expenditure account

  3,688,277

  3,848,353

  3,914,489

  4,191,113

  4,385,877

  4,540,613

  12d. Total reserves

  6,750,958

  6,699,610

  6,693,165

  6,858,601

  6,991,218

  7,105,215

  13. Total funds

  11,692,407

  11,994,809

  12,996,301

  13,642,824

  13,914,886

  14,049,205

  1Actual

  2 Forecast

  As a result of the latest Spending Review announcements, Government spending on higher education will rise by more than 6 per cent. a year above inflation over the next three years.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Burglary
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what the detection rate for burglaries in homes was in(a) the Jarrow constituency, (b) South Tyneside, (c) Tyne and Wear and (d) the UK in each year since 1997; [100769]

  Recorded crime statistics for South Tyneside Basic Command Unit (BCU) and England and Wales

  11997

  21998–99

  31999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  South Tyneside detection rate (per cent.)

  —

  —

  18

  14

  11

  South Tyneside offences per 1,000 household

  —

  —

  21.1

  20.8

  17.4

  England and Wales detection rate (per cent.)

  26

  22

  15

  14

  14

  England and Wales offences per 1,000 household

  25.8

  23.5

  22.0

  20.0

  21.4

  1. Recorded on a calendar year basis up to 1997, and thereafter on a financial year, basis (12 months to March).

  2. The 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. This will also have affected the detection rate.

  3. The counting rules for detections changed on 1 April 1999.

  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.

  There was also a change in counting rules for detections on 1 April 1999. The new instructions provide more precise and rigorous criteria for recording a detection, with the underlying emphasis on the successful result of a police investigation. Numbers of detections before and after this date are therefore not directly comparable.

  Information relating to Scotland and Northern Ireland are matters for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland (Helen Liddell) and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Paul Murphy).
  574W
  (2) how many burglaries per 1,000 households there have been in (a) the Jarrow constituency, (b) south Tyneside, (c) Tyne and Wear and (d) the UK in each year since 1997. [100768]

  Mr. Denham
  Crime statistics for South Tyneside are recorded at Basic Command Unit level (BCU). At BCU level, data has been collected from police forces since 1 April 1999, therefore figures are available only for the last three financial years. Detection rates and numbers of offences per 1,000 households for domestic burglary are given in the table.

  Also included are figures at total police force area level for England and Wales.

  Statistics for the remaining requested areas are not collected centrally.

  Child Prisoners
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many children in prison are being held on the basic regime under the Incentives and Earned Privileges scheme. [101065]

  Hilary Benn
  The figures for the number of children being held on each level under the Rewards and Sanctions Scheme (formerly known as the Incentives and Earned Privileges Scheme), including those on basic, on 4 March 2003 are set out in the following table:

  Establishment

  Basic

  Standard

  Enhanced

  Ashfield

  26

  101

  60

  Brinsford

  5

  123

  57

  Castington

  7

  114

  52

  Feltham

  8

  217

  66

  Hindley

  6

  144

  15

  Huntercombe

  5

  178

  136

  575W

  Establishment

  Basic

  Standard

  Enhanced

  Lancaster

  Farms

  1

  114

  74

  Olney

  10

  132

  56

  Parc

  1

  14

  4

  Stoke Heath

  9

  112

  28

  Thorn Cross

  1

  19

  9

  Warren Hill

  8

  122

  61

  Werrington

  10

  44

  66

  Wetherby

  17

  236

  63

  Brockhill

  0

  6

  6

  Bullwood Hall

  2

  16

  12

  Eastwood

  park

  2

  7

  4

  New Hall

  4

  44

  14

  Holloway

  0

  9

  0

  Community Safety Partnership
  Mrs. Humble
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how the effectiveness of the Community Safety Partnership is(a) monitored and (b) inspected. [101495]

  Mr. Denham
  Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships (CDRPs) are required to conduct an audit of crime and disorder in their area and every three years, publish a strategy to tackle problems in their area. The CDRP is required to implement the strategy and keep it under review to monitor its effectiveness and make any necessary changes. Recorded crime figures at CDRP level are published in the Home Office Statistical Bulletin.

  Measures in the Police Reform Act 2002 maintain the requirement for CDRPs to monitor their own progress and introduce new reporting mechanisms for CDRPs to advise progress on the implementation of their strategy to the Secretary of State. The new reporting process will be introduced during 2003–04 and will look for CDRPs to monitor progress on reducing crime and disorder and the misuse of drugs and on the effectiveness of local partnership working arrangements.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Peter Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to the letters from

  Total recorded crime by police force are region: trends since 1997—England

  April 1998 to March 1999

  April 1999 to March 2000

  Police force are

  April 1996 to March 1997

  Old rules1

  New rule1

  Old boundaries

  New boundaries

  April 2001 to March 2002

  Percentage change 1996–97 to 2001–02 (excludes effects of rule and boundary changes)3

  Cleveland

  74,694

  63,726

  67,030

  65,185

  —

  72,003

  -8.4

  Durham3

  50,592

  44,178

  50,413

  48,796

  —

  50,175

  -13.1

  Northumbria

  161,100

  132,588

  151,298

  142,279

  —

  139,130

  -24.3

  North East Region

  286,386

  240,492

  268,741

  256,260

  —

  261,308

  -18.3

  Cheshire

  65,114

  59,414

  65,119

  64,528

  —

  70,990

  -0.5

  Cumbria3

  38,495

  35,171

  40,202

  37,729

  —

  37,324

  -15.2

  Greater Manchester3

  320,668

  336,172

  362,450

  377,086

  —

  380,801

  10.1

  Lancashire3

  122,430

  105,161

  118,085

  108,866

  —

  137,760

  0.2

  Merseyside

  139,247

  130,606

  140,874

  148,172

  —

  150,934

  0.5

  North West Region

  685,954

  666,524

  726,730

  736,381

  —

  777,809

  4.0

  Humberside

  122,721

  119,290

  130,691

  121,442

  —

  117,483

  -12.6

  North Yorkshire3

  53,639

  48,372

  55,309

  53,554

  —

  59,149

  -3.6

  South Yorkshire

  146,660

  124,427

  133,059

  131,700

  —

  134,764

  -14.1

  West Yorkshire

  259,235

  246,438

  273,809

  260,237

  —

  298,847

  3.8

  576W
  the hon. Member for Burnley to the Home Office regarding Mrs. S B Shah Ref S 851373/x of 4 February and 7 November 2002. [102390]

  Beverley Hughes
  I wrote to my hon. Friend on 13 March.

  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to reply to the letter to him dated 23 December 2002 from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mrs. Lutfi. [98961]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I refer my right hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on 10 March 2003,Official Report. column 68W.

  Crime
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the change in the volume of crime was between 1997 and the latest date for which information is available, in each police authority in England. [99811]

  Mr. Denham
  The percentage changes for total recorded crime between the 12 months to March 1997 and the 12 months to March 2002, by police force area in England, are given in the table.

  There was a change in counting rules for recorded crime on 1 April 1998 which increased the total number of crimes recorded in England and Wales as a whole by 14 per cent., although this varied for individual police forces and offence types. Comparisons between the old counting rules and the new rules for the year ending March 1999, as well as the effects of the boundary change involving the Metropolitan Police on 1 April 2000, are included in the table. The percentage change in the number of recorded crimes given in the table is calculated so that the effects of these changes are excluded.

  As a result of several forces adopting the principles of the National Crime Recording Standard (NCRS) in advance of its official introduction across England and Wales on 1 April 2002, numbers of offences recorded for 2001–02 may have been inflated for those forces, and in total. Unlike the changes described above, this effect has not been factored out of the calculation of the percentage change in recorded crime given in the table.
  577W

  Total recorded crime by police force are region: trends since 1997–England

  April 1996 To March 1999

  April 1999 to March 2000

  Police force are

  April 1996 to March 1997

  Old rules1

  New rule1

  Old boundaries

  New boundaries

  April 2001 to March 2002

  Percentage change 1996–97 to 2001–02 (excludes effects of rule and boundary changes)3

  Yorkshire and the Humber Region

  582,255

  538,527

  592,868

  566,933

  —

  610,223

  -4.8

  Derbyshire

  77,320

  74,047

  84,459

  85,650

  —

  89,841

  1.9

  Leicestershire

  89,881

  81,714

  93,397

  94,577

  —

  88,535

  -13.8

  Lincolnshire

  47,698

  39,718

  46,670

  46,170

  —

  49,797

  -11.2

  Northamptonshire

  55,003

  55,842

  65,466

  61,240

  —

  60,485

  -6.2

  Nottinghamshire

  140,088

  123,680

  135,255

  136,875

  —

  159,240

  3.9

  East Midlands Region

  409,990

  375,001

  425,247

  424,512

  —

  447,898

  3.7

  Staffordshire3

  92,686

  84,495

  91,919

  98,852

  —

  117,274

  16.3

  Warwickshire3

  38,229

  35,659

  38,485

  38,593

  —

  42,211

  2.3

  West Mercia3

  82,080

  69,451

  81,782

  84,797

  —

  102,149

  5.7

  West Midlands3

  305,818

  276,512

  314,628

  364,887

  —

  372,257

  7.0

  West Midlands Region

  518,813

  466,117

  526,814

  587,129

  —

  633,891

  8.1

  Bedfordshire

  50,969

  43,947

  49,076

  53,607

  —

  52,239

  -8.2

  Cambridgeshire

  67,396

  59,678

  67,256

  68,722

  —

  69,559

  -8.4

  Essex2

  99,041

  87,147

  95,797

  102,777

  108,305

  113,150

  -1.4

  Hertfordshire2

  52,454

  46,255

  49,309

  52,741

  65,015

  67.437

  -2.2

  Norfolk

  55,988

  51,167

  57,129

  59,387

  —

  58,954

  -5.7

  Suffolk3

  37,496

  34,280

  39,908

  43,355

  —

  50,492

  15.7

  East of England Region

  363,344

  322,474

  358,475

  380,589

  398,391

  411,831

  -2.6

  London, City of

  4,754

  6,035

  7,144

  7,775

  —

  10,098

  79.4

  Metropolitan Police2

  844,306

  767,880

  934,254

  1,052,047

  1,016,742

  1,057,360

  6.5

  London Region

  849,060

  773,915

  941,398

  1,059,822

  1,024,517

  1,067,458

  6.9

  Hampshire

  133,529

  115,008

  128,253

  135,174

  —

  135,961

  -8.7

  Kent3

  141,781

  110,244

  129,340

  124,918

  —

  120,155

  -27.8

  Surrey2

  41,517

  36,376

  42,467

  46,288

  63,791

  61,970

  -7.2

  Sussex

  118,339

  111,468

  130,402

  136,566

  —

  135,110

  -2.4

  Thames Valley

  168,386

  161,646

  176,477

  191,875

  —

  196,980

  7.2

  South East Region

  603,552

  534,742

  606,939

  634,821

  652,324

  650,176

  -7.6

  Avon and Somerset3

  151,072

  131,955

  150,089

  147,104

  —

  178,991

  4.2

  Devon and Cornwall

  101,326

  88,484

  110,644

  110,361

  —

  101,425

  -20.0

  Dorset

  48,173

  43,903

  52,755

  52,332

  —

  54,951

  -5.1

  Gloucestershire

  52,967

  44,000

  48,206

  50,993

  —

  50,467

  -13.0

  Wiltshire

  35,099

  32,984

  38,189

  38,461

  —

  38,889

  -4.3

  South West Region

  388,637

  341,326

  399,883

  399,251

  —

  424,723

  -6.7

  England

  4,687,991

  4,259,118

  4,847,095

  5,045,698

  5,045,698

  5,285,317

  -0.9

  1 'Old rules' denotes the number of crimes that would have been recorded using the coverage and rules in use until 31 March 1998. 'New rules' denotes crimes recorded using the expanded offence coverage and revised counting rules which came into effect on 1 April 1998.

  2 Forces affected by boundary changes on 1 April 2000.

  3 These forces adopted the principles of the National Crime Recording Standard (NCRS) early, as it was officially introduced across England and Wales on 1 April 2002. This may have increased the number of offences recorded for 2001–02.

  Mr. David Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on crime trends within Gloucestershire. [101177]

  Mr. Denham
  Recorded crime statistics for Gloucestershire Constabulary are given in the table. Figures for the main offence groups for the 12 months to Malch 2002 are shown.

  Recorded crime trends in Gloucestershire for the 12 months to March 2002

  Offence Group

  Number of offences recorded

  Percentage change between 2000–01 to 2001–02

  Number offences per 1,000 population

  Total offences

  50,467

  1

  89

  Violence against the person

  4,695

  6

  8

  Sexual offences

  267

  23

  0.5

  Robbery

  498

  37

  1

  Total violent crime

  5,460

  4

  10

  578W

  Recorded crime trends in Gloucestershire for the 12 months to March 2002

  Offence Gropu

  Number of offences recorded

  Percentage change between 2000–01 to 2001–02

  Number offences per 1,000 population

  Burglary

  8,468

  8

  15

  Theft and handling stolen goods

  21,868

  2

  39

  Fraud and forgery

  3,528

  14

  6

  Criminal damage

  9,264

  2

  16

  Drug offences

  1,223

  5

  2

  Other offences

  656

  1

  1

  Mr. Tony Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the levels of(a) reported crimes and (b) successful prosecutions brought in Northampton were in 2001–02. [100805]
  579W
  Mr. Denham
  Recorded crime statistics for Northampton are recorded at Basic Command Unit level (BCD). At BCU level, figures for six key offence groups are collected and published. These offence groups are; violence against the person, sexual offences, robbery, domestic burglary, theft of a motor vehicle, and theft from a vehicle. Figures for the 12 months to March 2002 are given in table 1.

  Table 1: Recorded crime statistics for Northampton Basic Command Unit ( BCU)

  Offence group

  Number of offences recorded 2001–02

  Violence against the person

  2,307

  Sexual offences

  155

  Robbery

  465

  Domestic burglary

  1,742

  Theft of a motor vehicle

  1,486

  Theft from a vehicle

  3,155

  Table 2 includes figures on the number of defendants proceeded against and found guilty by Northampton magistrates' court and those found guilty at the Crown Court if committed by Northampton magistrates' court, for 2001.

  Court proceedings data is collected and published on a calendar year basis.

  Table 2: Number of defendants proceeded against at Northampton magistrates' court for various recordable offences and the number found guilty including those found guilty at the Crown Court where Northampton magistrates' court was the committing court, 20011

  Recordable offence(s)

  Proceeded against

  Found guilty

  Violence against the person

  798

  449

  Sexual offences

  47

  37

  Robbery

  48

  37

  Domestic burglary

  79

  60

  Theft of a motor vehicle

  48

  8

  Theft from a motor vehicle

  54

  35

  All recordable offences

  2,677

  1,699

  1 These data are on the principal offence basis.

  Domestic Violence
  Margaret Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to raise awareness of domestic violence in the criminal justice system, with particular reference to(a) prevention and (b) support for victims. [97758]

  Mr. Denham
  The Ministerial Group on Domestic Violence has among its priority areas for action, improving the interface between the criminal and civil law; and ensuring a consistent and appropriate response from the police and Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). Among the steps which are being taken in this are the following:The Solicitor-General has announced the publication of the revised CPS Policy on prosecuting cases of domestic violence, which sets out how the CPS deals with such cases.
  580W
  We will be supporting the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) in wide ranging work on the police response to domestic violence.
  Policing domestic violence—a modular training programme is a national training product developed by Centrex and issued in November 2002. The programme is intended to provide a structured but flexible approach to the delivery of domestic violence training within the police service.
  The National Policing Plan requires that police authorities should have effective strategies and procedures in place to respond quickly and effectively to domestic violence incidents. The number of domestic violence incidents as measured by Best Value Performance Indicator 153 is a key performance indicator in the plan. The Prison and National Probation Services agreed a joint strategy for combating domestic violence which was taken to the Correctional Services accreditation panel in September 2002. This committed those Services to working together in this area and sharing resources and knowledge whenever appropriate. The National Probation Service has been running a domestic violence research pathfinder to evaluate the most effective way of working to combat domestic violence since 2000.
  A consultation paper will be published shortly with further proposals for tackling domestic violence.

  Margaret Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list new initiatives to tackle domestic violence since 1997; and what their cost was. [97760]

  Mr. Denham
  The readily available information on new initiatives to tackle domestic violence, and their costs, are as follows.

  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary recently announced a £14 million three-year funding package including help for the 376 Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships across the country to develop practical strategies for dealing with domestic violence at a local level. The Home Office is to fund the appointment of a new co-ordinator's post, based within the Local Government Association, to work with local authorities and police forces to help them deal effectively with domestic violence in their communities.

  The Violence against Women (VAW) Initiative part of the Home Office's Crime Reduction Programme (CR13), invested £10.7 million to identify the most effective and cost effective approaches to reducing domestic violence and rape and sexual assault by known perpetrators.

  The Ministerial Group on Domestic Violence held its inaugural meeting :in December 2001 and brings together eight Ministers to progress five priority areas for action:
  Increasing safe accommodation choices for women and children;
  Developing early and effective healthcare interventions;
  Improving the interface between the criminal and civil law;
  Ensuring a consistent and appropriate response from the police and Crown Prosecution Service;
  Promoting Education and Awareness Raising.

  The Department of Health are funding a £48,000 programme to pilot routine antenatal screening for domestic violence.
  581W
  Consultation on the Department of Health's recently published National Women's Mental Health Strategy>:`Women's Mental Health: Into the Mainstream' has just finished (December 2002). One of the themes of the strategy is the need to address violence and abuse as a core mental health issue.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has announced that a new national 24-hour free helpline to help women and children fleeing domestic violence will be set up, in a groundbreaking arrangement with Comic Relief.

  The Government will spend a further £7 million to develop new refuges in partnership with local authorities around the country, to ensure better availability of safe accommodation for women and children forced to leave their homes.

  Women and Equality Unit has commissioned, for the first time, a review of the economic and social costs of domestic violence.

  The Adoption and Children Act makes clear that when a court is considering whether a child has suffered or is likely to suffer harm under the Children Act 1989, this harm includes harm a child may suffer as a result of witnessing the ill-treatment of another person.

  The Lord Chancellor's Department have also set up a Domestic Violence Advisory Group to engage with the full range of stakeholders involved in dealing with domestic violence.

  The Lord Chancellor's Department has also made significant contribution to the planning and funding of the second Inter-Governmental Conference 'Raising the Standards' held in Cardiff on 21 February 2003, and to the series of six nation-wide events on 'The Particular Challenges of Dealing with Domestic Violence in the Asian Community'.

  The Solicitor General has announced the publication of the revised Crown Prosecution Service Policy on prosecuting cases of domestic violence.

  `Policing domestic violence—a modular training programme' is a national training product developed by Centrex and issued in November 2002.

  Total recorded crime by police force are region: trends since 1997

  April 1998 to March 1999

  April 1999 to March 2000

  Police force are

  April 1996 to March 1997

  Old rules1

  New rules2

  Old boundaries

  New boundaries

  April 2001 to March 2002

  Percentage change 1996–97 to 2001–02 (excludes effects of rule and boundary changes)3

  England

  Cleveland

  74,694

  63,726

  67,030

  65,185

  72,003

  -8.4

  Durham3

  50,592

  44,178

  50,413

  48,796

  50,175

  -13.1

  Northumbria

  161,100

  132,588

  151,298

  142,279

  139,130

  -24,3

  Total north east region

  286,386

  240,492

  268,741

  256,260

  261,308

  -18.3

  Cheshire

  65,114

  59,414

  65,119

  64,528

  70,990

  -0.5

  Cumbria3

  38,495

  35,171

  40,202

  37,729

  37,324

  -15.2

  Greater Manchester3

  320,668

  336,172

  362,450

  377,086

  380,801

  10.1

  Lancashire3

  122,430

  105,161

  118,085

  108,866

  137,760

  0.2

  Merseyside

  139,247

  130,606

  140,874

  148,172

  150,934

  0.5

  Total north west region

  685,954

  666,524

  726,730

  736,381

  777,809

  4.0

  Humberside

  122,721

  119,290

  130,691

  121,442

  117,463

  -12.6

  582W
  The National Policing Plan states that police authorities should have effective strategies and procedures in place to respond quickly and effectively to domestic violence incidents.

  The Prison and National Probation Services agreed a joint strategy for combating domestic violence which was taken to the Correctional Services accreditation panel in September 2002.

  The National Probation Service has been running a domestic violence research pathfinder to evaluate the most effective way of working to combat domestic violence since 2000.

  A consultation paper setting out proposals to prevent domestic violence will be published by Spring 2003. The consultation will aim to generate a comprehensive response from the public, voluntary sectors and others, to ensure the widest possible agreement on what needs to be done to prevent and deal with domestic violence. This consultation will also consolidate the initial consultation on domestic violence in the 'white paper Justice for All'.

  Additionally the following information and guidance has also been produced since 1997.
  Living Without Fear: an integrated approach to tackling violence against women—Home Office and Women and Equality Unit jointly published the policy document in June 1999. This was a practical document setting out what actions were already completed, in hand or planned and giving examples of individual initiatives by statutory and non-statutory agencies.
  Break the Chain—An information leaflet for domestic violence survivors and those who might be able to help them. Published January 1999.
  Loves me loves me not—An updated version of Break the Chain leaflet, published in July 2002.
  Multi-Agency Guidance for Addressing Domestic Violence-Guidance to agencies on dealing with domestic violence published in 2000.
  Home Office Circular 19/2000—Circular to police, in conjunction with the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO).
  Home Office Circular-Protection from Harassment Act 1997—Issued to Chief Officers of Police and copied to Chief Crown Prosecutors, Probation Boards Association, Magistrates Association issued May 2002.
  Domestic Violence: a resource manual for health care professionals-Guidance aimed to equip healthcare practitioners with the skills, knowledge and confidence to identify domestic violence and respond appropriately to help break the cycle of repeat victimisation.

  583W

  Total recorded crime by police force are region: trends since 1997–England

  April 1998 to March 1999

  April 1999 to March 2000

  Police force are

  April 1996 to March 1997

  Old rules1

  New rules2

  Old boundaries

  New boundaries

  April 2001 to March 2002

  Percentage change 1996–97 to 2001–02 (excludes effects of rule and boundary changes)3

  North Yorkshire3

  53,639

  48,372

  55,309

  53,554

  59,149

  -3.61

  South Yorkshire

  146,660

  124,427

  133,059

  131,700

  134,764

  -14.

  West Yorkshire

  259,235

  246,438

  273,809

  260,237

  298,847

  3.8

  Total Yorkshire and the Humber region

  582,255

  538,527

  592,868

  566,933

  610,223

  -4.8

  Derbyshire

  77,320

  74,047

  84,459

  85,650

  89,841

  1.9

  Leicestershire

  89,881

  81,714

  93,397

  94,577

  88,535

  -.13.8

  Lincolnshire

  47,698

  39,718

  46,670

  46,170

  49,797

  -.11.2

  Northamptonshire

  55,003

  55,842

  65,466

  61,240

  60,485

  -6.2

  Nottinghamshire

  140,088

  123,680

  135,255

  136,875

  159,240

  3.9

  Total east midlands region

  409,990

  375,001

  425,247

  424,512

  447,898

  -.3.7

  Staffordshire3

  92,686

  84,495

  91,919

  98,852

  117,274

  16.3

  Warwickshire3

  38,229

  35,659

  38,485

  38,593

  42,211

  2.3

  West Mercia3

  82,080

  69,451

  81,782

  84,797

  102,149

  5.7

  West Midlands3

  305,818

  276,512

  314,628

  364,887

  372,257

  7.0

  Total west midlands region

  518,813

  466,117

  526,814

  587,129

  633,891

  8.1

  Bedfordshire

  50,969

  43,947

  49,076

  53,607

  52,239

  -.8.2

  Cambridgeshire

  67,396

  59,678

  67,256

  68,722

  69,559

  -8.4

  Essex4

  99,041

  87,147

  95,797

  102,777

  108,305

  113,150

  -.1.4

  Hertfordshire4

  52,454

  46,255

  49,309

  52,741

  65,015

  67,437

  -2.2

  Norfolk

  55,988

  51,167

  57,129

  59,387

  58,954

  -.5.7

  Suffolk3

  37,496

  34,280

  39,908

  43,355

  50,492

  15.7

  Total east of England region

  363,344

  322,474

  358,475

  380,589

  398,391

  411,831

  -2.6

  London, City of

  4,754

  6,035

  7,144

  7,775

  10,098

  79.4

  Metropolitan Police2

  844,306

  767,880

  934,254

  1,052,047

  1,016,742

  1,057,360

  6.5

  Total London region

  849,060

  773,915

  941,398

  1,059,822

  1,024,517

  1,067,458

  6.9

  Hampshire

  133,529

  115,008

  128,253

  135,174

  135,961

  -.8.7

  Kent3

  141,781

  110,244

  129,340

  124,918

  120,155

  -27.8

  Surrey4

  41,517

  36,376

  42,467

  46,288

  63,791

  61,970

  -7.2

  Sussex

  118,339

  111,468

  130,402

  136,566

  135,110

  -2.4

  Thames Valley

  168,386

  161,646

  176,477

  191,875

  196,980

  7.2

  Total south east region

  603,552

  534,742

  606,939

  634,821

  652,324

  650,176

  -7.6

  Avon and Somerset3

  151,072

  131,955

  150,089

  147,104

  178,991

  4.2

  Devon and Cornwall

  101,326

  88,484

  110,644

  110,361

  101,425

  -20.0

  Dorset

  48,173

  43,903

  52,755

  52,322

  54,951

  -5.1

  Gloucestershire

  52,967

  44,000

  48,206

  50,993

  50,467

  -13.0

  Wiltshire

  35,099

  32,984

  38,189

  38,461

  38,889

  -4.3

  Total south west region

  388,637

  341,326

  399,883

  399,251

  424,723

  -6.7

  Total England

  4,687,991

  4,259,118

  4,847,095

  5,045,698

  5,045,698

  5,285,317

  -0.9

  1 'Old rules' denotes the number of crimes that would have been recorded using the coverage and rules in use until 31 March 1998.

  2 'New rules' denotes crimes recorded using the expanded offence coverage and revised counting rules which came into effect on 1 April 1998.

  3 These forces adopted the principles of the National Crime Recording Standard (NCRS) early, as it was officially introduced across England and Wales on 1 April 2002. This may have increased the number of offences recorded for 2001–02.

  4 Forces affected by boundary changes on 1 April 2000.

  Drug Treatment
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what drug treatment facilities are available for juveniles in(a) local authority secure units, (b) secure training centres and (c) young offender institutions; and who provides them. [102449]

  Hilary Benn
  The Youth Justice Board for England and Wales (YJB) is responsible for commissioning and purchasing juvenile secure accommodation from the prison Service, private sector secure training centres (STCs) and local authority secure units LASUs), and for setting and monitoring standards.
  584W
  The YJB requires custodial establishments to provide access to substance misuse assessments, care plan development, withdrawal services and education/ awareness programmes.

  Prison Service Drugs Strategy Directorate is responsible for drugs services in young offender institutions (YOIs). The Prison Service model for delivering druges services is CARATs (Counselling, Assessment, Referral, Advice and Throughcare services). CARATs services can be provided by both prison service staff and external agencies. All young peole should be screened by health staff as part of their general induction assessment. CARATs staff support this process and may provide specialist intervention as appropriate.
  585W
  STCs and LASUs generally provide in-house substance misuse services managed by each unit's health provision and education services. Some LASUs also commission additional specialist services from the community. Young people are screened on arrival to the units, and prevention education takes place as pat of personal social health education.

  Recognising that there is inconsistent provision across the secure estate, the YJ13 has commissioned Galahad consultants to identify the substance misuse needs of young people in custody, the level of current service provision and gaps. Their final report will be available in June 2003 and will inform future work in this area. The YJB has also commissioned Drugscope to develop effective practice guidance for youth justice staff on working with young people with substance misuse needs; this will be available in June 2003.

  The national drug strategy relaunched by the Home Office in December 2002 identifies as a priority vulnerable young people and those within the youth justice system. The YJB has been allocated £300 million over three years from 2003 to improve substance misuse services across the juvenile secure estate.

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what form of drug treatment is available for prisoners(a) on remand and (b) serving sentences of less than two years. [102465]

  Hilary Benn
  The Prison Service has in place a range of drug interventions to address the needs of low, moderate and severe drug-misusing prisoners who are either on remand or serving sentences of less than two years. Detoxification is available in all local and remand prisons; Counselling, Assessment, Referral, Advice and Throughcare (CARAT) services are available in all prisons—as is access to the voluntary drug testing programme.

  The Service recognises that many prisoners who serve two years or less are likely—due to their sentence length—to be excluded from participation in drug rehabilitation programmes. The Service has, as part of the recent Spending Review 2002 settlement, received significant funding to boost treatment provision. Part of this funding will be channelled into developing a low-intensity programme specifically targeted at those prisoners who will only be in custody for a short period.

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) of 5 March 2003,Official Report. column 772W, what forms of (a) drug detoxification and (b) other types of rehabilitation programme are available for prisoners serving sentences of less than two years; and if he will make a statement. [102468]

  Hilary Benn
  Drug detoxification is available in all local and remand prisons. Detoxification can be made available to reduce the effects of withdrawal symptoms from specific drugs or to provide maintenance prescribing. The Counselling, Assessment, Referral,586W
  Advice and Throughcare (CARAT) service is available in all prisons as is access to the voluntary drug programme.

  Prisoners who serve two years or less are likely, due to sentence length, to be unable to participate in a drug rehabilitation programme. The Prison Service received funding from the recent Spending Review 2002 to boost treatment provision. Part of this funding will be used to develop a programme specifically targeted at those prisoners who will be in custody for a short period.

  Drug Use (Wales)
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the level of(a) class A drug and (b) illegal drug use in Wales. [102537]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The 2001-02 British Crime Survey estimates that two per cent. of adults aged 16 to 59-years-olds in Wales have taken a Class A drug in the last year. The equivalent estimate for England is three per cent. The difference between the two estimates is statistically significant.

  The 2001–02 British Crime Survey estimates that eight per cent. of adults aged 16 to 59-years-olds in Wales have taken an illicit drug in the last year. The equivalent estimate for England is 12 per cent. Again, the difference between the two estimates is statistically significant.

  Inmate Information Service
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department[pursuant to his answer of 3 February 2003, Official Report. column 78W], on the Inmate Information System, which prisons are (a) linked and (b) not linked on the Inmate Information System; how many prisoners' records are (i) linked and (ii) not linked on the Inmate Information System; and if he will make a statement. [101929]

  Hilary Benn
  All prisons are linked to the Inmate Information system (IIS). All historical information is retained on IIS and is accessible from all prisons. There is currently no automatic method of linking prisoners' records, but this will be a component of a replacement system that is now being considered.

  Currently, manual linking of previous custody information is required as there is no reliable unique identifier (a new prison number is allocated at the beginning of each period of custody) and the National Insurance number is not always available. Inevitably, this means that details of previous custody may not always be available. This limitation in the current IIS system will be addressed in the replacement system now being considered.

  Landmine Act 1998
  Dr. Jenny Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions there have been under the Landmine Act 1998; and how many have been successful. [102245]
  587W
  Hilary Benn
  Persons proceeded against and those found guilty of summary offences under the Landmines Act 1998 cannot be separately identified on the Home Office Court proceedings database. There have been no cases of persons proceeded against for indictable or triable either way offences under the Act reported to the Home Office.

  Manslaughter
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the regulatory impact assessment on the issue of corporate manslaughter which commenced in September 2002 was completed by the end of 2002; when he expects to put proposals before the House for an offence of corporate manslaughter; and if he will make a statement. [103287]

  Hilary Benn
  Contributions to the Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) were requested by the end of the year. We have since been analysing the responses and actively encouraging those organisations which had not replied, in order to produce an RIA. The Government remains committed to legislating on corporate manslaughter and will do so as soon as parliamentary time allows.

  Mr. Andrew Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answer of 12 March 2003,Official Report. column 975W, on manslaughter, when he expects to publish the digest of responses to the consultation paper; arid if he will make a statement. [103453]

  Hilary Benn
  We will be preparing a summary of responses to the consultation, and will make this available as soon as possible. Following completion of the consultation, we are at present conducting a regulatory impact assessment on the proposals.

  Metropolitan Police
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what the crime detection rate has been within the Metropolitan Police force area during each of the last five years; [100600]

  (2) how many robberies were committed in each of the last five years within the Metropolitan Police force area. [100604]

  Mr. Denham
  Overall detection rates and numbers of robbery offences recorded for the Metropolitan Police are given in the table.

  Robery offences recorded

  19971

  27,386

  1998–992

  26,330

  1999–20003

  36,317

  2000–014

  40,992

  2001–024

  53,547

  Detection rate percentage for total recorded crime

  19971

  26

  1998–992

  22

  1999–20003

  16

  2000–014

  15

  2001–024

  14

  588W
  1 Recorded on a calendar year basis up to 1997, and thereafter on a financial year basis (12 months to March).

  2 The 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. This will also have affected the detection rate.

  3 The counting rules for detections changed on 1 April 1999.

  4 Figures recorded on the new boundary basis, whereby the Metropolitan Police ceded parts of its boundary to three surrounding police forces, Essex. Hertfordshire and Surrey, on I April 2000.

  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 no directly comparable.

  There was also a change in counting rules for detections on 1 April 1999. The new instructions provide more precise and rigorous criteria for recording a detection, with the underlying emphasis on the successful result of a police investigation. Numbers of detections before and after this date are therefore not directly comparable.

  PFI Prisons
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which PFI funded prisons have payments to the contractors related to reoffending rates. [101763]

  Hilary Benn
  A performance bonus can be paid to Premier Prison Services Ltd if the contractor reduces recidivism in respect of the proportion of prisoners at the therapeutic community at Dovegate prison who have undertaken at least 15 months therapy in the community. They must also not have committed an offence within 12 months of release from custody; There has been insufficient tame for a bonus to become payable because the therapeutic community only opened in November 2001.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the average cost per year of a prisoner held in(a) PFI funded and ( b) non PFI funded prisons in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [101764]

  Hilary Benn
  The average cost per prisoner held in Private Finance Initiative (PFI) funded and non PFI funded prisons in each of the last three years is shown, in the table.

  These figures are establishment costs only and exclude any share of Headquarters overheads. Establishment cost per prisoner figures cannot therefore be compared with the overall Prison Service cost per prisoner figure, which includes all expenditure.

  The figures for 1999–2000 and 2000–01 are expressed in cash terms, with those for 2001–02 expressed in resource terms.

  Cash

  Resource

  1999–2000(£)

  2000–01(£)

  2001–02

  Acklington

  16,217

  16,050

  16,459

  Albany

  20,234

  20,368

  21,853

  Altcourse*

  41,801

  43,596

  37,029

  Ashfield*

  —

  46,323

  33,314

  589W

  Cash

  1999–2000(£)

  2000–01(£)

  Resource 2001–02

  Ashwell

  15,816

  17,264

  20,204

  Askham Grange

  21,644

  21,916

  22,431

  Aylesbury

  28,314

  28,213

  31,466

  Bedford

  20,037

  21,819

  20,414

  Belmarsh

  35,542

  35,091

  36,608

  Birmingham

  14,554

  15,806

  19,839

  Blakenhurst*

  17,372

  17,965

  11,540

  Blantyre House

  20,010

  20,946

  21,315

  Blundeston

  24,110

  22,675

  24,074

  Brinsford

  19,701

  23,036

  26,767

  Bristol

  29,171

  34,808

  29,872

  Brixton

  22,965

  24,756

  25,756

  Brockhill

  31,737

  33,960

  36,729

  Buckley Hall*

  19,866

  17,088

  20,469

  Bullingdon

  15,321

  16,601

  17,073

  Bullwood Hall

  34,580

  31,458

  33,693

  Camp Hill

  19,180

  19,120

  19,231

  Canterbury

  28,314

  35,966

  21,955

  Cardiff

  18,058

  22,080

  20,800

  Castington

  29,415

  43,724

  37,740

  Channings Wood

  18,336

  18,794

  19,108

  Chelmsford

  22,956

  24,800

  24,770

  Coldingley

  24,490

  20,505

  21,754

  Cookham Wood

  22,173

  22,106

  24,264

  Dartmoor

  21,475

  22,080

  24,369

  Deerbolt

  20,097

  21,203

  23,968

  Doncaster*

  19,889

  18,836

  17,028

  Dorchester

  21,293

  23,415

  23,785

  Dover

  22,618

  21,698

  33,600

  Downview

  19,312

  18,935

  35,572

  Drake Hall

  22,359

  27,651

  24,784

  Durham

  22,552

  26,320

  32,303

  East Sutton Park

  21,639

  22,828

  23,705

  Eastwood Park

  22,734

  22,023

  23,403

  Elmley

  15,874

  16,267

  16,523

  Erlestoke

  19,761

  19,832

  19,398

  Everthorpe

  17,455

  17,032

  18,446

  Exeter

  20,691

  22,112

  21,467

  Featherstone

  18,751

  18,989

  21,337

  Feltham

  24,020

  32,724

  37,471

  Ford

  16,039

  16,114

  15,260

  Forest Bank

  13,608

  32,392

  23,243

  Foston Hall

  25,842

  29,790

  27,422

  Frankland

  43,418

  42,706

  38,480

  Full Sutton

  39,342

  39,234

  39,827

  Garth

  18,926

  19,560

  21,016

  Gartree

  24,245

  26,782

  31,522

  Glen Parva

  18,369

  20,638

  21,642

  Gloucester

  22,335

  24,383

  25,869

  Grendon

  22,594

  25,228

  25,345

  Guys Marsh

  15,364

  15,548

  15,928

  Haslar

  16,943

  18,717

  19,526

  Hatfield

  27,282

  28,898

  24,428

  Haverigg

  23,464

  21,551

  17,955

  Hewell Grange

  14,795

  15,417

  18,022

  High Down

  24,095

  25,091

  24,374

  Highpoint

  18,900

  19,953

  20,056

  Hindley

  24,989

  27,428

  30,032

  Hollesley Bay

  34,815

  36,242

  37,678

  Holloway

  38,521

  40,581

  41,622

  Holme House

  16,211

  18,192

  17,891

  Hull

  25,991

  24,556

  24,056

  Huntercombe

  29,595

  26,551

  30,628

  Kingston

  24,637

  26,689

  26,102

  Kirkham

  21,456

  18,868

  22,226

  Kirklevington

  14,738

  15,566

  16,355

  Lancaster

  27,057

  34,000

  25,268

  Lancaster Farms

  21,722

  23,123

  23,478

  Latchmere House

  14,701

  14,487

  17,842

  Leeds

  17,159

  18,845

  18,876

  Leicester

  22,677

  23,404

  23,989

  Lewes

  21,960

  21,832

  21,672

  Leyhill

  20,948

  22,335

  22,592

  Lincoln

  23,43

  24,207

  22,666

  Lindholme

  23,613

  27,146

  24,941

  Littlehey

  14,921

  15,784

  16,653

  Liverpool

  17,476

  20,302

  18,957

  590W

  Cash

  1999–2000(£)

  2000–01(£)

  Resource 2001–02

  Long Lartin

  45,329

  42,627

  47,431

  Low Newton

  42,757

  30,948

  27,454

  Lowdham Grange*

  30,490

  29,630

  25,667

  Maidstone

  19,678

  21,097

  27,607

  Manchester

  23,285

  24,873

  22,245

  Moorland

  17,780

  17,923

  19,625

  Morton Hall

  14,360

  33,514

  27,265

  Mount

  15,339

  14,656

  15,896

  New Hall

  21,610

  23,299

  28,731

  North Sea Camp

  17,127

  17,723

  19,369

  Northallerton

  18,492

  23,355

  26,164

  Norwich

  19,204

  20,694

  19,509

  Nottingham

  21,247

  20,963

  20,786

  Onley

  20,186

  22,062

  24,617

  Parc*

  37,814

  38,950

  32,237

  Parkhurst

  25,864

  26,334

  28,450

  Pentonville

  18,595

  18,829

  19,136

  Portland

  17,786

  20,348

  23,949

  Preston

  18,605

  22,153

  23,816

  Ranby

  15,964

  17,047

  17,623

  Reading

  26,417

  29,633

  28,700

  Risley

  19,775

  19,180

  20,462

  Rochester

  23,099

  25,438

  35,686

  Rye Hill*

  —

  —

  24,635

  Send

  28,609

  20,055

  21,315

  Shepton Mallet

  21,707

  29,807

  29,470

  Shrewsbury

  19,545

  19,734

  19,762

  Stafford

  16,926

  17,081

  17,201

  Standford Hill

  19,711

  19,676

  21,106

  Stocken

  15,438

  15,498

  16,493

  Stoke Heath

  18,533

  23,847

  25,959

  Styal

  23,300

  23,951

  25,375

  Sudbury

  14,394

  14,206

  15,213

  Swaleside

  18,748

  17,319

  17,933

  Swansea

  21,780

  24,817

  28,920

  Swinfen Hall

  23,757

  22,240

  23,883

  Thorn Cross

  28,140

  29,618

  33,671

  Usk

  19,755

  19,932

  21,016

  Verne

  15,382

  15,733

  16,823

  Wakefield

  33,730

  34,095

  35,688

  Wandsworth

  17,535

  18,572

  18,735

  Wayland

  15,294

  15,051

  15,821

  Wealstun

  16,901

  16,778

  17,990

  Weare

  19,015

  18,728

  19,478

  Wellingborough

  19,238

  17,185

  18,163

  Werrington

  46,197

  47,466

  41,778

  Wetherby

  23,280

  30,133

  26,438

  Whatton

  16,751

  17,502

  18,048

  Whitemoor

  53,149

  52,402

  56,837

  Winchester

  18,701

  19,760

  20,498

  Wolds*

  23,326

  24,786

  21,665

  Woodhill

  27,762

  31,657

  32,807

  Wormwood Scrubs

  28,712

  26,779

  22,778

  Wymott

  17,427

  19,622

  18,897

  * PFI prisons

  Notes:

  1. Buckley Hall and Blakenhurst reverted to public sector management in 2000–01 and 2001–02 respectively.

  2. Ashfield and Rye Hill opened in 1999–2000 and 2000–01 respectively. Part year performance is not reported.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment his Department has made of the proportion of savings realised from PFI funded prisons which are due to(a) capital costs and (b) running costs in the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [101762]

  Hilary Benn
  Savings in private finance initiative (PFI) prison projects are expressed as the percentage difference between the Net Present Value of each project compared with its Public Sector Comparator; the Net Present Value of a project is its discounted value over the
  591W
  duration of the contract. Savings made in respect of the seven PFI funded prisons are shown in the following table.

  Percentage

  Altcourse

  17

  Ashfield

  14

  Dovegate

  17

  Forest Bank

  16

  Lowdham Grange

  14

  Pare

  1

  Rye Hill

  16

  It is not possible to separate capital and running costs because a single unitary charge is paid to the contractor in respect of the total cost of each prison.

  Police
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of police funding was spent on police pensions in each of the last 20 years; and what amounts these figures represent. [101246]

  Mr. Denham
  The information is set out in the following table.

  Year

  Net expenditure (£million)

  Net Pension expenditure (£ million)

  Net Pension expenditure proportion of police net expenditure in England and Wales (Percentage)

  1983–84

  2,505.0

  135.5

  5.4

  1984–85

  2,460.3

  176.5

  7.2

  1985–86

  2,768.7

  180.6

  6.5

  1986–87

  3,097.1

  223.5

  7.2

  1987–88

  3,367.8

  237.0

  7.0

  1988–89

  3,710.8

  253.7

  .6.8

  1989–90

  4,145.1

  292.1

  7.0

  1990–91

  4,606.7

  333.2

  7.2

  1991–92

  5,209.8

  399.9

  7.7

  1992–93

  5,621.8

  456.5

  8.1

  1993–94

  5,904.1

  536.8

  9.1

  1994–95

  6,173.3

  611.5

  9.9

  1995–96

  6,309.1

  678.2

  10.7

  1996–97

  6,619.8

  749.0

  11.3

  1997–98

  6,870.1

  874.9

  12.7

  1998–99

  7,070.7

  900.6

  12.7

  1999–2000

  7,450.3

  948.0

  12.7

  2000–01

  7,771.0

  998.4

  12.8

  2001–02

  8,169.3

  1,117.1

  13.7

  2002–03

  8,423.6

  1,189.9

  14.1

  Source:

  The Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy Police statistics 1983–84 to 2000–01 (Actuals) and 2001–02 to 2002–03 (Estimates).

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers there were in the London borough of Havering in each month since September 2002. [101956]

  Mr. Denham
  Information on the number of officers in each Basic Command Unit (BCU) is provided annually (31 March) by each police force to Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary. Information on London borough strength is not centrally collected on a more frequent basis. The deployment of resources 592W
  between the London borough divisions and the other specialist units of the Metropolitan Police Service is an operational matter for the Commissioner.

  I refer the hon. Member to my reply of 2 December 2002, Official Report. column 589W, to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes), setting out police strength for each Basic Command Unit for each force in England and Wales, including Lou don boroughs at 31 March 2002.

  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to the Answer of 24 February 2003,Official Report. column 2, on police pensions, what he estimates the cost to public funds would be of establishing a pay-as-you-go police pension scheme applying to new recruits only. [101926]

  Mr. Denham
  I understand that my hon. Friend means what we estimate the cost would be of establishing a funded pension scheme applying to new recruits only. As stated in the National Policing Plan we are considering options for modernising police pensions to make them more flexible and affordable for future entrants. As part of this reform, we will also seek to meet the needs of police authorities and chief officers for a scheme which brings greater certainty about the financial impact on individual police forces. Unlike in a pay-as-you go scheme, the employer pays contributions into a pension fund at the same time as the employee. The eventual pension is then paid out of the fund. In a pay-as-you go scheme the employer's costs are deferred until the pension comes into payment. The rate of employer's contributions in a funded police pension scheme for new entrants would depend mainly on the value of the pensions and other benefits provided, and the share borne by the officers. The immediate effect of introducing a funded scheme for new entrants, while keeping the existing scheme on a pay-as-you go basis, would be to increase costs. This is because the cost of paying employer contributions in respect of contributing members of a new funded scheme would be added to the continuing cost of paying the pension benefits of retired members of the current pay-as-you go scheme.

  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on progress made with the Home Office's National Recruitment Standards Project, with special reference to recruitment and retention of people with diabetes in the police service; and when the recommendations for the proposed new medical standards will be available for consultation. [102410]

  Mr. Denham
  The National Recruitment Standards project has made progress on a number of key areas:Eligibility criteria and recruitment practices covering issues such as criminal convictions and qualifications were reviewed, agreed and put in place in October 2001.
  A national fitness test for police recruitment was put in place in April 2002. This is being reviewed at the end of its first year.
  The nationality bar on police recruitment was lifted on 1 February 2003. This removed an unnecessary barrier to recruitment and widened the recruitment pool.

  593W
  New standards for eyesight have been agreed by the Police Advisory Board for England and Wales. The new standards which take account of our intention to extend the employment provisions of the Disability and Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA) to the police service will be put in place on 1 April 2003.
  Research has been undertaken to develop new job-related medical standards. A draft report by QinetiQ will be subject to consultation with the police service between April and June. The views of UK Diabetes and other interested groups will inform the consultation. We aim to put new standards to the Police Advisory Board in late summer.
  A national application procedure has been developed with the police service. This includes a national application form and recruitment material designed to attract hard to reach groups. A police recruitment website has been developed to support the new procedures. The website will provide applicants with all the information they need about joining the police service and will enable them to apply on line.
  A national procedure for assessing and selecting new recruits has been piloted in five forces and trialled by three forces. These procedures will be introduced in all forces over the next year.

  Prison Service
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of the Prison Service staff referred to on page 195 of the 2001–02 Home Office annual report are based in prisons. [101910]

  Hilary Benn
  Of the 42,057 permanent Prison Service staff included in the total quoted in the 2001–02 Home Office Annual Report, 39,983 were based in prisons.

  Prisoners
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners in UK prisons have been diagnosed with a mental illness; and what support is given to them. [102231]

  Hilary Benn
  A survey of mental ill health in the prison population of England and Wales, undertaken in 1997 by the Office for National Statistics, showed that some 10 per cent. of remanded men, 7 per cent. of sentenced men and 14 per cent. of all women prisoners had suffered from a functional psychosis in the past year. Some 59 per cent. of remanded men, 76 per cent. remanded women, 40 per cent. of sentenced men and 63 per cent. of sentenced women had a neurotic disorder in the week prior to being interviewed for the survey. These rates are considered to be still representative of the prison population. Applying them to the current population would indicate that, on any one day, there would be over 5,500 prisoners in England and Wales who would have suffered from symptoms of a functional psychosis in the previous 12 months and over 32,000 who would have suffered symptoms of a neurotic disorder in the previous week. Some prisoners will fall into both categories. All Prison Service establishments and their NHS partners are working to implement the improvements to mental health services set out in `Changing the Outlook, a Strategy for Developing and Modernising Mental Health Services in Prisons' published in December 2001. Prisoners who need inpatient treatment for mental disorder may be transferred to psychiatric hospitals. The care and treatment of mentally disordered prisoners who do not need to be admitted to hospital is generally undertaken by prison healthcare staff under the supervision of NHS specialists and increasingly, in establishments with the 594W
  greatest mental health need, by NHS-funded multidisciplinary in-reach teams. The commitments made in the NHS Plan (2000), for an additional 300 staff to be employed by 2004 to provide such in-reach services to prisoners, are being implemented. Mental illness in the prison population of Scotland is a matter for the Scottish Executive. While the institutions in Northern Ireland are dissolved, responsibility for this subject rests with Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office.

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of prisoners aged(a) 18–20 and (b) juvenile prisoners are drug dependent on entering prison. [102448]

  Hilary Benn
  Neither the Prison Service nor the Youth Justice Board keep records of the percentage of drug-dependent prisoners who, on entering prison, are(a) aged 18–20 or (b) juveniles. Based on research conducted by the Office for National Statistics, however, it is estimated that 54 per cent. of those being received into custody report drug-dependency in the year prior to justice.

  A review into substance misuse by young people is already under way. The findings from this review, expected to be available in the summer, will help inform the drug—and other substance misuse—needs of young people in custody.

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners were held in prisons in England and Wales on 30 June 2002, broken down by ethnic group. [102456]

  Hilary Benn
  The number of prisoners held in prisons in England and Wales on 30 June 2002 broken down by ethnic group is given in the table.

  Ethnic group

  Number of prisoners held in prisons

  White

  54,988

  Black

  11,022

  South Asian

  2,198

  Chinese and other

  2,947

  Unrecorded

  63

  Total

  71,218

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners were(a) considered and (b) approved for parole in each of the last five years. [102457]

  Hilary Benn
  The information is as follows:

  Year

  Cases considered

  Parole awarded

  1997–98

  5,242

  2,006

  1998–99

  6,078

  2,383

  1999–2000

  6,219

  2,561

  2000–01

  5,576

  2,584

  2001–02

  5,514

  2,791

  The information requested is published by the Parole Board in its Annual Reports and Accounts for 2001–02.

  Reconvictions
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of 18 to 20–yearolds who were reconvicted within two years of leaving prison in each of the last three years were drug-addicts; and if he will make a statement. [102447]

  Hilary Benn
  The information is not available.

  Visas (Subcontinent)
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has undertaken since August 2002 of changes in the rate of refusals of family visit visa applications from(a) New Delhi, (b) Islamabad, (c) South Asia, (d) Amman, (e) Tehran and (f) the Middle East; and if he will make a statement. [101403]

  Mr. Rammell
  The Foreign Office, the Home Office and the Lord Chancellor's Department have been working closely together since the Government introduced the right of appeal in family visit cases. An interdepartmental review was established in January 2001. The final report of the inter-departmental review group has been delayed due to pressures of commencing Part 5 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. The research work commissioned by the Immigration Research and Statistics Service at the Home Office is now being finalised and I understand that it should be published very shortly.

  Youth Inclusion Programme
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether he plans to expand the number of areas in which the Youth Inclusion Programme operates; [102459]

  (2) what the total funding is for the Youth Inclusion Programme for (a) 2003–04, (b) 2004–05 and (c) 2005–06; [102458]

  (3) how many (a) robberies, (b) burglaries, (c) drugs offences, (d) offences of violence against the person and (e) thefts of motor vehicles were recorded in each of the Youth Inclusion Programme areas in (i) 1999, (ii) 2000, (iii) 2001 and (iv) 2002; [102460]

  (4) how many 13 to 16-year-olds participated in the Youth Inclusion Programme in (i) 1999, (ii) 2000, (iii) 2001 and (iv) 2002; and what percentage of those young people are considered to remain at risk of offending; [102462]

  (5) how many 13 to 16-year-olds were arrested in each of the Youth Inclusion Programme areas in (i) 1999, (ii) 2000, (iii) 2001 and (iv) 2002. [102461]

  Hilary Benn
  The Youth Inclusion Programme (YIP) is managed by the Youth Justice Board. Since 1999, 70 YIP schemes have run in the most deprived neighbourhoods in England and Wales, each targeting the 50 young people, aged 13 to 16 in the local area, at greatest risk of social exclusion.

  We know that a total of 22,688 young people have been actively engaged in YIP schemes since the programme began, but a detailed breakdown of the number of 13 to 16-year-olds that have participated in
  596W
  each of the last four years in each of the 70 schemes is not available centrally. Nor do we hold data on arrests of all 13 to 16-year-olds, or overall levels of recorded crimes, broken down by the neighbourhoods in which each YIP scheme operates.

  We measure the success of the YIP schemes principally through arrest rates among the scheme's participants, which show that overall arrest rates have been reduced by 64 per cent. among those in the target group who have been actively engaged in the programme. In addition, independent evaluation of the YIP programme showed that between January and March 2002 around 70 per cent. of YIP areas showed reductions in overall crime, with reductions up to 40 per cent. We consider these to be more reliable measures of success than attempting to assess the extent to which the programme has reduced the risk that individual participants will subsequently offend.

  We announced on 21 October last year that the existing YIP programme will continue for a further three years from April 2003, with Home Office funding of £7 million per year. This is the minimum provision and does not prevent additional schemes being funded, for example by Children's Fund partnerships in meeting the requirement we are placing on them from April this year, to spend at least 25 per cent. of their allocations on specific youth crime reduction measures.

  We are looking more fundamentally at relevant services, programmes and interventions for young people at risk of crime and other negative outcomes in the Green Paper on children at risk that we will be publishing later in the spring.

  Youth Justice
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements have been put in place by the Youth Justice Board to undertake the work that was being dome by The Children's Society's national remand and review initiative. [101729]

  Hilary Benn
  The Children Society's national remand review initiative, funded by the Youth Justice Board, identifies alternatives for young people in custody who could nonetheless be managed in the community if appropriate support packages were provided.

  The Board plans to provide for their work through youth offending teams from April 2003. This will be supported by effective practice guidance, training and an independent study of the scheme's operation to inform future good practice development.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Pension Credit
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the cost projections for the pension credit. [102965]

  Mr. McCartney
  This Government will be spending an additional £1 billion in 2003–04 as a result of the introduction of pension credit, rising to an additional £2 billion in 2004–05. Total spending on pension credit in 2004–05 is projected to be around £6 billion.
  597W
  From October 2003 pension credit will provide a guaranteed minimum income for those aged 60 and over. It will ensure pensioners with modest savings no longer lose a pound of pensions or other savings they have built up.

  It has been designed so that customers will find it easy to apply for, it will be simpler, fairer, less intrusive and bureaucratic. The weekly means test will be abolished so for those people over 65 they will need only to report major life events, with the majority of people not having to notify changes in their financial circumstances for a period of five years.

  This Government is committed to tackling pensioner poverty.

  From April 2003, no single pensioner will have to get by on an income of less than £102.10 a week under the minimum income guarantee (£155.80 for couples).

  Nearly two million people are benefiting from minimum income guarantee and the take up campaign has put an average £20 a week extra in the pockets of 149,000 people who would not have received it otherwise. In the hon. Member's constituency around 1,500 people receive this entitlement.

  From April 2003, basic State Pension will be £77.45 for singles (£123.80 for couples). An increase of £100 a year for single people and £160 a year for couples. In future years the basic State Pension will increase by 2.5 per cent. or the level of the September RPI, whichever is higher.

  Last winter (2001–02) over eight million households benefited from the £200 Winter Fuel Payment, worth around £4 a week. It will continue at this rate for the rest of this Parliament. Some 18,305 people in the Huntingdon constituency received a Winter Fuel Payment for last winter.

  All in all, we will be spending around £7.5 billion extra on pensioners in 2003–04 as a result of the measures introduced since 1997. This includes around £3.5 billion that is being spent on the poorest third of pensioners.

  Andy Burnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the impact of the pension credit on the poorest pensioners.[102966]

  Mr. McCartney
  Our priority has always been to focus help on those who need it most, that is why we introduced the Minimum Income Guarantee. As a result, nearly two million people are benefiting from Minimum Income Guarantee and the take up campaign has put an average £20 a week extra in the pockets of 149,000 people who would not have received it otherwise. In the hon. Member's constituency around 3,400 people are in receipt of the Minimum Income Guarantee.

  WE are now going a step further and introducing Pension Credit which will reward not penalise saving. The poorest third of pensioners will be at least £1,500 a year better off than in 1997 due to this Government's tax and benefit changes.
  598W
  Around half of all pensioner households will be eligible for Pension Credit and, on average, stand to gain around £400 a year. Pension Credit will be simple to apply for, and signals the end of the intrusive weekly means test that pensioners find so demeaning.

  Pension credit will provide a guaranteed minimum income for those aged 60 and over. No single pensioner will have to get by on an income of less than £102.10 a week (£155.80 for couples).

  It will also ensure pensioners, aged 65 and over with modest savings, no longer lose a pound of pensions or other savings they have built up. Pensioners will receive 60p for every pound of income they have between the level of the savings credit threshold and the guarantee level potentially giving them a maximum reward of £14.79 (£19.20 for couples). Above this level the savings credit will reduce progressively, with those on incomes over £139 for single pensioners (£203 for couples) ceasing to be entitled. (These limits will be higher for those with special needs or extra payments).

  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the projected cost is per annum of the pension credit. [102591]

  Mr. McCartney
  I refer the hon. Member to the written answer I gave the hon. Member for Yeovil, Mr. David Laws, on 24 February 2003,Official Report. column 189W.

  Small Business Employment Incentives
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what financial incentives he has put in place for small and medium-sized enterprises to increase their workforce; and if he will make a statement. [102967]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Jobcentre Plus provides high quality services to employers, helping them to fill job vacancies quickly and effectively with well-prepared and motivated employees. This activity works in tandem with our welfare to work programmes, which are providing thousands of people with the skills, experience and confidence they need to succeed in the modern labour market.

  Post Office Card Accounts
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what action he is taking to help(a) benefit recipients and (b) pensioners open a post office card account. [102959]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The card account is just one of three account options available to customers. We are running an information campaign to highlight all the options available, including access at a post office. We are writing to benefit and pensions recipients with detailed information about all the options available to them, including the post office card account. Customers can also call the Direct Payment Information line if they have any questions about changing to direct payment.

  Disability Discrimination Act
  Miss Anne Begg
  What measures will be put in place to ensure that businesses fulfil their obligations under Part III of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. [102961]
  599W
  Maria Eagle
  We are currently working to remind businesses of their current and future duties under the DDA including commissioning national advertising, organising regional events, developing a regional award scheme for best practice and mailshots to business organisations. We are also working with the Disability Rights Commission on further publicity leading up to introduction of the new Part 3 duties in October 2004.

  Advertising (Scotland)
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much the Department spent on advertising in Scotland in each year since 1999 on(a) television, (b) newspapers, (c) radio, (d) magazines, (e) billboards and (f) sporting events. [102336]

  Mr. McCartney
  The Department for Work and Pensions advertises extensively in Scotland. However most of the campaigns are national so disaggregating the costs for advertising and media for any one region or country is only possible at disproportionate cost.

  Age Discrimination
  Mr. MacDougall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to end age discrimination against older people in the workplace; and if he will make a statement. [102944]

  Mr. McCartney
  We have made a pledge to tackle age discrimination and we are committed to introducing age legislation covering employment, vocational training and guidance by 2006.

  Our current Pensions Green Paper 'Simplicity, security and choice: Working and saving for retirement' reinforces our commitment to extend employment opportunities for people with a range of proposals including providing extra back to work help for over 50s, piloting local agents in the business community to help employers to realise the benefits of recruiting and retaining older workers, and a number of changes to tax and pension rules which will give individuals more choice and opportunity to stay in work longer. We have also made it clear that in the forthcoming age legislation compulsory retirement ages are likely to be unlawful, unless employers can show they are objectively justified. Employers will therefore need to adopt more flexible approaches to retirement.

  We are already encouraging employers to adopt nonageist employment practices through our Age Positive Campaign. The campaign raises employers' awareness of the business benefits of an age diverse workforce and encourages a flexible approach to retirement to open up choice and opportunity for individuals to stay in work longer.

  In 1999, we published the Code of Practice on Age Diversity in Employment which sets out the standards for non-ageist approaches to recruitment, training, promotion, redundancy and retirement. The code was developed with leading organisations including the CBI, TUC, the Employers Forum on Age and Age Concern. Evaluation shows that from 1999 to 2001 the number of companies using age in recruitment had already fallen from 27 per cent. to 13 per cent. and the number of companies having a policy against employing older workers had dropped from 14 per cent to 7 per cent.
  600W
  Since then we have continued to promote the business case for recruiting, training and retaining older workers through the Age Positive campaign, workshops for smaller businesses, and publications including 'Good Practice in the Recruitment and Retention of Older Workers' (December 2001), 'Flexible Retirement: A Snapshot of Large Employers' Initiatives' (June 2002) and during Age Positive week, in December 2002 we published 'Age Diversity at Work: a practical guide for business'. The campaign has been attracting considerable media coverage and about 30,000 visits a month to the Age Positive website www.agepositive.gov.uk.

  From spring 1997 to spring 2002, our policies have helped increase the employment rate for people aged 50 to state pension age from over 64 per cent. to over 68 per cent. with nearly 900,000 more people aged 50 and over in work. This increase has been faster than the increase in the overall employment rate. Under New Deal 50 plus 92,000 people aged over 50 have moved off benefits and gone back to work from April 2000 to December 2002, claiming the programme's cash employment credit. We will build on this support to further increase the employment rate of older workers who have a wealth of skills and experience that can benefit individual businesses and the economy as a whole.

  Benefits (Hospital Stays)
  Mr. (Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate for the next three years the number of people in receipt of retirement benefit and likely to benefit from recent changes in the hospital downrating provisions who will be affected by withdrawal of(a) attendance allowance and (b) other benefits because of hospital stays of below 13 weeks. [101725]

  Mr. McCartney
  The total number of people affected by suspensions over a given year are not available. The forecast number of cases affected by hospital suspensions at a particular point in time are given in the following table.

  Year

  AA

  DLA

  2002–03

  14,000

  2,000

  2003–04

  14,000

  2,000

  2004–05

  14,000

  2,000

  2005–06

  15,000

  2,000

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest 1,000.

  2. Based on 5 per cent. extracts taken from the November 2002, 5 per cent. extracts from the DLA and AA computer systems, and 1999 Hospital Episodes Statistics.

  3. Caseloads projected in line with forecasts for the pre-budget report.

  Child Support
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to backdate eligibility for the child maintenance disregard for parents with care to the original planned implementation date of the new child support computer system; and if he will make a statement. [97102]

  Malcolm Wicks
  None.

  Laptop Computers
  Dr. Vincent Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions 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. [98701]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Table is a summary of the information available relating to laptops. Information is not available in the form requested. Such information that is recorded centrally relates specifically to theft.

  Year

  Ministers and Advisors

  Officials

  Total

  Number stolen

  Percentage of total

  Total value (£)

  1995

  0

  424

  424

  27

  6.3

  34

  1996

  2

  334

  336

  21

  6.3

  33

  1997

  0

  296

  296

  25

  8.4

  38

  1998

  0

  487

  487

  15

  3.1

  24

  1999

  2

  1713

  1715

  23

  1.3

  36

  2000

  0

  694

  694

  5

  0.7

  9

  2001

  0

  671

  671

  20

  2.9

  30

  2002

  2

  2639

  2641

  57

  2.2

  81

  Total

  6

  7258

  7264

  193

  2.7

  285

  Minimum Income Guarantee
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the estimated take-up rate for the minimum income guarantee is in(a) 2002–03 and (b) 2003–04. [102588]

  Mr. McCartney
  The information requested is not available.

  The latest available estimate of take-up of Minimum Income Guarantee relates to financial year 1999-2000 and is presented in the report "Income Related Benefits: Estimates of Take Up in 1999–2000". A copy of the publication is available in the Library. The next edition of the report containing statistics for 2000–01 will be released on 27 March 2003.

  National Insurance Numbers
  Mr. John MacDougall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how the combination of letters and numbers in national insurance numbers are arrived at. [103072]

  Malcolm Wicks
  [holding answer 14 March 2003]: The current system of National Insurance number prefixes was introduced through the departmental central index (DCI) in 1988.

  A National Insurance number (NINO) consists of a two letter prefix followed by six numbers between 0 and 9, and a one letter suffix. There is no particular reason for the format of a particular NINO, nor does it carry any particular meaning. Only the first two prefixes, provide an indication of when the number was created. The number itself bears no relation to the individual it is allocated to and contains no geographical or personal significance. Allocations are made on a last digit numerical sequence (e.g. AB000001A would be followed by AB000002A).
  602W
  Certain letters, such as D, F and I are not used as there is the potential for confusion with other letters if badly formed. Likewise, the letter 0 is not used as the second letter as it might be confused with the number 0 (zero).

  Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what discussions officials from his Department have had with(a) the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority and (b) representatives of the Pensions industry concerning revisions of rules regarding members leaving occupational pension schemes. [102586]

  Mr. McCartney
  We were aware of the temporary measure outlined by the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority in update 1 pending changes to the regulations relating to the calculation of transfer values. The proposed amendments to those regulations were prompted by representations from the pensions industry, Faculty and Institute of Actuaries and the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority.

  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when revised rules introduced by the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority, regarding members leaving occupational pension schemes, will come into force; and how long they will remain in force. [102587]

  Mr. McCartney
  The Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority (Opra) are not introducing any changes to the rules regarding members leaving pension schemes. However, they have indicated that they do not intend to sanction trustees who, acting on the advice of scheme actuary, delay quoting transfer value to protect the interests of remaining members. Opra have stressed that this is a temporary measure until amendments to the Transfer Value regulations come into force. Views are currently being sought on the amendments. The consultation period ends on 28 March and we will seek to bring these changes into force as soon as possible once responses have been considered and any necessary redrafting in the light of them completed.

  Overseas Trips
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list the overseas trips made by himself and other members of his Ministerial team in 2002; and what the(a) purpose and (b) cost was in each case. [101490]

  Mr. McCartney
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr. Alexander) to the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) on 22 January 2003,Official Report. column 334W.

  Pension Forecasts
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many reassessments have been requested in each of the last five years for which figures are available to pension entitlement on the basis of(a) pensions forecasts provided on request and (b) pension forecasts sent out automatically prior to retirement; and what proportion of those receiving forecasts this represents. [99956]
  603W
  Mr. McCartney
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what additional information is made available to individuals requesting a pension forecast more than six months before reaching pensionable age compared with those who receive the standard notification, About your Retirement Pension prior to retirement. [99960]

  Mr. McCartney
  There are two different notices available for issue to individuals regarding their retirement pension. One notice is issued automatically four months before retirement to advise people of their likely pension entitlement. The second notice is issued on request to people of working age to help inform their pension planning.

  A letter entitled "About your Retirement Pension" is issued approximately four months prior to the customer attaining pension age. This contains provisional rates of the customer's individual pension components based on the National Insurance contribution information available at that time. The annual process required to collect National Insurance contributions and post them to the National Insurance Recording System means that in a number of cases details covering the final income tax year are not available when the provisional rates are issued. Where an Occupational Pension is involved, details are required from the employer or pension provider before the Additional Pension component can be calculated. There are occasions when this information is not available when the provisional rates are issued.

  The second notification—the Retirement Pension Forecast for people of working age—gives a full breakdown of qualifying years for basic pension. It explains how to achieve the maximum state pension by paying voluntary contributions/arrears in the last six years if necessary, including a break down of Additional Pension and Contracted Out Deductions amounts and information on how it has been worked out. Where appropriate, it informs the customer of occasions where Home Responsibilities Protection has been applied. Further, in divorced and widowed cases, the forecast shows where a spouse's contributions have been used to calculate an individual's likely state pension. All the information used is exact information on state pension at "today's" rates based on current national insurance record(s) at the time the forecast is provided.

  In addition, the forecast of expected state pension at retirement age is provided. This is a projection based on the same, current record(s), which assumes that contributions will continue at the same level. Further information is supplied in the BR19L leaflet that is sent out with the forecast, it provides the customer all the extra information they need to decide on the best way to achieve the best Pension available to them.

  The purpose of providing the calculation at "today's" rates and at retirement age is to provide information to individuals to help inform their pension planning and enable them to make informed choices with regard to their retirement income levels.

  Pension Schemes
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he expects the Occupational Pension Schemes (Transfer Values) (Amendment) Regulations 2003 to be laid before Parliament; and what steps he has taken to ensure that the interim regime adopted under Update 1—Calculation and payment of cash equivalent transfer values, issued by the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority, is as brief as possible. [102444]

  Mr. McCartney
  Amendments to pensions regulations must be issued in draft for consultation. The draft Occupational Pension Schemes (Transfer Values) (Amendment) Regulations 2003 were issued for consultation on 28 January and responses required by 28 March. We will endeavour to bring these changes into effect as soon as possible after responses have been considered and any necessary redrafting in the light of them completed.

  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what steps he has taken since the publication of "Update 1—Calculation and payment of cash equivalent transfer values" by the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority to(a) ensure that pension scheme members' rights under the (i) Pension Schemes Act 1993 and (ii) Pensions Act 1995 are protected, (b) monitor the numbers and circumstances of scheme members whose position may be adversely affected by the OPRA guidance and (c) ensure that the consultation being carried out in respect of the draft Occupational Pension Schemes (Transfer Values) (Amendment) Regulations 2003 is not prejudiced by OPRA's interim guidance pending the proposed introduction of the regulations; and if he will make a statement. [102472]

  Mr. McCartney
  The aim of both update 1 and the amendments to the regulations is to maintain fairness between those who transfer out of schemes and those who remain. Reports in the press imply that the measures would lock individuals into their pension schemes. That is not true.

  The Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority (OPRA) will not be preventing members from transferring out of pension schemes, nor are they endorsing such an approach. OPRA have made it clear that it is up to trustees to decide whether to delay quotes of transfer values. In doing so trustees will want to take into account the funding position of the scheme and the effect of transfers on members who remain in the scheme. The measures are short term and will only apply until the amended regulations come into force.

  There is no central record of members who apply for a transfer value and it is therefore not possible to monitor those who may be affected by OPRA's guidance. It is important that the calculation of transfer values is fair to all, to those who leave and those who stay. If a scheme is underfunded and an unreduced transfer value is taken, it affects all members who remain in the scheme. On the whole, it is likely that more members will benefit from OPRA's measures than be adversely affected.

  The timing and process of the consultation on the regulations is not affected by OPRA's interim guidance; how respondents reply to the consultation is of course a matter for them.

  Pensions
  Sir Archy Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what steps he is taking to prevent delays when the Pension Service start supplying local authorities with the assessed income figure for claimants. [100747]

  Mr. McCartney
  From 6 October 2003, the existing electronic interface between The Pension Service and almost all local authorities will be enhanced to include the Pension Credit assessed income figure. For those local authorities without electronic interface, information will be passed from The Pension Service to the local authority by paper. This information will normally be supplied to the local authorities within 24 hours of the award or change of award decision for Pension Credit being made.

  Basic State Pension and average amount of additional State Pension for Great Britain: Males

  Men aged 65 receiving both basic State Pension and additional State Pension (Thousand)

  Men aged 65 in receipt of a State Pension (Thousand)

  Percentage of men aged 65 receiving both basic and additional State Pension

  Average weekly amount of additional State pension paid to men aged 65 (£)

  30 September 1995

  206.5

  220.2

  94

  16.25

  30 September 1996

  231.3

  252.7

  92

  17.81

  30 September 1997

  219.6

  247.6

  89

  19.58

  30 March 1998

  208.2

  242.1

  86

  20.20

  30 September 1999

  203.1

  240.9

  84

  24.01

  30 September 2000

  207.2

  243.7

  85

  24.35

  30 September 2001

  207.1

  246.9

  84

  24.69

  30 September 2002

  206.2

  253.9

  81

  26.62

  Basic State Pension and average amount of additional State Pension for Great Britain: Females

  Women aged 60 receiving both basic State Pension and additional State Pension (Thousand)

  Women aged 60 in receipt of a State Pension (Thousand)

  Percentage of men aged 60 receiving both basic and additional State Pension

  Average weekly amount of additional State pension paid to men aged 60 (£)

  30 September 1995

  113.6

  199.8

  57

  9.85

  30 September 1996

  133.8

  222.1

  60

  10.69

  30 September 1997

  138.0

  226.9

  61

  11.38

  30 March 1998

  144.0

  230.0

  63

  11.33

  30 September 1999

  142.2

  230.0

  62

  13.54

  30 September 2000

  151.0

  230.7

  65

  13.00

  30 September 2001

  147.5

  220.5

  67

  13.35

  30 September 2002

  171.6

  248.9

  69

  13.87

  Notes

  1. Figures are in thousands, are rounded to the nearest hundred and are in cash terms.

  2. Average amounts exclude people paid zero additional State Pension.

  3. State Pension refers to those people who are in receipt of any component of the State pension.

  Sources

  1. 5 per cent. sample from the Pension Strategy Computer System as at the date of extraction.

  2. The source data used to extract the figures are subject to change if further relevant earnings are posted to the NI account.

  Pensioners (North Yorkshire)
  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what recent steps he has taken to improve the financial position of pensioners in North Yorkshire. [102637]

  Mr. McCartney
  Over 14,000 people in North Yorkshire benefit from the Minimum Income Guarantee and receive an average £43.08 a week. 116,200 pensioners have benefited from the above inflation increases in the State Pension. Additionally
  606W
  Officials are in regular contact with the Local Authority Associations on the arrangements for Pension Credit and have conducted a series of national seminars for local authorities. In addition, a Pension Credit Handbook for all local authorities and their software suppliers is being produced.

  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what the average contribution of SERPS per recipient as an addition to the basic state pension has been in each year since 1990; [99153]

  (2) what proportion of those retiring in each year since 1990 have retired with both the basic state pension and SERPS. [99154]

  Mr. McCartney
  The information is not available prior to 1995. However, such information in respect of those in receipt of a State Pension is set out in the following tables:

  128,240 received a Winter Fuel Payment of up to £200. Those pensioners in North Yorkshire eligible for Pension Credit stand to gain around £400 a year on average.

  The creation of The Pension Service provides an ideal opportunity to further encourage pensioners to take up their entitlements. Not only are our customers being encouraged to claim when they ring their pension centre but we also have a network of local service teams throughout the country actively encouraging take up.
  607W
  There is a local service team of 10 staff covering the area of York and Selby, meeting customers in the community and actively encouraging take-up. They are developing advice and drop-in surgeries in partnership with other local organisations. For example, appointment surgeries at York District Hospital; a drop-in surgery held at the Guildhall, York, for an event in partnership with the Primary Care Trust and Staywarm as part of the 'Keep Warm Campaign', and a drop-in surgery used for a Winter Fuel event in partnership with the Energy Efficiency Unit.

  Source

  Pension Strategy Computer System as at 30 September 2002.

  Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiry, November 2002

  Matching Intelligence Data Analysis Service Winter Fuel Payment 2001–02 exercise.

  Smoking
  Chris McCafferty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will introduce a levy on employers who permit smoking in the workplace. [99330]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  There are no current plans to do so. However, all employers have a duty under the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 to protect the health, safety and welfare of their employees, and this duty includes any risks arising from passive smoking.

  More specifically, the Workplace (Health Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 require employers to protect non-smokers from discomfort caused by tobacco smoke in rest rooms and rest areas. This means that employers must either provide separate rest rooms/areas for smokers and non smokers or prohibit smoking in rest rooms/areas.

  The Health and Safety Executive has published free guidance which gives advice to employers on introducing effective smoking policies in the workplace.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Award Schemes
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the award schemes in(a) 2001 and (b) 2002 promoted by the Department; what their scope was; when the relevant participating organisations are scheduled to be sent results; and whether other parties will be given notification of the results at the same time. [102050]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister was created on 29 May 2002. Since then, the Office has promoted the following awards:The Beacon Council Scheme to identify excellence in local government and enable best practice to be shared with others. Ministers award beacon status annually on the basis of a rigorous assessment and recommendations from an independent Advisory Panel. Participating authorities are informed approximately one week before the results are made public. The Beacon authorities are generally announced in April each year and all local authorities in England, and a range of other interested parties, are notified of the results at this time.
  608W
  The Green Flag Award Scheme recognises parks and green spaces that are managed and maintained to a high standard. The Green Pennant is awarded for good standards in green spaces that are managed by community and voluntary groups. Both awards are made annually. Participants are notified in confidence in the summer to allow for preparation of the announcements at the awards ceremonies in November.
  The Award for Urban Renaissance for urban regeneration initiatives in England with a record of success was launched in 2002. The finalists were advised prior to the Urban Summit and the overall winner was announced at the Summit on 31 October 2002. A press notice was issued, the outcome was reported by live webcast on the Urban Summit website and brochures were distributed. The award has been renamed the Deputy Prime Minister's Award for Sustainable Communities with the intention that it will be an annual award. The scope of the award has been extended to align with "Sustainable Communities: Building for the Future" and the broader aim of the Office.
  The award for Outstanding Achievement in Social Housing at the Chartered Institute of Housing's National Housing Awards. The award celebrates excellence in the provision and delivery of social housing in the United Kingdom. The criteria is that the winning award should be innovative, inspirational, provide real benefits to customers and can be easily duplicated. All award winners are announced at the awards ceremony in the autumn.
  The award for Social Housing Provider of the Year. Building Magazine's Building Homes Quality Awards are designed to recognise and reward house building organisations from both the public and private sectors, focussing attention on the very best examples of construction and customer care best practice. All award winners are announced at the awards ceremony in the autumn.
  The Association for Geographic Information Annual Central Government Award for best use of geographic information. The awards are presented at the annual Association for Geographic Information (AGI) Annual General Meeting and Awards dinner which was held last year on 14 November 2002. The request for nominations is made in advance to members of the AGI and the Intra Governmental Group on Geographic Information (IGGI). The unsuccessful nominees are informed after the awards dinner and details are posted on the AGI website.

  Council Elections
  Mr. Stephen Byers
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister in which years no elections have been held in(a) London councils, (b) shire counties, (c) shire districts, (d) metropolitan councils and (e) new unitary authorities in the last decade. [103362]

  Mr. Leslie
  Whole council elections are held every four years in all county councils in England, borough councils in London and about two-thirds of non-metropolitan district councils, including some unitary authorities. In the last decade these elections were held in 1994, 1998 and 2002 for London boroughs; in 1993, 1997 and 2001 for shire counties; and in 1995, 1999 and on 1 May 2003 for district councils.

  The remaining third of non-metropolitan district councils, including some unitary authorities and all the metropolitan district councils have elections of one third of their councillors in each of the three years when county council elections are not held.

  By-elections can take place at any time in all categories of councils; no information is held centrally about the holding of by-elections.

  Council Tax
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what estimate he has made of the cost to(a) central and (b) local government of administering council tax in the latest year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [102871]

  Mr. Leslie
  The cost to local authorities of collecting the council tax in England is estimated to be £319 million for the year 2002–03. The main cost to central Government is incurred by the Valuation Office Agency (VOA) which administers the council tax valuation list and is a party to appeals. The VOA budget for council tax work in 2002–03 is about £14 million. Central Government also supports the costs of the independent Valuation Tribunals which hear appeals. The part of the Valuation Tribunals budget for 2002–03 relating to council tax work is approximately £0.7 million. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is responsible for the policy and legislation rather than the administration of council tax.

  Percentage increase in authority's own Band D council tax for:

  Percentage increase in council tax for standard spendinga

  Inner London boroughs and City

  Outer London boroughs

  Shire counties

  Shire districts

  Metropolitan districts

  Shire unitary authoritiesb

  England

  England

  1994–95c

  12.2

  5.1

  6.3

  7.4

  0.9

  —

  2.1

  1995–96c,d

  38.4

  31.8

  2.3

  5.5

  —

  5.0

  1996–97d

  11.7

  5.1

  4.1

  6.7

  6.5

  6.1

  1997–98

  0.4

  6.7

  6.5

  8.3

  7.0

  2.1

  6.5

  4.2

  1998–99

  0.3

  6.0

  11.9

  7.0

  7.6

  7.8

  8.6

  7.0

  1999–2000

  2.8

  7.9

  8.3

  5.1

  5.1

  5.6

  6.8

  4.8

  2000–01

  1.7

  6.2

  6.7

  5.4

  4.5

  5.7

  6.1

  4.6

  2001–02

  6.6

  6.2

  6.3

  6.3

  5.3

  6.1

  6.4

  5.1

  2002–03

  3.0

  5.4

  9.3

  9.3

  4.6

  8.2

  8.3

  5.2

  2003–04

  e

  e

  e

  e

  e

  e

  e

  3.7

  1 This is the increase in council tax assumed in the calculation of revenue support grant, calculated on a like-for-like basis. It does not represent an estimate of the level at which local authorities need to set their council tax. The Government does not estimate the level of council tax increases. Figures are not readily available by class of authority, or for England before 1997–98. Under the new formula grant system, the figure for 2003–04 is for the increase in assumed national council tax over the equivalent figure for 2002–03.

  b Shire unitary authorities did not exist in 1994–95 and 1995–96, other than the Isle of Wight in 1995–96, which may not be representative of the current class as a whole.

  c A major cause of the large changes in London between 1994–95 and 1995–96 was the large reduction between the two years in the amounts of council tax transitional reduction scheme grant paid to some London boroughs.

  d Like-for-like comparisons for shire counties in 1995–96 and for unitary authorities in 1996–97 are not available due to local government reorganisation. This is also true to a more limited extent for shire counties, districts and unitaries between 1995–96 and 1998–99, for which figures are generally given.

  enot yet available.

  Government Initiatives
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many local branches of(a) Children's Fund, (b) Coalfields Programme, (c) Crime and Disorder, (d) Early Years Development and Childcare, (e) education action zones, (f) employment zones, (g) Excellence in Cities, (h) health act partnerships, (i) health action zones, (j) healthy living cities, (k) Neighbourhood Renewal Fund, (1) New Deal for Communities, (m) Social Inclusion, (n) sports action zones, (o) Sure Start, (p) Single Regeneration Budget and (q) local strategic
  610W
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what estimate he has made of the total level of council tax raised in(a) 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03 in (i) England, (ii) Wales, (iii) Scotland and (iv) Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [102875]

  Mr. Leslie
  The total level of council tax collected by local authorities in England in respect of 2001–02 during 2001–02 was £12.8 billion. This figure represents 96.1 per cent. of the £13.4 billion collectable.

  The figures for level of council tax collected in England in 2002–03 are not yet available.

  Figures for Wales and Scotland are the responsibility of the Welsh Assembly Government and the Scottish Parliament respectively.

  Council tax does not exist in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what has been(a) the average Council tax increase and (b) the level of local government settlement in each of the last 10 years in (i) inner London councils, (ii) outer London councils, (iii) shire counties, (iv) shire districts, (v) metropolitan councils and (vi) new unitary authorities. [103363]

  Mr. Leslie
  The information available is tabled below:

  partnerships schemes have been in existence in each year since their creation; and what the total level of funding allocated to each was, in each year since their creation. [98404]

  Mrs. Roche
  Some of the information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  A table with details of the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund Allocation by region and local authority has been placed in the Library of the House.
  611W
  Children's Fund

  This is a matter for the Department for. Education and Skills.

  Coalfields Programme

  The Coalfields Programme is a national programme managed by English Partnerships. It commenced work in 1996–97 and has a total budget of some £385 million over 10+ years. The Coalfields Regeneration Trust is a UK wide, grant making body launched in 1999 as part of the Government's response to the 1998 Coalfields Task Force report. It has four offices in England with a total budget in excess of £90 million. Spend to date has been as follows:

  £ million

  1999–2000

  1.6

  2000–01

  15

  2001–02

  23.3

  2002–03

  15 (est.)

  Crime and Disorder

  This is a matter for the Home Office.

  Early Years Development and Childcare

  This is a matter for the Department for Education and Skills.

  Education action zones

  This is a matter for the Department for Education and Skills.

  Employment zones

  This is a matter for the Department for Education and Skills.

  Excellence in Cities

  This is a matter for the Department for Education and Skills.

  Health act partnerships

  This is a matter for the Department of Health.

  Health action zones

  This is a matter for the Department of Health.

  Healthy living cities

  This is a matter for the Department of Health.

  New Deal for Communities

  NDC is a 10-year programme with a total funding allocation of £2 billion. There are17 NDCs in round 1 which received allocations for programme delivery from 2000–01 and 22 NDCs in round 2 which received allocations for programme delivery from 2001–02. There are no branches of NDC. The allocations for all NDCs were as follows:

  NDC allocated funding (£ million)

  Partnership

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Newham

  6.8

  5.6

  7.5

  Shoreditch

  2.8

  8.2

  6.8

  Aylesbury

  2.3

  1.5

  4.1

  Ocean

  2.1

  5.6

  6.4

  South Kilburn

  —

  0.9

  2.1

  612W

  NDC allocated funding (£ million)

  Partnership

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  North Fulham

  —

  0.8

  3.2

  EC1 Islington

  —

  0.9

  1.5

  Clapham Park

  —

  2.0

  2.4

  New Cross

  —

  0.2

  6.5

  Seven Sisters

  —

  2.7

  5.0

  Brighton

  2.0

  3.7

  8.6

  Southampton

  —

  1.0

  3.1

  Plymouth

  —

  1.5

  5.0

  Bristol

  3.1

  4.6

  4.6

  Luton

  —

  5.9

  5.5

  Norwich

  3.9

  3.6

  8.3

  Leicester

  3.9

  9.0

  7.3

  Nottingham

  2.6

  5.5

  6.5

  Derby

  —

  1.0

  1.7

  Sandwell

  3.9

  6.2

  6.0

  Walsall

  —

  1.9

  4.7

  Coventry

  —

  1.3

  3.5

  Wolverhampton

  —

  3.0

  1.8

  Kings Norton

  3.3

  3.4

  3.1

  Aston

  —

  1.9

  2.7

  Doncaster

  —

  0.8

  2.9

  Sheffield

  —

  2.5

  4.7

  Bradford

  2.7

  5.0

  8.0

  Hull

  3.5

  6.2

  9.2

  Knowsley

  —

  0.1

  3.0

  Kensington

  1.0

  4.1

  5.6

  Manchester

  4.5

  6.4

  7.7

  Oldham

  —

  0.6

  3.0

  Salford

  —

  1.3

  4.0

  Rochdale

  —

  1.5

  4.5

  Hartlepool

  —

  2.1

  6.0

  Newcastle

  2.1

  4.0

  6.5

  Middlesbrough

  2.5

  7.9

  8.8

  Sunderland

  —

  1.6

  5.4

  Total

  53.0

  126.0

  197.2

  Social Inclusion

  While there is a Social Exclusion Unit within the Office for the Deputy Prime Minister, the Unit has no local branches.

  Sports action zones

  This is a matter for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.

  Sure Start

  This is a matter for the Department for Education and Skills.

  Single Regeneration Budget (SRB)

  1,027 regeneration schemes were successful under the six rounds of the Single Regeneration Budget. Over £5.7 billion of SRB funding was allocated over their lifetime of up to seven years. The names of the schemes with lifetime funding, by each round have been tabled in the House of Commons Library.

  Local strategic partnerships (LSPs)

  The 2002 survey of all English principle local authority areas found that as of summer 2002 there were:

  294 LSPs in operation

  35 partnerships functioning as LSPs (though not formally an LSP)

  39 LSPs in the process of being formed

  1 local authority area with no plans to form an LSP

  613W
  All LSPs operate on a voluntary basis and are not formally accountable public bodies. Hence, for the most part they cannot receive direct government funding. For instance, the neighbourhood renewal fund is allocated to the local authority but they must collaborate with the LSP to agree how it is spent.

  Homelessness
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister pursuant to his answer of 19 December 2002,Official Report. column 954W, on homelessness, what proportion of lettings were made available to homeless households in priority need by (a) local authorities and (b) registered social landlords in each Government Office Region in (i) 2000–01 and (ii) 2001–02. [102310]

  Mr. McNulty
  A further version of the table previously placed in the Library of the House (December 2002), updating data reported for 2000–01 and presenting equivalent data for 2001–02, has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Housing
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many households are in rented accommodation in each local authority; and what proportion are in accommodation provided by registered social landlords. [102688]

  Mr. McNulty
  A table with estimates of the number of households in rented accommodation in each local authority, and the percentage which are in accommodation provided by registered social landlords as at April 2001, has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Iraq
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the discussions which he has had with fire service(a) employers and (b) unions on contingency plans in the event of a conflict in Iraq and the suspension of (i) action under the current dispute and (ii) proposed changes in working practices. [103470]

  Mr. Raynsford
  My right. hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has been available to talk to all sides since this dispute began and has met both the employers and the Fire Brigade union on a number of occasions. He has undertaken to keep the House informed of developments.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister which regional bodies to which he makes appointments; and which regional bodies require funding through grants from local authorities. [102173]

  Mr. Raynsford
  My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister makes appointments to the five regional Rent Assessment Panels.

  It is a matter for local authorities who they choose to support through grants.

  Public Sector Pension Schemes
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the local authority public sector pension schemes which are funded; when was the last actuarial valuation of each scheme; what the value was of the assets at the last actuarial valuation of each scheme; and what deficit is disclosed by the last actuarial valuation of each scheme. [103347]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS) is the only funded local authority pension scheme in England and Wales. It is a centrally regulated scheme but is managed and administered locally, in the main, by 86 separate local pension fund authorities who are responsible also for their individual pension funds. The most recent triennial valuation exercise was concluded in 2001. Then, total assets were valued at £85.3 billion with liabilities amounting to £91.5 billion. All the LGPS funds met the specific requirements of the Scheme's regulations concerning solvency, in particular, the need to maintain as constant a rate of employers' contributions as possible.

  Regional Governance
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will publish the results from the soundings exercise on the level of interest in each English region in holding a referendum about establishing an elected regional assembly. [103266]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Government propose to explain to Parliament their choice of region or regions to undergo a local government review, with a view to holding a referendum, and to publish a summary of the views received during the soundings. We will announce our decision when the Regional Assemblies (Reparations) Bill has received Royal Assent.

  Some respondents may request that their response remain confidential. In this instance, such a response would still be included in any numerical analysis of responses, but would not be attributed to the respondent in the summary analysis.

  Right to Buy
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many properties have been sold under the Right to Buy; how many have been sold under Right to Buy in the last three years; how many households are supported in temporary accommodation; and how many new units of social housing have been completed, in the last three years, in each local authority in London. [96896]

  Mr. McNulty
  Information reported by London boroughs has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Matthew Green
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what estimate he has made of the discounts to be paid under the Right to Buy scheme in the financial year 2002–03; and what financial provision he has made. [102634]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Right to Buy scheme allows tenants to purchase their homes at less than market value, but this does not involve any additional capital expenditure by the authority. The discount represents a reduction in the authority's capital receipt, 75 per cent. of which under current regulations has to be set aside for
  615W
  debt redemption or paying off credit arrangements. The accumulated balance of usable receipts may then, at the authority's discretion, be used to support their housing capital programme.

  In the period April to September 2002, it is estimated that the value of discounts allowed through right to buy sales in England was some £657 million. The market value of the estimated 27,800 sales in the period was about £1,584 million.

  South West Regional Development Agency
  Mr. Adrian Flook
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister to which bodies the South West Regional Development Agency is accountable. [103059]

  Alan Johnson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The south west of England Regional Development Agency is accountable to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and to Parliament. Under the terms of the Regional Development Agencies Act, 1998, the Agency must also take account of the views of the South West Regional Assembly, which has been formally designated as the regional chamber for the Agency. For the purposes of regional accountability, the Agency is also required to hold a public meeting following publication of its annual report.

  Telecommunications Operators (Regulation)
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of telecommunication operators' implementation of their Ten Best Practice Commitments; and if he will make a statement. [102093]
  616W
  Mr. McNulty
  The Mobile Operators Association have commissioned Deloitte and Touche to carry out an independent review of the implementation of the Operators Ten Commitments. The results of the review will be publicly available in due course.

  Use Classes Orders
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister pursuant to the written ministerial statement on the use classes orders, 4 March,Official Report. column 79WS, what further consultation will take place when the Government announce their intentions for A 1 uses arising from the use classes consultation in 2002. [103002]

  Mr. McNulty
  Following the publication of the consultation document on the "Use Classes Order" in January 2002 there was a three-month period during which representations could be made. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister received over 2,600 replies from a wide range of interested parties. Since then the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has been considering the responses received. A decision about whether there is a need for any further consultation will be made once conclusions have been reached on the review.

  Wind Turbines
  Mr. Burnett
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what proposals he has to create a buffer zone between onshore wind turbines and domestic properties. [102401]

  Mr. McNulty
  The annex on Wind Energy in Policy Planning Guidance Note 22 contains guidelines about various factors which should be taken into consideration in relation to wind turbine location, including suggestions about turbine separation distances from residential dwellings, specifically in relation to noise. As indicated in the recent Energy White Paper, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is currently reviewing PPG22.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Uzbekistan
  The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short)
  On 4 March 2003 the Board of Directors of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) agreed a new two-year strategy for Uzbekistan, which was supported by the UK. As the strategy clearly states, Uzbekistan has taken some positive measures on economic and political reforms but overall the situation remains serious and progress with reforms has been slow and characterised by setbacks. The country's ability to grow its economy, attract investment and reduce poverty is dependent on the Uzbek authorities making progress with both economic and political (including human rights) reforms.

  The UK welcomes the EBRD strategy, which provides a detailed analysis of the current political and economic situation in Uzbekistan. We agree with EBRD that the Government of Uzbekistan needs to take a number of critical steps to put the country on a path of sustained progress towards multi-party democracy and a market economy and we support the decision by the Bank to hold a review after one year, looking for progress against seven key benchmarks.

  The EBRD has identified three operational priorities: support for private investment, strengthening financial institutions, and critical infrastructure; but the strategy notes that only through economic and political reforms can Uzbekistan hope to unlock its economic potential, which will in turn allow the Bank to mobilise additional financial support for the country.

  Uzbekistan's economy remains generally closed to competition with a high degree of state control. EBRD notes that it is crucial, if the Uzbek authorities are to unlock their country's economic potential, that they embrace more fully the principles of open and free markets and encourage the private sector to drive economic growth. Uzbekistan's human rights record remains very poor. During 2002, Uzbekistan made some limited attempts to address human rights. But the UK shares the widespread and serious concern about the continuing abuse of human rights in the country, including the recent assessment of the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture that torture is systematic in Uzbekistan. The strategy identifies critical areas for progress by the Uzbek authorities. These include implementation of recommendations to be made on the basis of the UN Special Rapporteur's report.
  32WS
  In May, EBRD will hold its annual meeting in Uzbekistan. This will be the first time that the EBRD annual meeting has been held in Central Asia. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, Central Asia has largely been neglected. The newly independent countries faced the double challenge of building new institutions and making the transition to a market economy and political pluralism. Their progress has been patchy. Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and the Kyrgyz Republic are all now low-income countries. Desperate poverty, high levels of debt and corruption, and deteriorating infrastructure and public services exist in much of the region. The region's geography means that the countries are co-dependent for trade and natural resources. But relations have been characterised by the isolationism of some states; all the countries stand to benefit from increased regional cooperation and trade.

  We hope the annual meeting will focus international attention on the country, and that it will provide a forum for international engagement and an open debate on the opportunities and challenges facing Uzbekistan and the countries of central Asia. The meeting is an opportunity to try to secure social and economic progress, progress with human rights, and improved regional cooperation. It is an incentive for the Uzbek authorities to reform and not an endorsement of current policies. The UK hopes that the Uzbek authorities will consider the strategy carefully and, by the time of the annual meeting, take the opportunity to demonstrate to the international community, progress towards political and economic change.

  The strategy was published on EBRD's website www.ebrd.com/ yesterday. I have placed a copy in the Library of the House.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Electronic Conveyancing
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Ms Rosie Winterton)
  A report on the responses to the e-conveyancing consultation exercise will be published later today. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Most respondents viewed the concept of an e-conveyancing system positively. Useful suggestions were made to enhance the initial proposals, and a number of concerns were highlighted. All of these issues will be addressed during the next phase of the e-conveyancing programme. My Department believes it to be important that the system finally delivered carries the greatest measure of support from stakeholders and makes full use of the talents of the private sector. My noble and learned Friend Baroness Scotland has asked the Land Registry to continue to take forward this work.

  It will now be engaging stakeholders, including potential service providers in developing the e-conveyancing concept and proposing the shape of the final system.

  My noble and learned Friend Baroness Scotland has asked for a report on progress to be made to her later in the year.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Neighbourhood Renewal Funds
  The Minister for Social Exclusion and Deputy Minister for Women (Mrs. Barbara Roche)
  Neighbourhood renewal is about reversing the spiral of decline in our most disadvantaged neighbourhoods and raising the standard of public services in the places which need them most. It involves working with local communities to deliver economic prosperity and jobs, safer streets, good education, decent homes and better health, as well as fostering a new sense of community among residents. This can be achieved by encouraging better partnerships at the local level and through a major investment of resources to drive change.

  Our aim is thriving and sustainable communities, where people are being empowered to improve their quality of life. Local people are therefore working with the public, private and voluntary sectors to tackle the problems of deprived neighbourhoods, and bring about a step change in the way local services are planned and delivered. Over the last 2 years, £500 million of Neighbourhood Renewal Fund resources have supported this work. As a result of progress so far, entitlement to a further £400 million is today being confirmed for 88 deprived communities across the country. The final neighbourhood renewal fund allocations and spending conditions will be subject to Parliamentary approval later this month.

  Making sure public services work better over the long term in deprived neighbourhoods, is vital to building sustainable communities. Lasting change can be delivered by shaping and resourcing public services for the task, and making them focus on the places and people most in need of support. The neighbourhood renewal fund is being used to initiate this process and local communities have already benefited from a range of actions to improve living conditions.

  In Wythenshawe in Greater Manchester, for example, NRF has funded the youth contact team to worked with local partners to run environmental clean ups, and a football tournament as well as taking part in outreach work on the streets, leading to an overall reduction of almost 40 per cent. in youth nuisance and an 18 per cent. reduction in recorded crime. In Portsmouth, over 50 dedicated coaching staff have been funded in 18 schools to improve the quality of teaching and learning. In Halton in Cheshire, a new approach and improved technology for dealing with benefits claims has reduced processing times from eight weeks to less than a fortnight.

  Equally important to the lasting renewal of neighbourhoods, is the engagement of local communities in identifying local priorities and needs, and developing solutions for their area. Through the establishment of local strategic partnerships, local people have been brought together with local authorities and other public service providers, to plan for a step change in the way local services are delivered. £53 million was made available over the last two years to support community and voluntary sector involvement in renewal. Networks have been set up to
  34WS
  strengthen the sector's voice in the planning and delivery of services, building communities where people want to live, not leave.

  Progress over the last year means that that today I can announce the re-accreditation of the local strategic partnerships in all 88 areas. This allows the delivery phase of their plans, and will bring real change on the ground.

  Over the next year, service providers must continue to work with local communities to strengthen plans for improving services and meet challenging targets for improving living conditions in the worst neighbourhoods. In order to ensure results on the ground, we will support partnerships over the next year through their full access to £400 million of NRF, and by improving skills, driving performance by service providers and empowering local people to participate in this process. Ensuring real change in the way public services are delivered will be the priority for partnerships over the year ahead.

  I will make a more detailed announcement in due course on how the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, will monitor and drive delivery by local partnerships. This will include ensuring that accreditation of partnerships is streamlined. I will also make an announcement shortly on the future distribution of and priorities for the additional £975 million of neighbourhood renewal fund resources, and related Community Programme funding, for 2004ȓ05 and 2005–06.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Forensic Pathology Services
  The Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety (Mr. John Denham)
  I commissioned an independent review into the provision of forensic pathology services and have accepted the key recommendations of that independent review. There is clearly a need to establish a unified forensic pathology service to deliver the needs of the police service, coroners and the wider criminal justice system.

  The Government intend to:
  enable a standard high quality service to be offered across England and Wales;
  ensure availability of service by providing the framework of a career structure to retain existing practitioners and to attract new entrants to the field;
  facilitate the provision of specialist regional service delivery centres;
  introduce improved management and budgetary controls for the provision of forensic pathology services.

  I have instructed my officials to implement the key recommendations of the review as quickly as possible, with the intention that:

  by autumn 2003, we will:
  move to new accreditation and disciplinary procedures based on model competencies; and
  have two centres prepared to deliver a training programme against the improved standards.
  35WS
  by summer 2004, we will aim to have:
  more newly trained, and operational forensic pathologists;
  an agreed career structure for the future national forensic pathology service; and
  developed contracts of employment.

  I will continue to take a close interest in progress and will receive regular reports on progress from the Programme Delivery Board established to take this work forward. The delivery board will include representatives of both users and providers of forensic pathology services.

  A copy of the review has been placed in the Library.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Cayman Islands
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mike O'Brien)
  The Attorney General of the Cayman Islands, Mr. David Ballantyne, has decided to leave office on 15 March, by mutual agreement with the Cayman 36WS
  Islands Government. Mr. Ballantyne had come under criticism in the Cayman Islands following the collapse of the Eurobank money-laundering trial. He took the view that this made it impossible for him to carry out his role there effectively. I am informed that press allegations that Mr. Ballantyne had prior knowledge of or had approved the destruction of evidence which led to the collapse of the Eurobank trial are inaccurate. The evidence is that he acted to ensure the disclosure of all relevant information to the defence in order to secure a fair trial, and acted properly in bringing the trial to an end when he concluded that a fair trial could not be ensured. In doing so he carried out the independent role the Cayman Islands Constitution assigns to the Attorney General. Her Majesty's Government are satisfied that Mr. Ballantyne has throughout acted with professional integrity and in the best interests of the administration of justice in the Cayman Islands.

  Press reports suggesting that Baroness Amos agreed, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, to the dismissal from office of Mr. Ballantyne are also incorrect. The independence and security of tenure of the Attorney General is constitutionally protected in the Cayman Islands.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Gloucester.

NHS Continuing Care: Guidance
Baroness Barker: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare an interest as an employee of Age Concern England.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they intend to accept the recommendation of the Health Service Ombudsman in the report NHS Funding for Long Term Care that national guidance on eligibility for continuing National Health Service healthcare should be reviewed.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, 'Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, the Government will carefully consider the recommendation of the ombudsman regarding departmental guidance. I said in the House last week that we will carefully review the guidance. Once the process is complete, we will consider whether any further action is indicated.
Baroness Barker: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Will the Department of Health also revise the NHS nursing-care guidance to ensure that both it and the guidance on continuing care are compliant with the Coughlan judgment and that older people are not subject to what the ombudsman repeatedly and unequivocally called "injustice"?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, guidance on NHS-funded nursing care has consistently maintained
2
a distinction between NHS-funded nursing care and continuing NHS care. We will be issuing guidance on NHS-funded nursing care in which we will make the same point as I have intimated to the House.
Baroness Greengross: My Lords, I take into account what the Minister has said. Does he agree that, because of the impact the Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc.) Bill and the ombudsman's findings, there could be a greater role for the NHS in arranging and funding the care of people who have left acute hospitals?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am not sure that I follow that argument. As I have indicated, we will review the guidance, but that which has consistently been given to the health service is, in ray view, clear about eligibility criteria for continuing care. The issue raised by the ombudsman is whether some NHS authorities have acted in accordance with that guidance. It is therefore far too early to say that the NHS might in future fund more continuing care cases. However, the ombudsman's report makes clear that the whole assessment and delayed discharge procedure needs to be sharpened up, and that is what the delayed discharges Bill is all about.
Earl Howe: My Lords, but does the Minister not agree that, until there is clarity on continuing NHS care and a patient's eligibility for it, it will be impossible to implement the provisions of the Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc.) Bill with the level of effectiveness for which the Government are clearly hoping?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I do not agree because I believe that the issue which arises from the ombudsman's report is not so much about the guidance that has been given to the health service, which follows from the Coughlan judgment, as about the way in which certain NHS bodies have implemented that guidance.

3
Annex C of the current 2001 guidance clearly sets out the considerations which NHS authorities need to take into account. Of course we shall look again at the guidance in the light of the ombudsman's report, but it does not follow that there ought to be a major problem in the way in which it operates at local level if NHS authorities follow the guidance that has been set down.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, will the Minister agree to look carefully at the interface of social services, which I pointed out to him last week, when under the guidance it is not found possible to continue NHS care but when someone continues to need nursing care outside the NHS? I believe that that interface in the guidance is still wrong and I hope that the Minister will take it into account in formulating the eventual legislation.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, as I said in our debate last week, it is most important to ensure that people do not fall between any gap in the responsibilities of the NHS and of local authorities. I believe that the delayed discharges Bill, by encouraging both the NHS and local government to improve their assessment and delayed discharge procedures, alongside improvements in intermediate care, will tackle the issue raised by the noble Baroness.

Brighton West Pier
2.42 p.m.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare an interest as a trustee of the West Pier Trust.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government when they expect to reach a decision on the application for a harbours revision order under the Harbours Act 1964 in respect of the West Pier Brighton, submitted on 3rd July 2001.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, there is one outstanding objection to the application and the Harbours Act 1964 requires that when that is the case an inquiry must be held. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has decided not to call in the planning application and if the applicants apply for an inquiry now, a decision on the harbour revision order could be made within five to six months. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, will wish to know that the Government have expressed support for the Harbours Bill introduced by my noble friend Lord Berkeley to streamline harbour order procedures.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords, in thanking the Minister for that Answer, I must express a certain degree of disappointment. The Minister will, I am sure, confirm that the restoration of the West Pier is a matter of some
4
little concern, as it is our only grade 1 listed pier. Is he aware that since full planning permission has been granted, there is no longer any valid objection to the making of an order under the Harbours Act and therefore no need for a public inquiry? In those circumstances, an order could be made very much sooner than five to six months.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord says there is no valid objection. Unfortunately, the Harbours Act 1964, which is a very outdated piece of legislation, says that an inquiry must be held unless the objection is trivial or frivolous. It does not use the word "vexatious", which we use nowadays. There are those who think that the objection is vexatious, but I do not think it could be said to be trivial or frivolous. So we are stuck with the Harbours Act until something can be done to replace it.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I spent many of my student days in Brighton, and the piers were a great attraction. When I write my autobiography, it will be called "From Pier to Peer". With the West Pier falling to pieces and Palace Pier having recently caught fire, the structures have a very nostalgic value. Can the Government do anything to assist in preserving something which is so precious to our seaside?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I agree entirely with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, and the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. We very much want both piers to be in full working order. For that reason, the Heritage Lottery Fund has already paid out £1.7 million for emergency work on the West Pier, and £14 million or more is set aside for restoration work once all the procedures have gone through. But we are, as I said, stuck with an outdated piece of legislation—the Harbours Act 1964—which says that there must be a public inquiry if there is any objection, unless that objection is trivial or frivolous, and we do not think it is. There are two other routes: first, the Bill of my noble friend Lord Berkeley would bring the Harbours Act up to date. Secondly, there is the possibility of a regulatory reform order, which would depend on a marine consents review that my noble friend Lord Rooker is undertaking. If that can he brought forward, the situation will improve. But neither would be retrospective—they could not apply to Brighton West Pier.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords, does the Minister realise that while all this is going on, the pier is collapsing, and that unless something is done very soon, there will be nothing to restore? It is obviously for the Minister to decide, but it can be done on the basis that the only objection was based on a planning point, which has now gone. Therefore, the remaining objection, in so far as there is one, is trivial or vexatious, or any other word you care to use.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not think lawyers should say "any other word you care to use". I should have thought they would have to be

5
much more precise. I have pointed out that the term "trivial or frivolous" is a much stronger criterion than "vexatious", which we would use today. There are those who think that the objection that remains is vexatious. If the West Pier Trust wants to take a case against the objector on that, I suppose it could, but it is not a matter for the Government to override statute law. That is what we are bound by.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I declare an interest as someone who was brought up in Brighton—or Hove, actually.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Carter: My Lords, will the Minister explain why Brighton needs two piers when it has managed perfectly well with one for years?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, this is a heterodox point of view. Many people think that piers are good things in themselves. Brighton West Pier is grade I listed; it has been closed since 1975. I should have thought that having two piers is a real distinction for Brighton and that they would boost each other's commercial viability.

Mental Health Services
2.48 p.m.
Lord Astor of Heverasked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress they have made to ensure that service users have 24-hour access to mental health services.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, work to develop mental health services that will allow access for users 24 hours a day, seven days a week, is progressing in accordance with our national service framework and NHS plan.
Lord Astor of Hever: But, my Lords, despite pledges given in the NHS plan, according to the mental health mapping project, which was commissioned by the Department of Health, less than half the crisis resolution teams have met the requirement that all people in contact with mental health services would have access at any time. Can the Minister now assure the House that every team will offer a 24-hour service by the end of the this year?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the introduction of crisis resolution teams is very important. My understanding is that 62 teams were in place on 31st October 2002. It is a challenging target and we are working hard to endeavour to ensure that the target is met but I do not want to underestimate either the challenge or the work that has already been undertaken by the NHS in this area.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, there is concern about whether the money allocated for implementing
6
the national service framework for mental health services is reaching the areas it should reach When there was concern about cancer services, the Government sensibly undertook to arrange for an audit by the Department of Health. Will they do the same as regards mental health services?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I understand the point the noble Lord raises and I understand the concern as regards whether earmarked resources are reaching the new services development. We shall monitor the position. We are also discussing the matter with strategic health authorities.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, can the Minister comment specifically on the progress towards better access to mental health services for children and adolescents? Will he permit me, on behalf of the charity Young Minds, to thank him and his department for their recent verbal assurance that they will fund Young Minds' parent information service for an amount of, I believe, £140,000 for the forthcoming year? Is he aware that that service provides timely information of good quality to parents who are concerned about their children's mental health?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for his remarks. I agree that child and adolescent mental health services are very important. I am glad that the noble Earl acknowledges the progress that we have made.

Asylum Seekers
2.51 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croyasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to withdraw from parts of the European Convention on Human Rights in view of the number of asylum seekers arriving in the United Kingdom.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Filkin): My Lords, we expect that our current measures to tackle asylum will he effective. We are also working with UNHCR and others to make the international protection system work more effectively. Should the measures we are taking not work as expected we would not shrink from reviewing our relevant international obligations but we have no current plans to renegotiate our ECHR obligations.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply. Are the Government still in a position to offer and provide accommodation and facilities, as expected by the provisions of the convention, to all the refugees now arriving in this country?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, the short answer is yes. We are meeting our current obligations under the Geneva Convention. We have the encouragement of a

7
vigorous legal system were we in any doubt of that. We are also optimistic that we may be moving towards some progress in this respect.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, is the Minister aware that his Answer gives great satisfaction to these Benches? Does he agree that to do what the Official Opposition have suggested from time to time—that is, denounce the European Convention on Human Rights and then attempt some kind of reservation to Article 3 of the convention—would not only stain the reputation of this country but would also be counter-productive as it could not work, the reservation being incompatible with the object and purpose of the convention? Would it not show that this country—one of the great protagonists of the convention—had flouted international law?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I am well aware of the position of the Liberal Democrat Benches on this issue. I am also aware that Article 3 is non-derogable. We had a good discussion on these issues last week when debating the renewal of measures under the antiterrorism Act. It was pointed out that the ECHR was not as inflexible as is sometimes assumed.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is not so much a matter of withdrawing, or considering withdrawing, from the European Convention on Human Rights but withdrawing the need for people wishing to claim asylum in this country to have to put themselves into the expensive, poisonous hands of people smugglers to be trafficked half-way across the globe? Can my noble friend say what specific progress has been made in discussions with the UNHCR to provide facilities for people wishing to seek asylum in the United Kingdom to do so in areas near to the countries from which they come?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, my noble friend, as so often, puts his finger on the point. I have sigalled in the House before that the issue concerns not so much the letter of the legislation but how it is operated in practice. I have signalled that our concern about the 1951 convention is not in any sense related to its aims but rather to how it works in practice as those who probably most need refugee protection do not get it while many who clearly are using it as a route for economic migration clog up the system. Currently we are having positive discussions with UNHCR on these matters. I hope to be able to say more about that before long.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, does the Minister recall stating to me recently in a Written Answer that it was not possible to make any estimate of the number of additional asylum seekers who might come here as a result of the forthcoming hostilities in Iraq? Since then, has he noted the report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees which estimates that as
8
many as 1.9 million people might be displaced by the war in Iraq? How many of those does he now estimate will arrive in the United Kingdom?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I wish I could answer yes to the first question but it is such a privilege writing so many letters to the noble Lord that I do not recollect the content of all of them post facto. Having said that, I am well aware of the UNHCR's position on this matter. We are positive about the situation while keeping up our guard, first, because of our positive measures in terms of relationships with the border control in northern France and, secondly, and more fundamentally, because the UNHCR has already had positive discussions with Iraq's neighbouring countries in the event that it is unavoidably necessary to go to war as the only means of getting a solution. In particular, Turkey, Iran and Syria have made clear that they would give support as regards the matter we are discussing in the short term.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I return to the Minister's comment to the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, that the European Convention on Human Rights is not as inflexible as some on the Liberal Democrat Benches believe. In the tense times that the country faces with regard to national security at the moment, are the Government reconsidering their refusal to derogate from some part of Article 3 so that we could if necessary remove from these shores people who pose a national threat and who masquerade as asylum seekers? It is asylum seekers who need help, not those who are masquerading as asylum seekers.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I believe that I quoted the Liberal Democrats themselves who signalled that the ECHR was not quite as inflexible as one has sometimes been led to believe. The position as regards Article 3 as a matter of law is clear. It is non-derogable and therefore one cannot sidestep it.

Water Bill [H.L.]
2.57p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Whitty on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Grand Committee to which the Water Bill [HL] has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 33,

Schedule 1,

Clause 34,

Schedule 2,

Clause 35,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 36 to 54,

Schedule 4,

Schedule 8,

Clauses 55 to 78,

9

Schedules 5 and 6,

Clauses 79 to 93,

Schedule 7,

Schedule 9,

Clauses 94 to 97. —(Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
On Question, Bill read a second time; Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order 47 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution of 13th March), Bill read a third time and passed.

Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc.) Bill
2.59 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 1 [Meaning of "NHS body" and "qualifying hospital patient"]:
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff Baroness Finlay of Llandaff moved Amendment No 1:
Page 2, line 2, at end insert—
"( ) The term "independent hospital" includes any hospice registered as an independent hospital (hospice acute category)."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I do not wish to delay discussion by revisiting the debate that we had at previous stages about whether or not hospices are included in the Bill. The Minister previously stated that he believed that they were not included. I am grateful to the Minister for having met me and Dr Andrew Hoy, chairman of the Association for Palliative Medicine. We had a fruitful discussion. At that time, we were able to provide the Minister with additional evidence to support our view that hospices should be included in the Bill. For the sake of the House, I shall run through that view very briefly.
The registration documents for in-patient units, which are specialist palliative care units, state that they are registered in the independent hospital service category (h)(a), which means "hospice acute". The National Care Standards Commission took over registration of such units, and at the time the designation of hospices was considered to be as independent hospitals providing acute care. Units with such a registration are in the process of establishing or have already established service-level agreements specifically for the care of NHS patients in their buildings.
A simple example is that 160 beds were available in Marie Curie for England and Wales in January. There were 207 admissions, with a 48 per cent discharge rate.
10
More than 50 per cent of those patients needed social services packages to be discharged, and none will continue in care. Marie Curie has the largest number of hospice beds of any independent provider in England and Wales, and those figures are reflected in other hospices that have smaller numbers of beds.
Because there are service level agreements and carefully drawn contracts that specify what will or will not be done, it would appear that we are talking about acute patients in the hospice pursuant to NHS arrangements. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will be able to accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for the discussions that we have had on the issue of hospices and the extent to which patients treated by them are covered by the Bill.
The amendment is not necessary, because the term "independent hospital" in the Bill already includes hospices. That is the same definition as that in the Care Standards Act 2000. Section 2, which is in Part I of that Act, states:
"A hospital which is not a health service hospital is an independent hospital".
In the sense of the Bill, "hospital" means,
"an establishment … the main purpose of which is to provide medical or psychiatric treatment for illness or mental disorder or palliative care".
I understand that the noble Baroness has used her amendment as a way of eliciting from me further information about the important matters that she raises. Very helpfully, she let me see a number of copies of what are best described as service level agreements between individual hospices and NHS authorities. From an initial perusal of them, it is at least arguable that patients treated under those agreements are indeed treated pursuant to NHS arrangements and therefore could well fall under the Bill. There needs to be further discussion between my department and the representatives of hospices on that matter, but the noble Baroness has done a great service in bringing it to our attention and clarifying our understanding of the point.
Not all patients in hospices would be so covered, because not all patients will be treated pursuant to NHS arrangements. I also accept that there is a more general point about wishing to ensure a good relationship between hospices and individual local authorities, particularly when it comes to the support that might be required from a local authority for patients who have left a hospice and gone back into their own homes. I have asked my department to institute discussions with representatives of the hospice movement and local authorities, so that we can discuss such matters in great detail.
I hope that the noble Baroness will accept that I have found her intervention in the area extremely helpful. We take it very seriously and we will pursue those discussions in the future.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. If I may return the compliment,

11
I would like to thank him for having been so helpful and open to discussion. I feel that the integrated service that hospices have been trying to establish with the NHS is being preserved and built on by the action. There was a lot of concern that, if there was no ability for any hospice beds to be included, some of that work might fall by the wayside.
I am grateful to the Minister for his reassurance that the amendment is not necessary, and that hospices with patients pursuant to NHS arrangements with a formal contract are included. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Lord Hunt of Kings Heath moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 4, at end insert—
"(3) An NHS body may make arrangements with any person connected with the management of an independent hospital in the United Kingdom for that person (or any employee of his) to do, on behalf of the NHS body and in accordance with the arrangements, anything which is required or authorised to be done by the NHS body by or under this Part in relation to qualifying hospital patients accommodated in that hospital.
(4) Anything done or omitted to be done by or in relation to the authorised person (or any employee of his) in pursuance of such arrangements is to be treated as done or omitted to be done by or in relation to the NHS body.
(5) Nothing in subsection (3) or (4) prevents anything being done by or in relation to the NHS body."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we have been clear that we want NHS patients treated in independent hospitals to be treated under the Bill in exactly the same way as NHS patients in an NHS hospital would be. We believe therefore that a private provider treating an NHS patient should, where appropriate, be able to issue the notice of a patient's potential need for community care services under Clause 2 and to consult the local authority about follow-up services, on behalf of the NHS body that commissioned the care. I believe that that is logical in order to prevent the patient's discharge being delayed and to prevent unnecessary bureaucracy.
As the Bill is drafted, however, a private provider would not be able to carry out those duties on behalf of the NHS. That is because although Section 23 of the National Health Service Act 1977 allows NHS bodies to make arrangements for others to provide services under that Act on their behalf, the powers and duties conferred on NHS bodies under the Bill are not services under the 1977 Act.
The amendment will therefore introduce a power for private providers to undertake duties under the Bill on behalf of the NHS body, in pursuance of arrangements made between the private provider and the NHS body. The NHS body will of course retain ultimate responsibility for the functions carried out on its behalf and the services provided. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I would like to interrogate the Minister slightly further on that. I assume that the amendment relates to the letter that he
12
had the courtesy to send to Front-Bench spokesmen on the subject. In Committee and on Report, he said that the PCT would actually levy any charge made. I hesitate to remind him, but I drew the example of a fictitious German hospital that would levy a charge. Is he now saying that a no-longer fictitious but real German hospital would actually levy the charges under the provisions that he stated?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, that is a good question. However, if the noble Lord looks at the amendment he will note that proposed new subsection (3) states:
"An NHS body may make arrangements with any person connected with the management of an independent hospital in the United Kingdom".
I can set his mind at rest. The scenario of a German hospital imposing a penalty on an NHS local authority would not operate, so far as the position of the PCT is concerned. For instance, the noble Lord might ask me whether independent acute hospitals that treated NHS patients would have the right to issue both the notice and the penalty charge. That would depend on arrangements reached locally by the primary care trust. The Bill allows it to happen but the primary care trust will come to a view on how the arrangements might operate in practice.
Baroness Barker: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I want to leap forward quickly to the next amendment. Can he clarify where responsibility for carrying out NHS continuing care assessments lies?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I believe we shall debate that matter when we come to the next amendment. However, clearly the direction that we shall issue, which will ensure that the continuing care assessment takes place before a Section 2 notice is issued, will be directed to a National Health Service body. It is clearly for that NHS body to ensure that the direction is carried out.
Baroness Barker: My Lords, again before the Minister sits down—
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I believe we are out of order here. Perhaps I may suggest that we discuss that matter when we come to the amendment which deals with continuing care.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 2 [Notice of patient's likely need for community care services]:
Baroness Barker Baroness Barker moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 22, at end insert "; and

"(c) a decision has been made that the patient will not require continuing NHS health care other than services provided by the NHS under section 5(2), a record has been made of why the patient is considered not to meet each of the criteria for such care, and the patient has been informed of his right of review of this decision."

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, as has been said, we are returning to one of the key elements in our debate thus far—that is, the subject of NHS continuing care.

13
During an earlier stage of the Bill, we talked at some length about the ombudsman's report into continuing care. I believe that a key part of that report bears repetition at this point. The ombudsman said:
"The long awaited guidance in June 2001 gives no clearer definition than previously of when continuing NHS health care should be provided; if anything it is weaker, since it simply lists 'factors authorities should bear in mind' and 'details to which they should pay attention' without saying how they should be taken into account. I have criticised some authorities for having criteria which were out of line with previous guidance: except in extreme cases I fear I would find it even harder now to judge whether criteria were out of line wit h the current guidance. Such an opaque system cannot be fair".
The amendment deals with the lack of clarity in the guidance both nationally and in relation to its implementation locally. It seeks to ensure not only that an assessment for NHS continuing care is carried out before a Section 2 notice is issued but that such an assessment is written down, that the person concerned knows the basis on which he has been refused continuing care and that there is a record of that.
The health ombudsman strongly recommends that there should be documentation and that it should be available not only to patients but to successor bodies. We believe that the criteria should be clear; they should be consistently applied; and there should be records stating whether that has or has not happened. That is the purpose of the amendment. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I support the noble Baroness and can add little to what she has so ably said. We debate this Bill against the background of the ombudsman's recent report. If hospital staff are to take informed and correct decisions in implementing the provisions of the Bill, it seems to me self-evident that they must first take informed and fair decisions about whether or not patients are eligible for NHS continuing care. The ombudsman found not only that the department's guidance on continuing care was unclear but also that it was being interpreted and implemented differently in different hospitals and often wrongly.
In 2000, the Royal College of Nursing carried out a review of the eligibility criteria being applied in about a quarter of health authorities in England and Wales. They found that up to 90 per cent of health authorities were acting unlawfully in the way that they assessed people for long-term care funding. There is no evidence that the situation has improved.
In that context, I believe it is right to include in the Bill an explicit requirement for a continuing care assessment to be carried out for every patient and for there to be a record of the reasons for the decision one way or the other. We know that that is what the Government agree should happen. If it is an uncontentious requirement, there can be no reason for omitting it from the Bill, bearing in mind not only its critical importance for patients but also its importance for the smooth operation of the Bill.
3.15p.m.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, I, too, support the amendment for all the reasons that have been laid out so eloquently by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe. The importance of recording a decision cannot be understated, particularly if there is ever to be an appeal against the way that the patient's discharge has been handled.
With explicit criteria for continuing care, which one hopes will be in place everywhere, it should not be too difficult for those who arrange the discharge to detect immediately whether the patient is or is not potentially eligible. Simply recording that step in the process will complete the way that all the data are collected. For patients where assessment must be carried out, it is important to document the date and the pathway of the assessment process. This is an important amendment for reasons of completeness, in order to protect patients from potentially unnecessary over-assessment, and to save social services the time involved in making arrangements for a patient who may then turn out to be eligible for continuing care.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I have some sympathy with the substance of the points raised, although I do not believe that it is necessary to accept the amendment. However, I want to respond to the points mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, in relation to the departmental guidance issued in 2001. As I said during the Starred Question earlier today, we shall consider the guidance in the light of the review currently being undertaken by strategic health authorities, which have been asked to report back to the department by the end of March. We shall consider those matters and study the ombudsman's report carefully.
Equally, I do not deny that, when it comes to individual decisions about whether or not a particular patient is eligible for continuing care, hard decisions must be taken by practitioners at local level. But I believe that the departmental guidance issued in 2001 and, in particular, Annex C of that guidance, gives a great deal of assistance to NHS authorities on the issues that they should be discussing with local authorities when establishing their eligibility criteria.
I shall not go through the seven points listed in the guidance but I believe that they set out helpfully the type of issues that need to be discussed and decided. While individual cases will always involve difficult decisions and there will always be borderline areas, I question whether the fundamental principles contained in the current guidance are as far off the point as has been suggested. However, we shall consider that matter carefully.
However, from my own reading of the conclusions of the ombudsman's report, which has been, and will be, very helpful in thinking through what we need to do in the future, I believe that much of the problem stemmed from the failure of NHS bodies locally to develop eligibility criteria in accordance with the guidance that had already been established and set out.

15
That is another matter that we shall have to consider closely before deciding whether to make any changes to the guidance.
Having said that, as I said on Report, I have a great deal of sympathy for the intent behind the amendment. We have made clear throughout our debates on the Bill that the first decision in the assessment process has to be whether someone needs continuing care. We have also made clear that that should be done by the relevant NHS body before issuing a Section 2 notice. My colleague in another place, Jacqui Smith, emphasised that on Report when she said that the first decision that should be made in the assessment process is whether patients are eligible and entitled to NHS continuing care.
The ombudsman's report highlighted that trusts are not always sufficiently well informed of the assessment process and eligibility criteria. That is why I responded last week with a commitment to issue regulations and, following from that, directions to make clear to the NHS what is required. The approximate form of words that we intend to use for the regulations in respect of a Section 2 notice is, "confirmation that an assessment for continuing care has been carried out in accordance with the directions issued to NHS bodies at some time during 2003".
The legally binding requirement will be placed in directions to the NHS. We shall consult on those directions and issue them at the same time as regulations come into force. The directions will require NHS bodies to carry out an assessment for continuing care for any qualifying patient before a Section 2 notice is issued. The direction will meet the points that I believe have been raised in our debates. It will specify that the assessment for continuing care is to be carried out, that a record is to be made of that assessment, and that the patient was informed of the right to ask that that decision be reviewed, and of the outcome of the review.
That shows our seriousness of purpose in that area. I believe that the combination of the regulation and the strength of the direction to be issued to the NHS shows that we have listened and that we have met the concerns. In the spirit of our debates in this House I believe that noble Lords will recognise when a point has been accepted, that the Government, indeed, are keen to ensure that this matter is dealt with effectively by the NHS and that everyone will be assured that the assessment in relation to continuing care will be carried out before a Section 2 notice is issued.
Baroness Barker: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that forceful reply. I believe that this is perhaps one of the most important aspects of the Bill, which will affect the outcome of services for older people. It has been worth raising the issue again, not least because whatever the Minister says—earlier today in Starred Questions I listened carefully to his interpretation of the ombudsman's report, which is very different from mine—the record of the NHS so far on this matter has been extremely poor. We cannot emphasise that enough. If one considers the history, not just of the
16
cases in this episode but of previous ombudsman reports, it is clear that new nursing staff come into the NHS and are not made aware of existing guidance.
None the less, I listened carefully to the Minister's reply. I believe that the guidance will be a step forward. He has helpfully put on record the need for written judgments. On that basis I shall not press the amendment today. However, the Minister should be in no doubt that this is one area of performance of the Bill that will be watched and scrutinised perhaps more than any other. I thank the Minister for his reply. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Andrews Baroness Andrews moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 38, after first "the" insert "responsible NHS"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 4 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 5, 7, 9, 11, 12, 14 and 15.
The Government wish to make a number of very small tidying amendments to the Bill, which in the opinion of the parliamentary draftsman are necessary to improve the internal consistency of the Bill, to correct minor ambiguities and occasionally to put more felicitous expression.
The amendment to Clause 10 is a final amendment to ensure that services to carers are referred to in all the appropriate subsections. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 4 [Duties of responsible authority following notice under section 2]:
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Lord Hunt of Kings Heath moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 3, line 33, leave out from "case" to end of line 34 and insert "under section 2 has been given"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
3.30p.m.
Lord Morris of Manchester Lord Morris of Manchester moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 3, line 45, at end insert—
"( ) Where the responsible authority does not carry out its duty under section 4(2)(a) within the minimum interval prescribed under section 5(6)(b), the responsible NHS body must carry out the assessment of the patient's needs on its behalf."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to allow the House briefly to revisit an issue of the first importance to many thousands of the most vulnerable people in Britain today: one that was not resolved by the vote in Committee on 17th February to delay the implementation of this legislation for a year.
My amendment was prompted by representations from people now unnecessarily detained in hospital by failure to assess and meet their needs for care in the community. They put it to me that, where a local council and NHS trust cannot work together to facilitate that care and the council fails even to assess need, then the NHS trust both in its own and the public interest should be empowered to act alone in doing so. They insist that patients must not—their words not

17
mine—"be left to rot in hospital" in acute beds, urgently needed by others, when they could be better cared for elsewhere.
I move the amendment as a serial legislator in this policy area for over 33 years now, both as a Back-Bench parliamentarian and a Minister, having first entered the fray with my Private Member's Bill that became the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. And it was 27 years ago that I announced, as the then Minister for Disabled People, the first-ever joint funding by the NHS and local social services authorities of care in the community for people leaving hospital in need of continuing care. At the same time I promoted the legislation that introduced the severe disablement allowance, the mobility allowance, the invalid care allowance and the disabled housewife's allowance.
That experience and much else in a long involvement in working to achieve the right help, in the right place, at the right time for chronically ill and disabled people leaves me extremely unhappy with the Bill as it now stands.
The Government have provided local social services authorities with much increased funding to fulfil their responsibilities, including £1 billion earmarked for older people's services. But as amended this Bill delays for a year hard-won resources to facilitate more appropriate care for them. That delay will prolong pain and suffering among thousands of people now languishing on hospital waiting lists. Arguably the delay could endanger the lives of some of them—since it is for acute beds that they will have to go on waiting—and it will compound the distress of people now perversely described as "bed blockers" for being detained in hospital in denial of their rights to community care.
Again the Bill does nothing in its present form to acknowledge or reward the local councils, in many parts of the country, that already work so successfully in partnership with NHS trusts to achieve an integrated approach—case by complex case—to the making of humane provision for continuing care of needful people who no longer require a hospital bed.
I have no wish to question the stance taken by anyone on either side of the debate on 17th February. My purpose is not to recriminate about what happened in Committee, but to look forward to what can still be done to protect the benefits the Bill offers. Nor do I question the right of those outside Parliament who have made us aware of their concerns, least of all those of the Local Government Association (LGA) and Help the Aged. On the contrary I hold both of those organisations in high regard and read their submissions with care. In turn they for their part will, I know, understand the depth of my concern about the prospect of leaving the issue of deferred discharges in limbo for a whole year as we are in danger of doing now.
The LGA is concerned, in particular, that the £100 million per full year the Government have made available for assessing need is limited to three years and falls short of their estimate of £133 million a year. While
18
this rightly concerns them, is it not a matter for continuing dialogue and negotiation, rather than justification for blocking an attempt to deliver the right care in the right setting? The LGA is rightly concerned too—like Help the Aged—to ensure "person centred" care for older people and to prevent them being treated as "commodities". But that is how many of them—wrongly and avoidably denied the dignity of living in their own homes—feel they are being treated now. As my noble friend Lord Hunt frankly stated on 17th February:
"Poor-quality practice in many health services and in local government has led to a disastrous position for older people. They are stuck inappropriately in acute NHS beds and risk the dangers of infection, of becoming institutionalised and of losing their independence. As a result, it becomes much more difficult for them to return either to their own homes or to appropriate community care".—[Official Report, 17/2/03; col. 952–953.]
Sadly that is how they will go on being treated if this Bill remains as now drafted and it should not be beyond the wit of parliamentarians, working together, to make it an effective instrument for the achievement of objectives we can all support.
The problems of delayed discharges from hospital are not new. Nor are the debates on the provisions of this Bill the first attempt to solve them. What is new is that substantial extra money has now been found and the Government deserve credit for having accepted this as a prerequisite of meaningful progress towards a solution.
I am much reminded today of Michael Barry, an elderly and severely disabled man, whose case was brought to this House in February/March 1997 on appeal by Gloucestershire County Council and the then Secretary of State for Health (R v Gloucestershire County Council and Another ex parte Barry). They sought to reverse a judgment in Mr Barry's favour given by the Court of Appeal on 27th June 1996.
Following a stroke Michael Barry had been taken into hospital. He had previously had several heart attacks and could not see well. After being discharged from hospital he lived alone and got around with the aid of a Zimmer frame, having fractured his hip some years earlier. Without reassessing his needs, Gloucestershire County Council withdrew the cleaning and laundry services he had been receiving under Section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act on the grounds that:
"Central government has reduced by £2.5 million the money allocated to us for services for disabled people",
and that the council was left with,
"nowhere near enough money to meet demand".
When he heard this Michael Barry could have been excused for thinking that perhaps even some commodities were treated with more care than him. For Gloucestershire County Council and the Secretary of State for Health the issue was,
"keeping the lid on public spending".
For Michael Barry, then 82, it was about personal survival.
No one was more unquestionably vulnerable and acquainted with grief than him; and few of those officially involved in his case can look hack with any pride on the way he was treated. But happily one

19
person who can is here this afternoon: the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, who spoke so perceptively in giving this House his opinion about the case of Michael Barry. He clearly saw through the old Spanish customs used to deprive the 1970 Act's beneficiaries of their rights to services. He saw that assessment and reassessment of need were often delayed and avoided because, once need has been assessed, it is the duty of the local authority to meet it by providing services under the Act; and that thus the way to cut expenditure was to delay or avoid assessment or reassessment.
The noble and learned Lord also saw more clearly than legal colleagues, first, that help under the Act depended not on where the disabled person lived but strictly on the extent of individual need; and secondly, that local authorities were not entitled to say that assessment of need must have regard to their overall resources. The solution he said lay with central government:
"Having willed the end, Parliament must be asked to provide the means".
He was eminently correct as well to say categorically that:
"Parliament never intended there should be different standards for measuring the needs of disabled people in Bermondsey and Belgrave Square"
The noble and learned Lord described the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 as one of "noble" purpose. My response is to say that he enhanced its nobility. His humanity shone through every sentence of his statement here in March 1997 on the case of Michael Barry.
That different standards still exist today, dependent on where a disabled person lives, demeans Parliament and must not be perpetuated by new legislation. The benefits of this Bill are urgently needed and I believe it is not too late to avoid delaying their delivery. I hope profoundly that this can be achieved without party animus and after full consideration by the Government of all matters of legitimate concern, irrespective of by whom they have been raised. There is still time for consensus to be reached on this Bill and those it seeks to help deserve no less. I beg to move.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester. He has an immense amount of experience in relation to disabilities of all kinds. If the Government want beds to be unblocked in acute hospitals, it is important to speed up assessments without which patients cannot get the help that they need. I hope that the Government will accept the amendment.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, it is tempting to accept my noble friend's amendment because he speaks with great authority, but I shall ask him to withdraw it. He was being unduly modest when he described himself as a serial legislator. I have always seen him as the architect, author and promoter of the
20
Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 which has had a profound impact on society. I always listen to him with great care.
Importantly, he dealt with the issue of commodity. Noble Lords will know that I objected forcefully when, in Committee, it was suggested from the Bishops' Bench that the Bill aimed to treat a patient as a commodity. At the moment we have a major problem in that every day thousands of people are inappropriately stuck in NHS acute beds. The longer they stay there the greater their lack of independence, the more institutionalised they become and the harder it is for them to be discharged back into the community and to their homes. That is why we need to ensure that the health service and local government get their act together and sort out a proper assessment process and as quick a discharge process as is possible.
Certain patients will have complex care needs which it will not be possible to deal with in a short time. However, such people can be transferred to more appropriate care than is provided in an acute hospital. I share the concern of my noble friend and of the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, that in this House we have voted to delay the implementation of the Bill by a whole year. It is a pity, as I believe that the Government have taken a constructive approach. We have tried to meet the concerns that have been expressed. We have met concerns over the issue of consultation on hospices. We have just discussed the issue of decisions on eligibility for continuing care, before a Clause 2 notice is issued. In the spirit of trying to make this Bill work in the House of Lords, we intimated that we would be prepared to see a delay in its introduction by six months. However, that was not to be, and I regret it.
I know that there are concerns about the ability of the health service and local government to make the Bill work effectively. All I will do is repeat what I have said previously. We know from the experience of a number of local authorities that when people are determined to make delayed discharge procedures work well, they can be made to do so. Why should we be denying to members of the public the benefit that this Bill will bring? That was the point my noble friend Lord Morris put so forcefully.
My other point relates to the matter raised previously by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker. She talked about the problem of new staff not being updated with current guidance—whether relating to continuing care eligibility, or good discharge procedures. I agree with her. That must be the conclusion that should be arrived at by reading the Climbié report by the noble Lord. Lord Laming. It pointed to a lack of attention to detail, a lack of procedure, a lack of ability to follow those procedures, a lack of supervision, and above all a seemingly chronic inability among some professional staff to write things down. She knows that I am as critical of the NHS as I am of social services or the police. All of those points are very well taken. However, I contend that this Bill will put in place much more robust procedures—both in the health service and local government. That is why I believe that the Bill is an advance on current arrangements.

21
Although I have immense sympathy with the comments of my noble friend Lord Morris, I cannot support the exact wording of his amendment. However, he has made some very important points.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, will not this amendment speed things up, especially as there has been a delay of a year?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I think the problem is that the way the amendment is worded would mean that if the local authority failed to carry out an assessment, the NHS could do so on its behalf. There must be some question about whether the NHS would have that ability. Apart from anything else, the assessment under Clause 4(2)(a) is to be treated as a Section 47 assessment. I am afraid that under Section 47, only a local authority social services department can carry that out. So there is a practical issue. There is always an issue about the wording of the amendment, but the point my noble friend Lord Morris is making—which will no doubt be considered very carefully in another place—is whether it is right to delay the introduction of this Bill for six months. The only people who will suffer are the very people we are trying to help. They are the 5,000 people prevented every day from being discharged effectively. I say "only" in parenthesis. It is important that we do not focus on the problems of bureaucratic statutory authorities. We have heard much about the problems of health services and local government. I think we should focus on those individuals. That is the point my noble friend has raised.
Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, I am grateful for the support of my good and noble friend, Lady Masham. Like my good friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, she made her maiden speech in 1970 on my Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Bill. No one knows more fully than they do how true to the parliamentary record the assessment of the Bill by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, was when he gave his opinion on the Michael Barry case in 1997. I understand why the Minister asks me not to press the amendment. He was very responsive to the case I made, and I trust the amendment may still have the effect I sought as the Bill proceeds. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Andrews Baroness Andrews moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 4, line 38, leave out "him" and insert "the patient"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
3.45p.m.
Lord Rix Lord Rix moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 5, line 15, at end insert—
"(12A) In the case of any person having a learning disability, irrespective of the age of the person and of whether or not that person has other disabilities, the NHS body and the responsible authority shall take account of that person's learning disability in ensuring the person's supported return to their previous home or, where this is impossible, their support in an alternative placement."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, according to St. Matthew, Chapter 20, the would-be grape-pickers who presented themselves at the eleventh hour received rather a good deal. My eleventh hour amendment which is designed to protect the position of people with learning disabilities, who are being discharged from hospital, is tabled in hope of similar treatment.
Helpful conversations have taken place with the Minister. There has been an exchange of correspondence, and I have seen the Department of Health's excellent new guidance on hospital discharges. So I live in hopeful expectation of a favourable response—although not necessarily an acceptance of the amendment as it stands. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, it is always good to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Rix to our debates, even though it is indeed the eleventh hour. However I suspect that this Bill has a little more time to run. He has raised a very important issue. His amendment seeks to place a requirement for local authorities and the NHS to take account of the needs of an individual's learning disability, when arranging their discharge. Of course I agree that is essential, but I believe that it will be achieved without the need for it to be explicit in the Bill.
I understand his concerns about people with learning disabilities who are admitted to hospital for acute treatment. They can then find themselves unable to return to the home from which they came, and then perhaps placed in inappropriate care. I believe that the strength of the assessment systems put in place by this Bill, combined with the revised good practice guidance, will ensure that people with learning disabilities can receive the package of care that most meets their needs upon discharge from hospital. This could mean return to their original home, or a placement somewhere else more appropriate.
The hospital discharge workbook contains good practice that will ensure that an individual's learning disabilities will be taken fully into account when assessing the patient's often complex needs and putting services in place. Appendices 5.6 and 5.7 of the workbook in particular set out good practice and guidelines when dealing with someone with a learning disability. I am confident that this practice will he followed well in the field. It is essential that an individual's learning disability is taken into account. To do otherwise would be negligence by the statutory agencies, as it would be highly unlikely that the individual's discharge would be successful, or that appropriate care would be provided.
The duties that the Bill places on the NHS and social services to work together, in carrying out those assessments, will ensure that there are no gaps in the package of services that are put together. With that assurance I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Rix, will feel that the position of people with learning disabilities is well catered for, and will not press this amendment.
Lord Rix: My Lords, in the world of farce, which I once inhabited, you soon find out that the feed line is

23
as important as the laugh line which follows. Without an audible and well-delivered feed, the audience will sit in glum silence, totally unaware of why they are supposed to be rolling about with laughter. I am glad to say that the Minister has heard my feed line—Amendment No. 8—and has delivered his punch line with warm-hearted clarity. He therefore receives an equally warm-hearted response from me.
In addition to his statement from the Dispatch Box, only this morning I received a letter from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, which underlined his every spoken word. Again looking back to the world of farce, belts and braces are highly desirable if you are in danger of losing your nether garments. The Minister has ensured that my long-practised art form will not happen here today. I am grateful for his support and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 [Duties of responsible NHS body following notice under section 2]:
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Lord Hunt of Kings Heath moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 5, line 39, leave out "was" and insert "is"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 5, line 44, at end insert "excluding Saturdays, Sundays and public holidays"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we have extensively discussed notice periods under what is now Clause 5 but I make absolutely no excuse for returning to the subject, simply because of the lack of concrete undertakings given by the Minister in Committee and on Report, and the lack of any movement towards the compromise suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, on Report.
Both in Committee and on Report the Minister made much of the benefits for the patient of a minimum period of three days. The motives on these Benches—and, I am sure, on the Conservative Benches—are to benefit patients by these amendments. The noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, said that older people will not want to be left in acute hospitals for any longer than necessary. We say "Amen" to that. But, as I said on Report, the evidence shows that week-end discharges are three times more likely to lead to readmission than discharges earlier in the week. Would patients wish to be discharged where there is that kind of risk? I suggest not.
The Minister admitted on Report that the medical part of the discharge decision is unlikely to be made at the week-end. Why, therefore, should the care decision have to be made at the week-end when key staff may not be available, pharmacies may not be open, and so on? On Report, the Minister seemed to have the horrors of a resulting minimum five, six or seven-day period. Why? In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, expressed his understanding of how difficult it might be for local government to run the necessary rotas over week-ends and bank holidays.
The Government's motive appears to be simply to free up hospital beds in the shortest possible time. In Committee, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, referred to "passing the parcel", and throughout the passage of the Bill we have referred to patients being treated as commodities. The minimum period without allowance for bank holidays and week-ends is all of a piece with that approach. To date, the Minister has not refuted the example put in Committee by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that notification could take place at 4.30 p.m. on Good Friday for a discharge no later than 11 a.m. on Easter Monday.
Throughout the Bill, the Government appear to be motivated by a punitive approach towards local government. The Minister believes that statutory agencies will make "excuse after excuse" to walk away from what the Bill is intended to achieve. This clearly reveals the coercive nature of the Bill. The amendment seeks to redress the balance and, at the same time, to make the procedures safer. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, in all that he has said. In Committee, the Minister was heard to utter the words that have become so familiar to us in our debates on successive pieces of health legislation down the years—"getting the balance right". I agree with the objective. What we have to decide, in the absence of direct experience, is where exactly the balance lies.
It is worth saying that the amendment and the case advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, represent a compromise between the proponents of a much longer minimum period—say five or seven days—and the position set out in the Bill. The argument for settling on three working days as opposed to three calendar days can be stated simply: it is better for patients and fairer on local authorities. It is better for patients because to be discharged at a week-end or on a bank holiday when community services and home care may not be available is, to put it mildly, less than optimal. For a local authority to be told on a Thursday that a particular patient must be discharged on the following Sunday when the patient requires long-term care is a recipe for stop-gap solutions for that patient. If we believe in patient consultation and, wherever possible, patient choice, we should not permit the system to operate on a basis that encourages rushed or superficial discharge planning. As it is, the Bill is likely to place many patients in temporary care settings pending a permanent placement, but the disregard of week-ends and bank holidays accentuates that likelihood unnecessarily and we should remove it.
If the Minister believes that the case is being over-stated, I humbly suggest that he should note the result of the recent survey by the Nursing Standard and Community Care magazines. The principal concern among respondents to that survey was that the system of financial penalties being introduced through the Bill will result in higher numbers of older people being placed in residential care rather than their own homes as care packages can take longer to set up.

25
Three working days is also fairer for local authorities. Every noble Lord who spoke in Committee made the point that to ignore the patterns of the normal working week will place enormous pressures on local authorities—pressures of staff and pressures of finance. A large number of local authorities are already experiencing substantial budgetary difficulties in social services, way beyond their SSAs. To compound that, the commitments that the Bill would force upon them for week-end and holiday working are unfunded. We all know that the Bill deliberately sets out to place burdens on local authorities, but I do not think that a requirement to have fully staffed social services departments for 365 days a year is in any sense reasonable or fair.
This is an important issue. On Report, the Minister was good enough to say that he would take away the points that had been made and reflect upon them. I look forward to hearing what he has to say.
Baroness Greengross: My Lords, I have some difficulty in speaking on this issue because I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association and of Age Concern. I believe that the amendment is put forward with the best interests of older people at heart but it is too inflexible.
Neither the health service nor the local authority should be surprised when a person leaves hospital. I was involved with someone who was in hospital for two and a half weeks over the Christmas period and who could not be discharged because social services were not fully functioning. To put this requirement on the face of the Bill would not help the people I am most passionate about—that is, those who remain in hospital and who are not discharged.
It would be absolutely unreasonable for the NHS to issue a Clause 2 notice if it is impossible for the social services to comply. At the moment, social services do not work at week-ends but the NHS does. It would not be beyond imagination that in the future some people from social services—those who work with the acute hospitals to get people discharged and who organise the services they will need—may have to alter their ways of working to ensure that health and social services really do work together. Keeping people in hospital, for whatever reason, for longer than is absolutely necessary is not acceptable in this day and age.
On the other side of the argument, the Minister will have to be very careful when drawing up the regulations so that this cannot be seen as an attack on social services, but as legislation to ensure the rapid discharge of patients who ought to be out of an acute hospital—and who have been thrown backwards and forwards for too many years for me to remember without extreme distaste and anxiety.
4 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I have given the matter a great deal of consideration because I recognise that the point raised by noble Lords opposite is a genuine concern about the practicalities that rest
26
on social services departments. Having given it a great deal of consideration, and for the reasons put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, who put the matter so very well, I remain firm in my belief that the minimum period on the face of the Bill is correct.
I say to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that I do not believe the Government are taking a putative approach to local government. Of course we want to see a marked improvement in the performance of local authorities, which builds on what is seen as good practice in a number of local authorities up and down the country. But that will not work unless the NHS also improves its performance.
I return to a point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, earlier. She talked about the problem of new nurses arriving on a ward not being apprised either of continuing care criteria guidance or of delayed discharge guidance. I agree with her. I think that that is a problem. But that will have to be tackled, as will the defects of local government performance. It is very wrong to think of this Bill as simply being aimed at local government. It will not work unless the health service and local authorities get their acts together.
I turn to the issue of social services departments— the fact that they do not work seven days a week and that therefore it would be impossible for them to respond to the timetable. Whether it is a weekend or a bank holiday does not mean that the older person delayed in acute hospital simply disappears or is any less vulnerable to the consequences of a delay. Although a couple of days may not sound a great deal, we know that institutionalisation can set in rapidly. I do not see why older people should suffer simply because social services do not work at weekends.
Surely, we need to move away from the perception that social services should be provided only between the hours of nine to five on a weekday. We need a more flexible approach to working hours so that the needs of individuals can be met more effectively. I think that that too was the message of the Climbié report. To exclude Saturdays, Sundays and bank holidays on the face of the Bill would, I contend, send entirely the wrong message about what is acceptable and what we expect for older people.
The other point worth making is that, where a minimum number of days is set before the charging element is triggered, delays will always tend to drift up towards that minimum. So if we set the minimum number of days as three, then, where the minimum period falls over a week-end, the patient will usually end up waiting for at least five days. For someone who is ready to go home sooner, five days is an unacceptably long time to wait.
I have already made clear that since the majority of patients who become "delayed discharges" are in hospital for a longer period than three days, there will be a longer period to plan and put services into place. The vast majority of cases where the patient is ready to go home within the minimum compliance period are likely to be simple cases where it should not be unduly challenging to carry out an assessment and put services in place. Where a patient with particularly complex

27
needs is ready for discharge before the local authority has had time to carry out a full assessment or put services in place, then we believe it would be appropriate for them to move to a step-down or interim care facility while their care planning is completed.
I have made this point already: an acute hospital bed is the worst place for a vulnerable older person to be when they can no longer benefit from acute care. They are at risk of losing their independence and at the unfortunate risk of picking up hospital acquired infections. We should aim for them to be moved to a more appropriate environment where they can benefit from some rehabilitative input as soon as possible. The minimum compliance period should accept that.
I have given the matter a great deal of consideration but I do not believe that it would be right to support the amendment. We must give a clear indication to the NHS and to local government of what we expect. I believe that in the interests of the individual concerned we should keep the minimum number of days as presently set out.
Lord Clement-Jones: I thank the Minister for giving us the benefit of his thoughts and considerations during the past few days. Clearly his opinion, and that of the department, has hardened against the amendment. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, and to the Minister that no one in the House has a monopoly of compassion for the individual patient. We clearly have a difference of opinion as to how the Bill will operate in respect of particular patients and whether by coercing local government into certain actions that will be to the benefit of the patient. It is a fundamental difference of opinion and I propose to seek the opinion of the House.
4.7 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 10) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 134; Not-Contents, 119.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Caithness, E.

Addington, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Ampthill, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Astor, V.

Chadlington, L.

Astor of Hever, L. [Teller]

Clement-Jones, L. [Teller]

Avebury, L.

Coe, L.

Baker of Dorking, L.

Colwyn, L.

Barker, B.

Craig of Radley, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Biffen, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Blaker.L.

Dholakia, L.

Blatch,B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Bowness, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Elles, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Burnham, L.

Ezra, L.

Buscombe, B.

Falkland, V.

28

Fearn, L.

Patten, L.

Fookes, B.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Fowler, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B,

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Glentoran, L.

Plumb, L.

Gloucester, Bp.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Goodhart, L.

Rawlings, B.

Gray of Contin, L.

Razzall, L.

Hamwee, B.

Reay, L.

Hanningfield, L.

Redesdale, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Rennard, L.

Henley, L.

Renton, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Hogg, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Howe, E.

Roper, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

St John of Fawsley, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Sandberg, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Hurd of Westwell, L.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

James of Holland Park, B.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Sharples, B.

Kimball, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Laing of Dunphail, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Lawson of Blaby, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Steel of Aikwood, L.

Lucas, L.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Lyell, L.

Strange, B.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Strathclyde, L.

MacGregor of Pulham Market,

Swinfen, L.

L.

Taverne, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Thatcher, B.

McNally, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Maddock, B.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Marlesford, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Tordoff, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Tugendhat, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Vivian. L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Waddington, L.

Moynihan, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Walmsley, B.

Noakes, B.

Warnock, B.

Northesk, E.

Wigoder, L.

Northover, B.

Wilcox, B.

O'Cathain, B.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Onslow, E.

Windlesham, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Wolfson, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Ahmed, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Amos, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Andrews, B.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Archer of Sandwell. L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Crawley, B.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

David, B.

Bach, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Barnett, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Desai, L.

Bhatia, L.

Dixon, L.

Blackstone, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Boothroyd, B.

Dubs, L.

Borrie, L.

Elder, L.

Bragg, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Brookman, L.

Falkender, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Campbell-Savours, L.

[Teller]

Carter, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Chorley, L.

Filkin, L.

Christopher, L.

Fitt, L.

29

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Gale, B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Golding, B.

Mishcon, L.

Goudie, B.

Mitchell, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Morgan, L.

Grabiner, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Orme, L.

Greengross, B.

Parekh, L.

Gregson, L.

Pendry, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Peston, L.

Harrison, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Haskel, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Hayman, B.

Puttnam, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Richard, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Rix, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Hoyle, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Sheldon, L.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Simon, V.

Slim, V.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Jeger, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Jones, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Jordan, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Thornton, B.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Lipsey, L.

Uddin, B.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

McCarthy, L.

Weatherill, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Whitaker, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Wilkins, B.

[Teller]

Williams of Elvel, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
4.17p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Lord Hunt of Kings Heath moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 6, line 4, leave out "new" and insert "fresh"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 6 [Liability to make delayed discharge payments]:
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Lord Hunt of Kings Heath moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 6, line 25, at beginning insert "the patient has not been discharged and"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 7 [Delayed discharge payments: supplementary]:
Baroness Noakes Baroness Noakes moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 7, line 31, at end insert—
"( ) Section 6 shall not come into force until 30 days after the Secretary of State has determined that the systems of incentives within NHS bodies operate to discourage NHS bodies from discharging patients inappropriately."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we come to a crucial amendment in ensuring that the Bill is balanced when it leaves your Lordships' House. When the Bill arrived here from another place, it was not a balanced Bill. Your Lordships have rectified some of that imbalance. In particular, patients and carers who were marginalised by the Bill in the form that it arrived here will now get a better deal.
We now need to address the imbalance between the NHS and local government. The Minister may seek to deny that the Bill is heavily weighted against local government but denial of the Bill's consequences has been a consistent theme from Ministers throughout our deliberations. They blame local government for causing delays in discharging patients—especially the elderly—from hospital. The Government have rightly encouraged local authorities and the NHS to work in partnership to solve the problems, which is exactly what has been happening. Not all parts of the country have been as effective as the best. Some local authorities are still struggling to overcome the decimation of the care home sector that is the result of government policies—but real progress has been made. However, the Government have always acted as if Rome could indeed be built in a day and, before the new partnership agreements have had a chance to prove themselves, they have changed tack again and decided that a system of lines would sharpen the mind of local government.
Your Lordships will know that financial penalties indeed concentrate the mind; but also that unless penalties are carefully designed, they are likely to overwhelm other system drivers. In this case, they are likely to result in a complete failure of the partnerships that have so carefully been built up. Revealingly, the Minister spoke during our debate on the previous amendment of local authorities taking the maximum time to arrange discharges allowed under the Bill. It is clear from his comments that the Government now assume that partnership working will be killed by the Bill.
Putting that to one side, the system of fines is not even neutral for the NHS. The fines become a revenue stream for a hard-pressed NHS. Do not be fooled by government claims of large amounts of money going to the NHS. Most of the NHS is struggling to balance its books and is achieving precious little extra activity from the money. The fines will be a real financial incentive to the NHS to discharge patients as soon as possible.
So what is the problem with that? There is a major risk that discharges from hospitals will be premature and patients will end up as emergency readmissions. That is a thoroughly miserable prospect for elderly people. We may hear from the Minister another denial of the linkage between early discharge and emergency readmission, but he cannot deny that, following the Government's various initiatives to date on delayed discharge, readmission levels are at record levels and that rates are now as high as they have been since the Government came to power. We fear that the fines will lead to a rocketing readmission rate. That is simply not good enough for patients.
That is why the amendment mentions a system of incentives to prevent the NHS discharging patients inappropriately. At present, the Bill creates an adverse incentive. We need a positive incentive scheme in the NHS to encourage it to do the right thing, not the wrong thing. We need incentives not just to prevent

31
premature discharge but the NHS avoiding its long-term obligation to provide NHS care by rushing to discharge patients into the responsibility of local government.
At various stages of the Bill's passage, the Minister has given us several versions of incentives that may or may not operate in the NHS. He began by relying on some technical financial flows incentives, possibly starting from 2005–06. But those have been unmasked as potentially illusory and certainly have no immediacy. He has also prayed in aid the system of star ratings, the performance management apparatus, the periodic reviews by the Commission for Health Improvement and even the £100 million promised for the Bill that has still not been handed out to local government. I doubt that any noble Lord who took part in earlier debate on the Bill was impressed by any of that.
Amendment No. 13 is simple. The fining aspect of the Bill— although, I stress, no other—would be delayed until the Secretary of State had determined that a system of incentives within NHS bodies operated to discourage them from inappropriately discharging patients.
I hope that, even at this late hour, the Government will understand that this is a reasonable, balancing measure, I beg to move.
Baroness Barker: My Lords, I support the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. Anyone who has followed our debates on the Bill during recent weeks will be in no doubt that, as my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones, said, there is no monopoly on concern for the patient. However, we greatly fear that the lack of reciprocity on the NHS in the Bill is a fundamental flaw.
I shall make only three observations. First, readmissions to hospital of older people who have been sufficiently ill to be in acute care are damaging. According to the research from Leicester to which I have referred throughout the passage of the Bill, readmission is often such a disruption that there is an increased mortality rate among older people who are readmitted. That is probably one of the most serious statistics. That is why we want a penalty imposed on the NHS for inappropriate discharge. I reiterate: that is what the Government said they were going to do in the NHS Plan, but they have not.
Secondly, we should do well not to forget that another proposal runs alongside: the flat-rate tariff for treatment. Older people will turn out to be—and already are—in many ways some of the NHS's most expensive patients. On average, it takes older people longer to recover from surgical intervention. It is therefore likely that they will be the biggest drain on NHS resources under a flat-rate tariff system. So there again the NHS will have an incentive to discharge older people before they are ready.
My final point is that during our discussion on 10th March the Minister mentioned the Commission for Health Improvement and performance management. I then invited him to tell us how that would relate to
32
foundation hospitals. He was unable to do so, saying that he could not comment on the legislation at that point. We were overjoyed to receive the Bill, so I therefore ask again: how will the measures work in relation to foundation hospitals?
4.30p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I was surprised by the tone used by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, to describe the Bill. The Government have listened and sought to reach a consensus on many of the important issues that have been debated. For example, there was the decision about regulations and directions on continuing care, the consultation on Section 2 notification and agreement to what we thought was a reasonable compromise—a six-month delay in implementing the Bill—and consultation with local authorities about panel members in case of dispute.
We responded to the requirement of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform for more detail about the size of the charge. We made changes to the giving and withdrawing of notification and the proposed discharge date notification, so that both the NHS and social services will be clear about where each is in the process. We published the draft regulations, as requested, so that noble Lords are aware of the details and, of course, the Government tabled a raft of amendments in another place to bring carers into the Bill. We also announced that we would transfer £100 million in a full year to local government to meet the additional costs of dealing with the number of delayed discharge cases. I therefore think that it is very unfair to say that the Government have not listened, or been ready to discuss or compromise. I am sorry that noble Lords have not acknowledged that.
Of course nursing homes in some parts of the country have come under pressure. The figures that I have show that the number of care home places has fallen by 6,320 between 1997 and 2001. It is a fall, but it is only about 1 per cent of all care home places. That takes account of the number of homes closing, homes opening and existing homes extending capacity. Those are the figures that should be borne in mind—not the highly exaggerated figures that are often quoted.
The amendment relates to the issue of re-admissions to hospitals, and the suggestion that the Bill is an incentive to discharge patients prematurely. We define re-admission as admission to hospital within 28 days of discharge. I do not deny that re-admissions should be a matter of concern if they indicate failings in the care the person received during the earlier period of treatment. But it would be wrong to assume that that is inevitably the case. There are situations in which it would be wrong to blame the NHS for having failed to treat the person properly the first time. The article on re-admission rates in Leicester, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, referred, surely provides evidence of that. The study showed that nearly 60 per cent of re-admissions were due to new problems or chronic medical conditions.

33
Noble Lords will know that my department has been focusing intently on how to reduce delayed discharges since October 2001 when the building care capacity grant was first distributed. In the period since then delayed discharges have fallen significantly. If the connection between delayed discharge and readmission were correct, we would expect an equivalent rise in re-admissions, but there has been a rise of under 1 percent. I do not overlook the fact that re-admission rates can indicate potential problems around discharge, which is why we need to monitor the situation clearly. But there is no justification for arguing that pressure to reduce delays leads inevitably to premature discharge, and hence unnecessary re-admission. I do not believe that the figures back that up.
I found the Leicester study interesting. It showed that social reasons, either alone or in combination with other factors, can contribute to re-admissions. That is hardly surprising. A frail, elderly person returning from hospital without sufficient or timely support could have problems, which might then lead to re-admission. It is extremely interesting to note that the study reported that improper communication among various members of the multi-disciplinary team and with the general practitioner accounted for a significant number of re-admissions. That is the point. It is the point of what we are discussing and the point of lessons from Climbié and elsewhere in the health/social care interface.
It is precisely that problem, which the study described as improper communication, that the Bill will prevent. Many of the problems that we face are not down to enormous pressure on health care and local government, nor are they down to impossible pressure on individuals. They are caused by the lack of proper processes and procedures, lack of proper supervision and a seeming inability among professional practitioners to write matters down so that there is an audit trail. Those are the issues that the Bill is attempting to grip. Because the NHS has a new duty under the Bill to communicate to the local authority that it has a patient who may need help, social services will be brought into the planning process early on—not the situation that has been described when the health service can ring social services departments at 4 p.m. on a Friday saying, -Here is a patient we are just about to discharge".
This is an example of the Bill placing a great deal of responsibility on the NHS to sort out the matter. The NHS will have to inform social services of the date of discharge at least 24 hours beforehand. Social services will have advance notice of when services will be available. Because both the hospital and the primary care trust will consult the local authority about the services that they will provide after discharge, the patient's needs for health and social care will be considered by all parties.
34
It is not justified to create a link between the Bill and premature discharge. The incentives that are currently in place, and which will be in place with the financial flows in the future, will ensure that the incentives work in the right way towards effective discharge procedures and effective relationships and partnership between the health service and local government. Above all, they will ensure that when a person is ready for discharge, the community care package can be assessed and put into place as quickly as possible. On that basis, I hope that the noble Baroness will not press her amendment.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply. I did not say in my opening remarks that the Government had not listened. He seemed to accuse me of claiming that, but I did not say that. I said that the Bill was unbalanced when it arrived, but because of amendments tabled by us and those on the Liberal Democratic Benches, it is now better balanced, but it is not yet balanced enough. The Government, or at least the House, listened to many of the amendments. But there is one area that remains outstanding, which is the issue of reciprocal incentives.
I have no doubt that the Bill creates powerful incentives for social services to act as rapidly as possible, but I fear that it creates a harmful incentive on the NHS. I do not claim that early discharge results inevitably in every patient being re-admitted, but there is likely to be a correlation. The statistics that we have seen show that the proportion of re-admissions attributable to early discharge has nearly doubled in the past couple of years, just as we have seen the ticking up of the rate of re-admission.
This is too dangerous an area of the Bill to leave without corresponding incentives on the NHS. I have heard the Minister but the Bill would be inappropriate if it were left without corresponding incentives. I should like to test the opinion of the House.
4.38 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 13) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 145; Not-Contents, 112.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Addington, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Ampthill, L.

Burnham, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Buscombe, B.

Astor, V.

Byford, B.

Astor of Hever, L. [Teller]

Caithness, E.

Avebury, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L

Barker, B. [Teller]

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L

Biffen, L.

Chadlington, L.

Blaker, L.

Chalfont, L.

Blatch, B.

Clement-Jones, L.

Bowness, L.

Colwyn, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Cox, B.

Bridgeman, V.

Craig of Radley, L.

Bridges, L.

Crickhowell, L.

35

Dean of Harptree, L.

Newton of Braintree, L.

Dholakia, L.

Noakes, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Northesk, E.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Northover, B.

Eden of Winton, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Elles, B.

Onslow, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Elton, L.

Patten, L.

Ezra, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Falkland, V.

Perry of Walton, L.

Fearn, L.

Plumb, L.

Finlay of Llandaff, B.

Plummerof St. Marylebone, L.

Fookes, B.

Razzall, L.

Fowler, L.

Reay, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Redesdale, L.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Glentoran, L.

Rennard, L.

Gloucester, Bp.

Renton, L.

Goodhart, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Greengross, B.

Rogan, L.

Hamwee, B.

Roll of Ipsden, L.

Hanningfield, L.

Roper, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Ryder of Wensum, L.

Henley, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

St John of Fawsley, L.

Hogg, B.

Sandberg, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Howe, E.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Sharples, B.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

James of Holland Park, B.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Kimball, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Laing of Dunphail, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Lawson of Blaby, L.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Swinfen, L.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Taverne, L.

Lucas, L.

Thatcher, B.

Lyell, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

MacGregor of Pulham Market,

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

L.

Tordoff, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Tugendhat, L.

McNally, L.

Vivian, L.

Maddock, B.

Waddington, L.

Marlesford, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Walmsley, B.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Warnock, B.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Weatherill, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Wigoder, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Wilcox, B.

Moynihan, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Windlesham, L.

Newby, L.

Wolfson, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Ahmed, L.

Carter, L.

Amos, B.

Chorley, L.

Andrews, B.

Christopher, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Bach, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Barnett, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Crawley, B.

Blackstone, B.

David, B.

Borrie, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Bragg, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Brookman, L.

Desai, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Dixon, L.

36

Donoughue, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Lipsey, L.

Dubs, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Elder, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

[Teller]

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

[Teller]

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Filkin, L.

Mishcon, L.

Fitt, L.

Mitchell, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Gale, B.

Orme, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Parekh, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Golding, B.

Pendry, L.

Goudie, B.

Peston, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Pitkeathley, B.

Grabiner, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Puttnam, L.

Gregson, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Hardy of Wath. L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Harrison, L.

Richard, L.

Haskel, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Hayman, B.

Sawyer, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Sheldon, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Simon, V.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hoyle, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Thornton, B.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Uddin, B.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Jeger, B.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Jones, L.

Whitaker, B.

Jordan, L.

Wilkins, B.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
4.48 p.m.
Clause 9 [Dispute resolution]:
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Lord Hunt of Kings Heath moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 8, line 26, leave out "under this Part"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 10 [Adjustments between social services authorities]:
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Lord Hunt of Kings Heath moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 8, line 43, leave out from "incurred" to "from" in line 46 and insert—

"(i) in the performance of functions under this Part in relation to a qualifying patient;

(ii) in the provision of community care services which are the subject of a decision under section 4(2)(b); or

(iii) in the provision of services to a carer which are the subject of a decision under section 4(4)(b),"

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 16:
After Clause 20, insert the following new clause—
"DURATION
(1) Subject to subsection (2), Part 1 of this Act shall cease to have effect at the end of five years beginning with the date on which it comes into force.
(2) If the Secretary of State is satisfied that it is necessary for social services authorities to continue making payments in cases where the discharge of patients is delayed for reasons relating to the provision of community care services or services for carers, he may make an order providing that Part 1 of this Act shall continue in force for a further five years.
(3) An order may not he made under subsection (2) unless a draft of that order has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, both Houses of Parliament."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the objections that we in the Opposition have to the Bill are many. Some objections are based on considerations which we know are valid, even in advance of the Bill coming into force. We deplore the way in which it makes local authorities the whipping boys for the problem of delayed discharges without in any way recognising the role which they play day in, day out, in preventing inappropriate admissions to hospital in the first place. We deplore a policy that moves us away from the letter and spirit of shifting the balance of power and imposes a system of micro-management from the centre. We deplore the pointless churning of public money around the system. We deplore the additional bureaucracy and the cost of that bureaucracy.
However, many of our objections to the Bill come under a somewhat different heading—the fact that this whole measure is a giant experiment. The Government profess to be confident that the Bill will achieve what is intended of it. I do not know on what considerations they base that confidence. The idea of penalising local authorities came originally from Sweden. Sweden is the home of many good ideas, but this is one that has not worked. Even after operating the scheme for a number of years, and even with spare capacity in its care home sector, Sweden still has a higher incidence of delayed discharges in both relative and absolute terms than we do in the UK. Against that background, the Government's confidence for the Bill looks somewhat bold.
That is one dimension of the risk, but we fear, too, that the Bill will introduce perverse incentives which may frustrate rather than assist the aim it is designed to achieve. We fear that the sword of Damocles hanging over social services will serve to encourage care homes to ratchet up their charges, thus restricting even further the resources available to meet the needs of patients.
We fear that the Bill will distort priorities in that local authorities will not be able to devote the time and resources they should towards helping people in their own homes when they are faced with the imperative of avoiding tines for patients stuck in hospital. Partly because of that, we fear that more elderly patients who need some form of social care will be referred to hospital as the one place where they are guaranteed to have their needs seen to, thus swelling the numbers of patients who are blocking beds. We foresee the creative, collaborative
38
relationship between the NHS and local authorities that is now increasingly in evidence being transformed into a wary, confrontational relationship— again, to the detriment of patients.
The risk that patients and their carers will be denied a proper degree of choice has, at least in part, been forestalled by amendments to the Bill which the House approved last week. But this measure does not have the patient's voice at its core. It is a Bill about the system and about the acceleration of processes. We are assured by Ministers that it would be unthinkable for patients not to be involved in decisions ma de about what happens to them and for their confidentiality to be breached. But we are not at all confident about those assurances in the face of the financial imperatives and dictates that the Bill introduces.
In looking at the Bill, we are faced with a balance of risks and probabilities. We can only make educated guesses about what will happen. Certainly the Government are not in a position to assert with confidence that the Bill will succeed, by which I mean that it will succeed in the broadest sense. They may not want any of the unintended consequences to happen, but little can be done if they do. That is why I have tabled the amendment. It proposes that we give the Bill a finite life of five years. At the end of that time, the Government would have to present an affirmative resolution to Parliament if they believed that it was necessary to keep the provisions of the Bill in force. I have not set the hurdle any higher than that; it seems a perfectly reasonable proposal. Five years is a reasonable period of time. By then, the effects of the Bill will be measurable. If it has succeeded in delivering a genuinely better system for patients and has encouraged new investment in capacity without the adverse consequences I have referred to, no one in Parliament will argue against its continuation.
So, in the scale of risks for the Government, the risk of accepting the amendment is minuscule. They say they are confident of the Bill succeeding in its purpose. In that case, they have nothing to fear from a review after five years. Equally, in the face of this giant experiment, Parliament, I believe, is entitled to an insurance policy. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I support the amendment. We have had a powerful speech from the noble Earl, Lord Howe, in favour of it. It is no secret that we on these Benches believe the Bill to be completely misguided. In the best of all possible worlds, we would prefer it not to leave the House, as the Minister is clearly aware.
The Government have a rather different view. What is in contention is the evidence they have that the Bill will be effective. There appears to be no evidence at all, apart from a spurious health tourism visit that Ministers appear to have made to Sweden, as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, pointed out.
The amendment gives the Government the opportunity to put the matter to the test. In fie years' time it would give both Houses the opportunity to debate whether the Bill has benefited the patient. Even

39
if we cannot bury the Bill in this House, I hope that at least we can provide for it to be put to the test in five years' time. For that reason, I hope that the amendment will be supported.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am overwhelmed by the enthusiasm shown by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for the Bill. I regret that. I will not repeat what I have already stated today—this is probably our fourth Second Reading-type debate on the principles contained in the Bill—but I would like to respond to two points raised by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and endorsed by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones.
Let me clearly state that local authorities are not the whipping boys, as described by the noble Earl, Lord Howe. The Bill's architecture and the practice that will follow is so constructed that the success of its implementation will depend on both the local authority and the NHS improving their practice. If the NHS fails on its side of the bargain, incentives will be in place to ensure that it, too, suffers.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, referred to money moving around the system. I believe that financial incentives, in the right circumstances, can encourage good performance. That is why it is appropriate that we are transferring £100 million in a full year, which is what we reckon will be the local authority costs of dealing with the current level of delayed discharges and why it is right that that money should come from NHS budgets. Where local authorities ensure that they deal with discharge cases effectively, that resource will be spent not on paying penalties to the NHS but on providing effective community support services. That is surely the point.
I very much hope and, indeed, expect that very few penalties will be issued, because that is, in a sense, the last resort under the Bill. One wants good practice to be adopted everywhere. We know that good practice exists in many parts of the country. Despite the spectacle that we have been treated to in our debates of problems facing these poor statutory agencies, there are many examples of such agencies getting their act together, ensuring that discharge procedures are put into place effectively and that there is an effective package of care in the community for older people who have been so discharged.
This is not a confrontational Bill. It is not bureaucratic, but it does demand rigour and proper processes. It demands that matters should be written down. It demands that deadlines are met. But the whole problem with so much practice in health and social care up to now is that rigour has been lacking. I make no apologies whatever for ensuring through the Bill that rigour is put into place as that is the essential safeguard for the individual patient who at the moment is delayed far too long in an acute hospital bed.
As regards the sunset clause, I repeat what I said at Report stage. Such clauses are generally used only in Acts that are passed because of national emergencies such as the Import, Export and Customs Powers (Defence) Act 1939, or Acts which impinge upon
40
individual civil liberties. Proposing a sunset clause for this Bill is going over the top. We shall, of course, monitor the introduction of the Bill. We have monitoring systems in place. We shall look at the data. We shall work with local authorities and with the health service to ensure that the Bill is implemented successfully. I am confident that that will be the case. I believe that older people in particular will very much benefit from its provisions. However, I do not believe that this is the kind of Bill to which a sunset clause should apply.
5 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I listened carefully to the Minister and I thank him for his remarks. Once again, he asserted his confidence in the Bill before us. It would be surprising if he had not. What has been notable ever since Second Reading is that, apart from the Minister, hardly anyone at all, not even on his own Benches, has expressed any confidence in the Bill or any enthusiasm for it. I suggest that that fact alone puts the Minister's confidence into perspective. I should tell him that even at this late stage of the Bill I have received impassioned pleas from local government quarters to kill the Bill off entirely. No doubt other noble Lords have also received such pleas. It is only right to take such approaches seriously but for our part, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, indicated, we have decided on balance that, particularly improved and amended as it has been by your Lordships, the Bill should be allowed to pass.
As I have said, this is a Bill that is not only shot through with undesirable features but is also fraught with risk and uncertainty. That is the main reason for my amendment. There is another reason which is that it should be second nature to us to look for ways of ridding the statute book of unnecessary or unsuccessful regulation whenever we can. Sunset clauses enable us to address those objectives in a very neat fashion. Frankly, it is irrelevant where and when sunset clauses have been used before. They should be seen as being useful in appropriate circumstances. I believe that this amendment is worthy of approval and I should like to seek the opinion of the House on it.
5.4 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 16) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 145; Not-Contents, 115.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Biffen, L.

Addington, L.

Blaker, L.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Blatch, B.

Ampthill, L.

Bowness, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Bradshaw, L.

Astor, V.

Bridges, L.

Astorof Hever, L. [Teller]

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L

Avebury, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Baker of Dorking, L.

Burnham, L.

Barker, B.

Buscombe, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Byford, B.

41

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Moran, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Moynihan, L.

Chadlington, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Chalfont, L.

Newby, L.

Clement-Jones, L. [Teller]

Newton of Braintree, L.

Coe, L.

Noakes, B.

Colwyn, L

Northesk, E.

Cox, B.

Northover, B.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Denham, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Dholakia, L.

Onslow, E.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Eden of Winton, L.

Parkinson, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Patten, L.

Elles, B.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Elton, L.

Plumb, L.

Ezra, L.

Rawlings, B.

Falkland, V.

Reay, L.

Fearn, L.

Redesdale, L.

Finlay of Llandaff, B.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Fookes, B.

Rennard, L.

Fowler, L.

Renton, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Glentoran, L.

Rogan, L.

Goodhart, L.

Roper, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Ryder of Wensum, L.

Hamwee, B.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Hanham, B.

Sandberg, L.

Hanningfield, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Henley, L.

Sandwich, E.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Hogg, B.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Sharples, B.

Howe, E.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Inge, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

James, of Holland Park, B.

Steel of Aikwood, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Jopling, L.

Swinfen, L.

Laing of Dunphail, L.

Taverne, L.

Lawson of Blaby, L.

Thatcher, B.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Lucas, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Lyell, L.

Tordoff, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Tugendhat, L.

MacGregor of Pulham Market,

Vivian, L.

L.

Waddington, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

McNally, L.

Walmsley, B.

Maddock, B.

Warnock, B.

Marlesford, L.

Weatherill, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Wigoder, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Wilcox, B.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Windlesham, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Wolfson, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Borrie, L.

Ahmed, L.

Bragg, L.

Amos, B.

Brett, L.

Andrews, B.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Brookman, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Bach, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Barnett, L.

Carter, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Chorley, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Christopher, L.

Blackstone, B.

Clark of Windermere, L.

42

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Jordan, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Crawley, B.

Lipsey, L.

David, B.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

[Teller]

Desai, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Dixon, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Donoughue, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Dubs, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Elder, L.

Mishcon, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Mitchell, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Morgan, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

[Teller]

Morris of Manchester, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Orme, L.

Filkin, L.

Parekh, L.

Fitt, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Pendry, L.

Gale, B.

Peston, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Pitkeathley, B.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Plant of Higlifteld, L.

Golding, B.

Puttnam, L.

Goudie, B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Grabiner, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Richard, L.

Greengross, B.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Gregson, L.

Sawyer, L.

Harrison, L.

Sheldon, L.

Haskel, L.

Simon, V.

Hayman, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Temple-Morris, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Thornton, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hoyle, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Whitaker, B.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Wilkins, B.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jones, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
5.14p.m.
Lord Hunt of King Heath: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass. —(Lord Hunt of King Heath.)
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Crime (International Co-operation)Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time.
Clause 1 [service of Overseas process]:
Lord Filkin Lord Filkin moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 2, leave out from "proceedings" to end to line 3.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendments alter the drafting of the references to "administrative proceedings" in Clauses 1 and 14. We have discussed

43
administrative proceedings at length. In Grand Committee, my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General agreed, in response to a question from the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, that we would look further at the drafting of Clause 14. Since then, we have considered carefully whether it enables us to assist as required by the MLAC.
On reflection, we were not satisfied that Clauses 1 and 14 were exactly in line with our obligations to assist under the MLAC in relation to administrative proceedings. The explanatory report to the MLAC states that we are obliged to assist at the investigation stage of such proceedings, as well as at the latter stage when the decision has actually led to a proceeding before the criminal court. It states that,
"assistance can be requested … not only for investigations in criminal matters but also for investigations of conduct that is subject to certain administrative sanctions".
The current drafting of Clause 14 limits assistance to the appeal stage only. The second amendment therefore extends that. As revised, Clause 14(1)(a) and (b) will refer to criminal proceedings or a criminal investigation, and administrative proceedings or an investigation into an act punishable in such proceedings. That makes the circumstances in which we may assist much clearer. The first amendment makes a minor amendment to Clause 1 along the same lines, allowing any document made by an administrative authority relating to administrative proceedings to be served, not just those recording decisions of the administrative authority.
The third amendment ensures that the same safeguards will apply to requests relating to administrative proceedings as apply to requests relating to criminal proceedings. Those safeguards are that in order to assist in obtaining evidence in the UK, the territorial authority in the UK—the Secretary of State for England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and the Lord Advocate for Scotland—is to be satisfied that an offence has been committed or there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that it has, and that proceedings have been instituted or there is an investigation into it. The fourth amendment ensures that references to an "offence" in subsection (2) will cover both criminal offences and acts punishable in administrative proceedings.
We consider that the amendments to Clause 14 will enable us to provide assistance in administrative proceedings in the way required by the MLAC, and acknowledge with appreciation the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, in the measures. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, the Minister has taken a great deal of trouble over the amendments, which are mainly drafting amendments. Indeed, he takes a great deal of trouble all the time.
I have one question. which I know was raised in Grand Committee. Amendment No. 4 will insert at the end of page 9, line 9: "An offence"—that means a criminal offence—
"includes an act punishable in administrative proceedings".
44
There may technically be some good reason for inserting that in a Bill with such international implications and effect. However, it is very unusual—in fact, I do not have an example in my recollection—that any administrative proceedings in themselves give rise to a criminal act in such a way. I would be grateful if the Minister would explain that.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I thank the Minister for tabling the amendments. which clarify the position with regard to administrative proceedings. My noble friend Lord Renton reminds us that we have debated administrative proceedings both in Grand Committee and on Report, when we probed the Government as to what "administrative proceedings" cover. They do not exist in this country as such, nor in all other countries in the European Union.
It is important that the Government make the clarification that they have done today. I would be grateful if the Minister would respond to my noble friend. The Minister was very helpful in responding to one of my own amendments on Report, and he gave a fuller answer to the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, than he may be able to give today at Third Reading.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, for her broad recognition of what we have done in this respect.
With regard to the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, concerning administrative proceedings, to begin with, in the UK administrative proceedings do not lead to a criminal offence but in other countries they do. As the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, explained, my noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith gave a full answer to that point on Report.
In essence, the matter goes to the heart of the Government's, and I believe the Official Opposition's, stance in that we see the cornerstone of our cooperation with other European Union member states as being built on the principle of mutual recognition rather than on an expectation that there will ever be exact harmonisation of criminal law because we feel that that would take us into directions that we do not wish to follow.
Perhaps I may quote my noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith speaking on Report on this part of the Bill concerning the relationship between the proceedings on an appeal against a decision in administrative proceedings and the proceedings themselves. He signalled that we would consider that matter carefully. I am searching, without a great deal of success, to find the exact words that my noble and learned friend used when he went into full detail about that on Report.
However, at heart, although we do not have an exact equivalence in our own jurisdiction, nevertheless we consider it right that we should be able to co-operate with member states rather than go into harmonisation. I suspect that, with a little further devilling, I shall be able to bring to mind the explicit reference of my noble

45
and learned friend Lord Goldsmith on Report. If it would be helpful. I shall drop a note to the noble Lord setting out the fuller detail.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, when the Bill goes to another place, it will have to consider it in detail, just as we have done. Perhaps I may suggest that some kind of explanation would be relevant for those who are to be involved in the implementation of the Bill in real life. Perhaps it could be explained that administrative proceedings are those which arise through what happens in other countries rather than just here. I do want to make that suggestion.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has pointed out that I have not yet sat down, I accept his point that we may be able to give some guidance on that matter. I turn to what my noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith said on Report. Administrative proceedings are those which relate to an administrative offence. That much is self-evident. They concern something that we might well regard as a criminal offence here. It is tried as an administrative offence but there is an appeal to a court and a penalty is imposed.
Clemency proceedings are quite distinct. They are a form of procedure not known to us specifically but they may well include what we might think of as an appeal for a reduction in a sentence imposed on the conviction of the criminal offence. My noble and learned friend said:
"I do not know whether it is theoretically possible to have a clemency proceeding against the finding of guilt on an administrative offence. That is not the point. They are distinct issues".—[Official Report, 23/1/03; col. GC 71.]
Perhaps I may take the spirit of what the noble Lord., Lord Renton, said and see whether we can make it absolutely clear what the offences might be and why they are necessary in the Bill. That may help to bring some economy to the proceedings in another place.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 14 [Powers to arrange for evidence to be obtained]:
Lord Filkin Lord Filkin moved Amendments Nos. 2 to 4:
Page 8, line 38, leave out from "proceedings" to end of line 40 and insert "or a criminal investigation, being carried on outside the United Kingdom,

(b) administrative proceedings, or an investigation into an act punishable in such proceedings, being carried on there"

Page 9, line 1, leave out from beginning to ", the" and insert "In a case within subsection (1)(a) or (b)"
Page 9, line 9, at end insert—
"An offence includes an act punishable in administrative proceedings."
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 82 [Foreign surveillance operations]:
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 55, line 40, at end insert—
46
"( ) A foreign police or customs officer conducting relevant surveillance in the United Kingdom under this section shall be prohibited from challenging a person under surveillance."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 5, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 6, which is grouped with it. Amendment No. 5 would make it clear on the face of the Bill that when foreign police or customs officers are in the United Kingdom carrying out covert surveillance under the provisions of the Bill, in those circumstances they must not challenge a person here in the UK.
I raised this matter in Grand Committee as part of a wider amendment that. also sought to prohibit the officer from entering private property and arresting the person under surveillance. At that stage, the Government maintained that all these matters could be dealt with by secondary legislation. I was grateful to the Government for changing their mind with regard to entry to private property. On Report, we all agreed to a government amendment that dealt with that issue.
However, the Government have still not changed their mind on the matter of arrest and challenge. After discussions with the Minister, I am prepared to accept that it should be clear enough that the officer cannot arrest a person when he is carrying out covert surveillance. In this country, we all understand what "arrest" means. It is clearly set out in our law. But will the Minister take the opportunity today to confirm that it would be against UK law for a foreign officer—either a customs or a police officer—to arrest a person whom he has under covert surveillance?
That still leaves the issue of the lack of clarity with regard to the matter of challenge. I have used the word "challenge" in Amendment No. 5 because that is the word in the Schengen handbook. But, so far as I am aware, as I said previously, there is no concept of that in our law. The Minister was kind enough to write to me after the Report stage to clarify the Government's position on what is meant by the word "challenge". But I am afraid that his valiant efforts at clarification only helped to worry me even more about the drafting of the clause.
In his letter of 11th March, the Minister acknowledged that, so far as he is aware, the word "challenge" is, indeed, not defined in English law. He went on to say that the Government construe the references in the convention as preventing officers from questioning or stopping a suspect or from asking him to explain or justify his actions or to identify himself. Perhaps I may say at this point that I believe that is a very practical and proper interpretation of the word "challenge". It goes far broader than what I had originally considered to be meant by "challenge", whereby a policeman would simply say, "Oi, you there. Stop". Therefore, it is a far broader definition.
As a result of that helpful—at least, helpful to me—letter from the Minister, I then tabled a further amendment—Amendment No. 6 on today's grouping list—to include the Minister's interpretation on the face of the Bill. However, at present the problem is simply that there is no clarification in the Bill as to what we mean by the word "challenge".
I believe that in this case a mention in the Schengen handbook is simply not good enough, especially as we now know that the Government have interpreted the word "challenge" to mean that people should not be stopped or questioned. I believe that that clarity and that assurance should be on the face of the Bill and not left to the vagaries of the original definition of the word "challenge" in the Schengen handbook. Perhaps I may take the Minister into my confidence. I do not carry the Schengen handbook around with me as prescribed reading. I suspect that members of the public do not do so either, nor those who advise them at first instance if they find themselves challenged by a foreign officer from either the police or customs. I give way to the noble Lord.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lord, does the noble Baroness carry around with her Archbold?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, my answer would be longer if I did. I have a copy on my desk upstairs. It is a year out of date because the up-to-date one is at home. But the noble Lord is absolutely right to point out that lawyers do not always carry around every single reference book. However, with regard to this definition, I could save the problem of Archbold and the Schengen handbook. Here I have a solution for the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis—a simple short amendment on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I find the amendment singularly unhelpful. I believe it is very important that there should be a similarity of practice so far as concerns the various member states. That is, above all, the most important point. I do not believe that it is sensible for a foreign officer to stop any person whom he suspects. The danger is that he will be put at risk. That is not a sensible idea. The noble Baroness offered no views on that.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, it may be helpful if I intervene to make clear that Amendment Nos. 5 and 6 are in the alternative. I tabled Amendment No. 6 only after the Minister's response to me. Both would prohibit foreign officers from carrying out any such activity. The intention is to insert a clear prohibition on the face of the Bill. At present the reference in the Schengen handbook is somewhat unclear.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Baroness but I do not think that there is any point to either amendment. She has not added to or subtracted from the present law in any way whatever. At present, no foreign officer can stop and question a subject. That is a vitally important point. If he were to do so, he would be in the arena of difficulty and subject to retribution and retaliation by the miscreants. At present, before any action is taken by the home
48
officers, the foreign officers can advise, talk to the people concerned, and offer an opinion but that is all. I believe that the law should remain as it is.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I support the amendment. I jumped the gun on Report, saying that I was in favour of such an amendment when my noble friend had not moved it. When I read Hansard I found that the Minister was extremely kind and glossed over the matter, for which I am grateful.
Clarity on this issue is important. I do not have in front of me of the Minister's letter to my noble friend a copy of which he kindly sent me. However, I think that he said that a police officer in hot pursuit could not challenge the person he was pursuing because if he did so he would not be undertaking surveillance any more. I did not understand that. It seemed an academic point which did not soothe my concern that the public should be protected from being stopped and searched, or challenged—whichever we take the word to mean—by the person. Perhaps the noble Lord can clarify that. I prefer Amendment No. 6. I do not think that there is anything wrong with putting that provision on the face of the Bill. It would clarify matters for the public, give them confidence and fit in with the other changes which the Minister has wisely made in response to our discussions on this part of the Bill.
Lord Monson: My Lords, whether or not the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, is right in his interpretation, in order to dot the "i"s and cross the "t"s is there any reason why Amendment No. 5 or 6 could not be included? Like the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, I prefer Amendment No. 6. It would give the public confidence. That is all important in these matters.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I support the amendment. It seems to me that the word "challenge" would not have got into the Schengen convention document unless in some of mainland European systems it or the equivalent word in the national language had some specific meaning. "Challenge" is not a term of art recognised in United Kingdom law— certainly not in English law. Nor is it entirely self-evident from the context what the word "challenge" means here. It would be helpful if we had an explanation in the Bill. I prefer Amendment No. 6 to Amendment No. 5 which simply puts "challenge" on to the face of the Bill without any explanation as to its meaning. Amendment No. 6 may or may not be accurate but it gives an explanation which would be more readily understandable in this country as to what is meant by "challenge".
Lord Filkin: My Lords, there is probably a dire lesson for me on these amendments: it never pays to be helpful. I shall not rush to that conclusion. We have sought to be as reasonable as we could as regards putting entry into private property on the face of the Bill. For reasons I shall do my best to explain, we do not think that this further crossing of "t"s and dotting of "i"s is necessary.

49
We understand that the amendments probe the meaning of "challenge", seeking to put beyond doubt that the public have nothing to fear in this respect. I am happy to make that utterly clear on the record. As part of that endeavour, I wrote to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, on 10th March responding to a number of questions raised in the House during Report. As I noted then, the word "challenge" is not defined in English law. We interpret it, therefore, according to its natural meaning and construe the references in the convention as preventing the officers from questioning or stopping the suspect or from asking him to explain or justify his actions or to identify himself. Clearly, if such action were to be taken, the foreign officers would no longer be carrying out surveillance and new Section 76A would no longer apply, meaning—perhaps I may address the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy—that they will not be acting within the authority that the Bill gives; they will be acting outwith that authority. Moreover, the officers could be putting themselves in danger since they would be unsupported by UK officers and would, in our judgment, be most unlikely to take the risk of challenging the suspect.
The Schengen handbook outlines all the conditions to which police officers from Schengen states are subject when undertaking cross-border surveillance. In the English version of the handbook the reference to "challenge" has been listed as "stopped and questioned" and this interpretation is mirrored in all the other language versions. We have checked with colleagues and confirmed that the different language versions are drafted centrally by the secretariat maintaining the handbook and the different language drafts are put to the jurist linguists to ensure that the same terms are referred to in each of the translations. So we are confident that the Schengen handbook which affects officers coming for surveillance into this country in the narrow sense, as described in the Bill, and United Kingdom police officers going abroad applies.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, will the Minister confirm or deny that the practice pursued by the various members of the Schengen agreement is exactly the same; and that is what he has in mind on this issue?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, that is exactly the thrust of my remarks. We are interpreting exactly what the agreement says. The Schengen handbook records that in exactly the same way. I am not aware of any problems which have arisen as a consequence of the operation of the Schengen handbook and the Schengen convention which other European member states have been undertaking for some years.
We fully expect that foreign officers who are acting under the clause will comply with the convention and the provisions in the Schengen handbook and so will not have any contact with the target while conducting urgent cross-border surveillance in the UK. Any
50
contact between foreign officers and the suspect has the potential to lead to conflict and would be inconsistent with the premise of covert surveillance. That is why member states, when discussing and negotiating this framework agreement, were of the clear view that it should not happen. UK officers operating abroad will be instructed to behave in exactly the same way.
Moreover, placing such a prohibition on the face of the Bill through this amendment is meaningless. Foreign officers acting under this clause have no powers under UK law to stop and question anyone. Accordingly, the amendment is ineffectual in so far as it is an attempt to remove any such legal power. Those powers do not exist. Attempting to remove them is nugatory. Further, it seems to create a prohibition without any sanction.
Therefore the point of the amendment is not to change the position legally; it is to make clear to foreign officers that they should not challenge the target. That message is already clearly made by the convention and by the Schengen handbook. I am not persuaded of the argument that foreign officers coming to this country might read the Bill when they would not read the handbook. That is an implausible set of circumstances. Foreign officers undertaking close surveillance of this type would be expected to have read the handbook. If they were in doubt, when they telephoned NCIS for permission to proceed they would be given clear advice in that respect.
It is a basic point. Our practice is no different from any other European Union member state; to whit, if you go across the border you are acting only in a surveillance role; there is no power of arrest, challenge or entry. For those reasons, putting what is already not legal on to the face of the Bill is nugatory and would have no impact in practice on what happens.
The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, also asked me to confirm the powers of arrest. Foreign officers have no powers of arrest. Holding a person without powers is an offence. Foreign officers will be in contact with people who possess the Schengen handbook. I hope I have explained to the satisfaction of the House that, while we were pleased to put beyond doubt the issue of entry into premises, there is no reason to put that on to the face of the Bill as the issue is without doubt or risk.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may say that he has just made a legal argument. But to be practical, what would happen if a foreign officer conducting surveillance stopped somebody and questioned them?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, he would be acting without authority; he would be acting outwith the law. Therefore he would be in breach of the convention and the Schengen handbook. At a very practical level—I believe that is what the noble Baroness is thrusting towards—a serious issue would be raised between NCIS and the country from which the foreign officer came. That officer would have breached a fundamental term of the framework agreement.

51
The framework agreement operates at heart on the basis of mutual respect of the convention agreement. That would not be elevated to the greatest of issues between other member states, but it would certainly be seen as a significant breach of the agreement, the protocol and of our law.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his response, and for the support of my noble friend Lady Carnegy and the noble Lords, Lord Monson and Lord Goodhart.
The Minister began ironically by saying that perhaps it does not pay to be helpful. Perhaps I may reinforce the fact that it most certainly does from his point of view. As I recall, the fact that he listened so carefully in Grand Committee meant that we were able seriously to foreshorten both Report stage and Third Reading. So the Government change of mind on certain matters was most welcome and helpful to all Members of this House.
But the Minister seeks to persuade me that I should not pursue these amendments because, on his argument, they are nugatory; that one does not need to withdraw a power which does not exist. But the Minister himself said that the Government accepted that there was a need for clarity with regard to the issue of not going into private property.
I accept the Government's argument with regard to "arrest". That provision should not be on the face of the Bill because there is clarity as to what "arrest" means. But there is the matter of the meaning of "challenge". I do not expect every member of foreign police forces or customs services to carry a copy of the Bill with them. I hope that they will be sufficiently well trained to know what it contains and what the Schengen handbook contains. My duty as a Member of Her Majesty's Opposition is to ensure that there is clarity in our legislation for members of the public in the United Kingdom. That is what I seek.
I listened to the points made by noble Lords, who prefer Amendment No. 6 to Amendment No. 5. I agree. Amendment No. 6 has greater clarity. It also has the advantage that it seeks to put on the face of the Bill the Government's interpretation. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment. by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 55, line 40, at end insert—
"( ) A foreign police officer or customs officer conducting relevant surveillance in the United Kingdom under this section shall be prohibited from stopping or questioning a person under surveillance."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move.
5.46 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 6) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 122; Not-Contents, 117.

Division No. 4

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Ampthill, L.

Lucas, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Luke, L.

Astor, V.

Lyell, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Baker of Dorking, L.

MacGregor of Pulham Market,

Barker, B.

L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Blaker, L.

McNally, L.

Blatch, B.

Maddock, B.

Bradshaw, L.

Marlesford, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Bridges, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Brookeborough, V.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Monson, L.

Burnham, L,

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Buscombe, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Butterworth, L.

Moynihan, L.

Byford, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Noakes, B.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Northesk, E.

Chadlington, L.

Northover, B.

Clement-Jones, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

O'Cathain, B.

Cox, B.

Onslow, E.

Craigavon, V.

Palmer, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Parkinson, L.

Denham, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Rawlings, B.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Redesdale, L.

Elton, L.

Rees, L.

Ezra, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Falkland, V.

Renton, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Fearn, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Feldman, L.

Rogan, L.

Fookes, B.

Roper, L.

Fowler, L.

Russell, E.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Sandberg, L.

Geddes, L.

Sandwich, E.

Glentoran, L.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Goodhart, L.

Seccombe, B. [Teller]

Gray of Contin, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Greenway, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Hamwee, B.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Hanham, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hanningfield, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Henley, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Hogg, B.

Tope, L.

Howarth of Breckland, B.

Tordoff, L.

Howe, E.

Vivian, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Waddington, L.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Walmsley, B.

James of Holland Park, B.

Warnock, B.

Jopling, L.

Weatherill. L.

Lang of Monkton, L.

Windlesham, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Barnett, L.

Ahmed, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Amos, B.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Andrews, B.

Bhatia, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Blackstone, B.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Borrie, L.

Bach, L.

Bragg, L.

53

Brett, L.

Jannerof Braunstone, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Jones, L.

Brookman, L.

Jordan, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Carter, L.

Layard, L.

Christopher, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

[Teller]

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Crawley, B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

David, B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Mitchell, L.

Desai, L.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Dixon, L.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Donoughue, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Orme, L.

Dubs, L.

Parekh, L.

Eatwell, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Elder, L.

Pendry, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Puttnam, L.

Filkin. L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Finlay of Llandaff, B.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Gale, B.

Richard, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Golding, B.

Sawyer, L.

Goudie, B.

Sheldon, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Simon, V.

Grabiner, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Harris of Haringey, L,

Temple-Morris, L.

Harrison, L.

Thornton, B.

Haskel, L.

Thronton, B.

Hayman, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld. L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Hollis of Hcigham, B.

Whitaker, B.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Wilkins,B.

Hoyle, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Privy Seal)

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord

Winston, L.

Chancellor)

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
5.56 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 56, line 43, at end insert—
"(12) The Secretary of State shall lay before both Houses of Parliament at least once in every 12 months a report on the working of this section.""
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I did not move a similar amendment on Report because I wanted to give full consideration to the helpful and detailed response that the Minister gave to my amendments to Clause 82. the clause which introduces powers of hot surveillance for overseas police and customs officers, to which we referred in a previous amendment.
The Government have sought to reassure us throughout that these powers will be used only on rare occasions. I certainly hope that they are right and that that proves to be the case. But regardless of whether the Minister is right or wrong, I am convinced that it is vital that these novel and significant powers should be subject to some form of scrutiny and evaluation in future years.
Will the Home Office, NCIS or individual police forces monitor how foreign authorities are using these provisions? If so, will the results be available for scrutiny by Parliament? Will the operation of what will become Section 76A of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 be reviewed under the arrangements for scrutinising the operation of that Act?
As I said in Grand Committee in relation to another part of the Bill, it is important that when new provisions are introduced into the United Kingdom's domestic law, particularly those which depend upon the actions of authorities in other countries, they are kept under scrutiny in order to ensure that they are operating effectively in the fight against crime and for the benefit of the United Kingdom and its citizens.
I believe that these novel provisions are significant enough to warrant a proper form of scrutiny. My amendment seeks to impose an annual reporting system. I am certainly open to suggestions from the Minister for finding another route. I do not seek to impose a "Bassam special" upon the House necessarily on this occasion. I hope that the Minister will give sufficient assurances that I shall not perhaps need to press the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, it is not beyond the powers of the noble Baroness or anyone in this House to ask in a written or oral Question what are the powers and how they are being used. But there are so many powers and so many statutory mechanisms in force for consideration of that issue that we should not be bemused. In particular. I believe that the National Crime Squad and the National Criminal Intelligence Service should be able to monitor how the provisions are working. Perhaps my noble friend will illuminate the House by saying what progress has been made in that regard.
Above all, I stress the importance of preparing thoroughly for questions that may arise out of the changing scenario. To ask my noble friend to return to the House whenever is rather stupid. It is important that this matter is kept under review by the best people authorised to do that. Is my noble friend satisfied that the right questions have been asked by the Home Office in that regard? It is important that we should see that the matter works out well in practice. That is all. To say that the Secretary of State should return to the House is to put forward a solution by which no questions would be asked. I ask the noble Baroness to think carefully about this matter. Is she more concerned with the device or with the practice? In my view the practice is all important. I hope that my noble friend can give the House some assurances in that regard.
6 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, the noble Lord agrees that the public and Parliament should have the right to be made aware of what is happening under the new Bill. However, I suggest to him that instead of leaving the matter to chance, with an obscure Member of either House tabling a question from time to time, there should be an obligation on the Government to let us know how such an important Bill, which breaks new ground, is working out.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, the noble Lord refers to an obscure Member, but it may not always be such a Member. From time to time even the noble Lord asks questions and he is by no means an obscure Member.
Lord Renton: My Lords, it could be one of the most important Members, dare I say, like the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, himself, but I believe that that is leaving too much to chance. All other legislation dealing with criminal matters enacted in the past 100 years or so has either amended it or amplified it, but this Bill breaks new ground; it brings in the responsibility of the police in various countries that have signed the Schengen convention. This is an important new development. I suggest that the Government would not be disadvantaged by being asked by Parliament—as we shall do—to report on how matters are proceeding. It would not be merely an obligation, but a great advantage to them to be able to keep us all informed. Therefore, I most warmly support my noble friend's amendment.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I too support the amendment. It limits itself to the clause concerning surveillance. That is a novel matter for the public. We cannot tell how the public will react to realising that there may be foreign officers snooping about for five hours, looking for someone in their midst. That will arouse misgivings among the public should it happen in areas outside big cities. I can imagine the reaction in different communities that I know once they discover that someone has been conducting surveillance in their midst. I do not know whether the amendment is the right way in which to solve the problem but the Minister must accept that there should be continual update on how the matter is proceeding—whether the arrangements put in place under Schengen and begun in other countries are working out. I hope that the Minister can give the House a good answer.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I shall do my best. While the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, will not be surprised to hear me say that I shall not accept the amendment as drafted, I shall try to talk about the heart of it as a number of noble Lords on the Benches opposite have spoken in its support.
The first question that I was asked was whether the Home Office will monitor the article thoroughly. Yes, the Home Office has already agreed with NCS and NCIS that implementation will be closely monitored so that the effectiveness of the new arrangements can be assessed and any operational improvements made as part of it.
56
The Government do not support the specific form of the amendment, because we consider that there will be satisfactory review mechanisms in place. I shall explain the review process that will apply to the new arrangements. Article 40(3)(g) of the Schengen convention requires each instance of urgent surveillance to be the subject of a report to the UK authorities; that is, to the National Criminal Intelligence Service.
All surveillance operations under Part II of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) are covered by the oversight of the Chief Surveillance Commissioner whose annual reports to the Prime Minister are laid before Parliament. RIPA provides that all paperwork relating to RIPA Part II, which will include the reports into urgent operations required by Schengen Article 40 that are taken over by UK officers, will be open for inspection by the Chief Surveillance Commissioner.
Surveillance carried out in the five-hour period before a RIPA authorisation is obtained, or the surveillance ceases, will not be subject to the oversight of the Chief Surveillance Commissioner because there is no decision to review. That surveillance is either automatically lawful or it is not. However, in each case the foreign officers will be required to ask the UK authorities to take over the surveillance under RIPA. Where that happens and the surveillance continues under a RIPA authorisation, the new arrangements will fall under the existing responsibilities of the Chief Surveillance Commissioner. It will be captured at that point.
In addition, the National Crime Squad and the National Criminal Intelligence Service have agreed with the Home Office that they will monitor how the new provisions are working in practice. The exact details of the information that will be collected have yet to be settled. I envisage that it will include all the information that existing members of Schengen currently collect such as the name of the requesting country, the offence concerned, whether or not the surveillance was authorised, the reasons for any refusal, any conditions attached to the approval, the duration of the operation, the outcome and any particular problems or issues. I am very willing to make it absolutely clear to the House as a matter of public policy that we shall provide noble Lords with a summary report of that information after the first year of operation.
The NCIS annual report is the responsibility of the director general, and must cover the whole range of their operational activity. As I have pointed out before, the provisions of the Bill deal very much with exceptional circumstances; we do not expect urgent cross-border surveillance to form a significant part of NCIS's core business. So while we may expect it to allude in this report to cross-border surveillance, as part of the functions of the Sirene Bureau, we would not anticipate that there would be massive detail on that.
I appreciate that those are new arrangements and it is quite right for the House to wish to provide for a degree of parliamentary oversight into their functioning. As I

57
have explained, there will be arrangements to keep those provisions under review and to make the information available to Parliament in the form that I have described. I do not believe that it will be necessary or appropriate to have a requirement for an annual report in perpetuity. I did not think that the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns was arguing that.
I would like to deal with one more point before I conclude. Schedule 5 amends RIPA to extend the role of the independent investigatory powers tribunal to cover the new arrangements under new Section 76A. So the tribunal will be able to consider any complaints from any person who is aggrieved by any conduct under the new arrangements. So there is an avenue of redress.
I have already said that we will provide noble Lords with a summary report of how the process is working. It will cover the points that I have indicated. In that first year, it might appear that we were still in—how shall I put it—early teething stages. There may have been only one or two such cases, or it might be slightly early to come to a settled view. I do not want to create needless work, but there is a balance to be struck between utter repetition of annual reports, and trying to ensure that the thrust of noble Lords' concerns is adequately addressed.
So I will go further than saying that we will simply provide a report to the House after the first 12 months. If, in the light of operational experience, it does not seem that that has been conclusive, because of its early stage, we would be happy to provide a further report. That could happen after perhaps two or three years, if that would give a better basis of understanding about how these important powers are operating. It would at least give the clearest opportunity for the House to inquire about those powers. I hope that with those assurances, it has been helpful to the House to ensure that there will be both close monitoring and an adequate opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny of the early operation of the measures.
Lord Renton: My Lords, how often, and covering what period, would such a report be used?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I was signalling that we were not in favour of an annual report. These measures could be on the statute book for the next 30 or 40 years. An annual report on something that is obviously working would be a waste of time and public money. I have gone further than I originally intended. Although we will perhaps not give a full report, as there are some operational matters that one cannot fully go in to, I will seek an adequate report after the first 12 months of operation. I was going further than that. If it was felt that it was still early days at the end of the first 12 months, or there had been an insufficient number of cases to have a settled view, I would ensure that the Home Office and respective other bodies provided a further report. In other words this would
58
ensure that the House would have an opportunity to see how the measures were operating after the early settling-in period had been completed.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I am grateful for the support given by my noble friends Lord Renton and Lady Carnegy of Lour. They are correct to call this matter a novel procedure. I am grateful for what the Minister said in response to this amendment, and the assurances that he has put on the record. I will not be pressing this amendment. He is right to say that I was trying to obtain those kind of assurances. I am grateful to him for offering to put a summary report before the House at the end of the year's operation. I am particularly grateful to him for thinking beyond that. If that period did not conclusively show whether these new powers were working satisfactorily, then he would consider a later report so that there could be a better sample of cases.
I should refer to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. He has said before that Written and Starred Questions could be relied on, instead of annual reports. I stress that I am a fervent user of both methods when appropriate. However, I am aware of their limitations. When I was responding for the Opposition on matters relating to the Dome, I recall having one hit when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, answered a Written Question, which he subsequently found was not correct. He came to the House to apologise. There were many other occasions when we simply did not get answers. For example, the Department of Health has refused to answer a Written Question asking specifically which hospitals still have mixed sex wards. So I support the proper use of Written and Starred Questions, but they have their limitations.
However, I do not need to press this amendment, because the Minister has given a much fairer and better resolution to the issue of obtaining information than having to have an annual report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 8 not moved.]
6.15 p.m.
Clause 92 [Supplementary and consequential provision]:
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 61, line 36, at end insert—
"(9) Subject to subsection (10) this section shall cease to have effect at the expiry of three years, starting with the date that the Act is given Royal Assent.
(10) Subsection (9) shall not apply if, before the expiry of the three years, the Secretary of State provides by order made by statutory instrument that the section shall continue in force.
(11) An order may not be made under subsection (10) unless a draft of the order has first been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is a sunset provision for Clause 92, which gives the Government the opportunity to amend or repeal primary legislation by statutory instrument, either with or without parliamentary scrutiny.
We have had some debate on these matters at earlier stages, but this is the first time they have been debated in this particular form. I wish to make it clear right from the beginning that I have decided it would not be appropriate to press this amendment. I wish to use Third Reading to obtain further clarification. There may be other Bills upon which I wish to press such an amendment. As the Minister knows, I have no liking for Henry VIII clauses. That is despite the fact that he will remind me that when my party was in office, on very rare occasions it used them. However, they are like a gathering storm at the moment in the hands of this Government. We are seeing them far too frequently. I note with great approbation that the next Bill to be handled by the Minister, the Extradition Bill, has not yet fallen foul of such a clause—I am relieved to say.
What further clarification do I require to this Henry VIII clause? It relates to a response made by the Minister at our last stage—and in Grand Committee. On Report, at column 691 of Hansard of 3rd March he said that the Government would not want a sunset clause on the Henry VIII powers on every Bill. I agree with the Government on that. I do not think that every Henry VIII clause is so abhorrent that a sunset clause should be added to it. Some of them are.
The Minister also said at column 691 that the Government would continue on their present course of putting Henry VIII clauses into Bills, until the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee objected in a particular case. If the Minister's argument was taken to its extreme, it would be that nobody should table an amendment unless it was first proposed by that committee. I invite the Minister to rebut that, and say that he was perhaps only thinking of extreme circumstances where he would want that committee to propose an amendment first. Although we take extremely seriously what the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee says—it is a strong guide to us on specific powers—we can think of a whole raft of amendments which would not be considered first by the committee. Even if they were, and the committee decided that it would not be proper to recommend the House to object to something that the Government had done, there would still be an opportunity for the House to come forward with its own amendments.
The Government's present position appears to be that they are going to carry on with their bad behaviour until the committee catches them out. If anybody else catches them out their attitude is that they need pay no attention. I hope the Minister will robustly say that that is not the
60
case, and that he would welcome a reasoned argument in future on why Henry VIII clauses should be curtailed by sunset clauses. I beg to move.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I have some sympathy with what the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, has said but, on this occasion, I do not feel able to support the amendment. I served for some years as a member of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, although I am not currently a member. The question of whether sunset clauses should be attached, either on a regular or occasional basis, to Henry VIII powers relating to transitional and consequential amendments and so on should be considered by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee.
A number of difficult questions need to be considered. For example, we now know from a Written Answer to a Question that I tabled that these clauses have been used on a considerable number of occasions and, in a number of cases, more than three years after the enactment of the Act. Rather than go into this matter on an ad hoc basis, it would be helpful if the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee could issue a special report on whether or not it was appropriate that a time limit should be imposed on some or all of such clauses. In the mean time, I am not minded to support the proposal that the sunset clause should be included in this case.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I am a member of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which is taking a great interest in the number of Henry VIII clauses proposed by the Government. They seem to have become a habit. On this occasion, the Government are suggesting to the Scots Parliament that it should develop the habit of behaving like Henry VIII.
When we last discussed the issue, the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, suggested that perhaps Henry VIII clauses in the Scots Parliament should be called "Macbeth" clauses. I have reflected on that matter and I do not believe that that is the right name for them. I suspect—although I have not yet had an opportunity to discuss it north of the Border—that there was nothing more unattractive to Scots than the way in which Henry VIII behaved south of the Border. However, he was not their king in this respect and I am not sure that the Scots will mind referring to them as Henry VIII clauses.
I hope that the Scots Parliament will not develop the habit of using them too often because it does not have a House of Lords or a Select Committee to question them. I trust that the Government will be careful about inflicting this habit on the Scottish Parliament, although it is not for this House to say.
My noble friend is making the limited suggestion that a sunset clause should apply if the government of the day do not come forward with proposals. The amendment seeks merely to hold the Government to account, within three years, for the way in which the Bill has operated.

61
I, too, shall be interested in what the Minister has to say. I hope that he will take the matter seriously because I believe that the Government are developing an unfortunate habit in relation to such clauses. I hope that we shall not see too many of them.
Lord Renton: My Lords, the Government have nothing to fear from the amendment because it gives them the last word. It merely suggests that after three years the Government should consider whether the Bill should continue or be discontinued. The new subsection (10) would enable the Secretary of State to provide by order that the section shall continue in force. As the Government have the last word, I should have thought they would welcome the amendment.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, let me remind the House of the purpose of the powers in Clause 92. The clause does not grant the Government sweeping powers to amend legislation at will without Parliament having a chance to glance at what they are doing. We all know that, in practice, that is not the case. The powers concern only incidental and consequential provisions which fall within the scope of the Bill, and no wider. It would be ultra tires to use the power in another way and we have no intention of doing so.
I challenge the use of the term "bad behaviour". That is not the case. When the Bill has eventually passed through both Houses and received Royal Assent, in essence it will become the Act that this House and another place want to place into legislation and want to make work. All that these powers seek to do—limited and defined in the way that I have described—is to ensure that the will of the House can be exercised in practice; that it does not fall foul of some unforeseen and potentially unforeseeable circumstance which comes to light subsequently and identifies a glitch or an incongruity between this Bill and other powers.
As Members of the House are aware, the Government have already responded to the concerns held by certain noble Lords that the order-making powers were not subject to sufficient scrutiny. We therefore tabled amendments to ensure that any future amendments to primary legislation would be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, while any amendments to secondary legislation would be subject to the negative resolution procedure. These amendments were in line with the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. The committee welcomed the Government's constructive approach to its recommendations.
As to the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady, Anelay, in regard to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, I said:
"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".—[Official Report, 3/3/03; col. 691.]
What I implied or intended by the word "rely" was that the committee gives the House good advice and that we should consider that advice before we form our views. I was clearly not implying that the Government
62
would always agree, word for word, with the committee, or the reverse. There will be occasions when, for good reasons of public policy, we would not necessarily follow the committee's advice. But we will always want to hear what it has to say before we come to a conclusive answer.
The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee did not recommend a sunset provision and the Government do not believe that it would be appropriate. Although we will make every effort to "get our act together" and introduce all necessary consequential amendments without delay, it is always possible that circumstances will arise beyond the three-year period. Schedule 5 runs to 11 pages, which demonstrates the highly technical nature of some of the law involved in the Bill.
The noble Baroness's amendment provides the Government with a chance to resurrect the powers of the clause beyond the three-year period. But that would require further parliamentary business and we question whether that is necessary.
On Report, the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, commented that the sunsetting of such clauses,
"should be referred to the Delegated Powers Committee for further study rather than introducing it as part of a Bill at this stage, before implications have been fully thought through".—[Official Report, 3/3/03; col. 690.]
On this occasion, as on others, I am inclined to agree with the noble Lord in this respect.
On Report, the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, raised questions about the powers of Scottish Ministers. If she would find it helpful, I shall speak briefly to that issue at this point.
We have consulted the Scottish Executive and Scottish officials closely on these issues. There is good liaison and consultation between the Scottish Executive and the UK Government and a long history of judicial co-operation. It is correct that Scottish Ministers should have order-making powers for those matters that are within their devolved competence. It is indeed possible that there may be certain variations north and south of the Border, but this would be only where a specific point of law in either jurisdiction required that. The overall purpose and effect of the orders would be the same.
This is because the subject matter of the Bill—the implementation of international obligations— imposes exactly the same obligations in both Scotland and England and there is no reason to think that either set of Ministers would not be diligent in endeavouring to see that they were implemented effectively and that they were compliant with international obligations as a consequence. In circumstances of dispute, the joint ministerial committee can be used to resolve matters. Furthermore, Section 58 provides a legislative mechanism to solve problems of this kind, which no doubt one would hope would be entirely theoretical. So there is no need to provide for this afresh in every subsequent piece of legislation.

63
I shall not delay the House by going into more detail, but I should be happy to talk to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, on this important but perhaps rather specialised point of Scottish intersection.
6.30p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Perhaps I may say, with the leave of the House, that he has done extremely well during the passage of the Bill in his co-operation with the Scottish Executive. It has involved a great deal of interlinking of ways of working. Bringing the Schengen agreement into Scots law has been a big operation in itself. I was not criticising that, I was merely saying that the Government requiring the Scottish Executive to use Henry VIII powers was new and that I hoped the habit would not develop too much. I was only referring to Henry VIII powers.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, for that helpful clarification.
In conclusion, we hope that we will not need to use these powers after three years. But, in reality, no one can be certain of that. The argument for throwing them away or for arguing that one has to continually come back to Parliament for their renewal is akin to saying that because an event might have a low level of risk one does not require insurance and one can therefore afford to throw away one's insurance policy. I do not think that that is what the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, is arguing. But it could be implied from the view that one does not need the powers to make incidental and consequential amendments to ensure that Parliament has the ability to keep its legislation in the form when and if it passes it. I hope that that is a satisfactory explanation.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his assurances and particularly for his explanation of what he meant at col. 691 on Report. There he referred to his reliance upon the work of the Delegated Powers Committee and how that fitted into the general approach as to how the Government might draft Bills. That was most helpful.
I accept the fact that this particular Henry VIII power deals only with incidental and consequential amendments. I am not trying to criticise those who are drafting the Bill. Far from it. I am trying to ginger up Ministers so that they might think a little more ahead as to the drafting of their Bills. In that way we would not have to go through several stages of drafting after a Bill has passed through both Houses in order to ensure that it is tidied up appropriately.
I agree entirely with the Minister that on occasions Henry VIII powers are required so that one can properly implement the original policy intention which may have been agreed to by all in both Houses. That does not always happen with such clauses. As I mentioned at the beginning, I certainly do not intend to press the matter. I agree entirely with other noble
64
Lords about the importance of this matter being considered again by the Select Committee. I hope that it has a second report. In saying that, of course, one cannot then give up the idea that such a sunset clause may be unnecessary in the future. What if the Select Committee did not report? What if that report were not acceptable to the House? There still may be a need for sunset clauses and Henry VIII powers. But at this stage in this Bill, I certainly do not intend to press the issue. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 4 [Terrorist property: freezing orders]:
[Amendments Nos. 10 to 12 not moved.]
Lord Filkin Lord Filkin moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 79. line 3, leave out from "45." to "which" in line 5 and insert "at the end of paragraph (c) of the definition of "restraint order" there is inserted "or an order"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 are purely technical, and I hope that the House sees them as such. Paragraph 9 amends the definition of "restraint order" for the purpose of the insolvency provisions of Schedule 4 to the Terrorism Act 2000. The intention is to include within that definition overseas freezing orders so that the same insolvency rules apply to such orders as apply to domestic restraint orders. Unfortunately, as paragraph 9 stands, it will include external forfeiture orders within the definition of "restraint order". That is a mistake. The amendments correct it. I beg to move.
Lord Filkin Lord Filkin moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 79, line 6, leave out third "or"
[Amendment No. 15 not moved.]
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass. In doing so, I should like to thank the Opposition Front Benches for their constructive approach to the Bill. I felt that it worked well in Grand Committee and that the probing enabled us to identify one or two lacunas. I am still smarting from the vicious defeat inflicted on the Government today, so I cannot say that we shall not see the Bill again. Just in case we do not, I should also like to thank my noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith and my noble friends Lord Bassam and Lord Clinton-Davis, and the officials, who have been assiduous in serving both the Government and co-operating with the House on this legislation.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Filkin.)
Lord Renton: My Lords, perhaps I may say a few words. I speak as a rusty old lawyer who became a barrister 70 years ago. I am full of admiration for the way in which this massive, rather difficult Bill, which breaks new ground, has been handled by two Members of this House who are not lawyers—the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, speaking on behalf of the Government

65
and my noble friend Lady Anelay of St Johns for all she has done on behalf of the Opposition. What they have achieved is a very great credit to both of them.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I do not always agree with the noble Lord, Lord Renton, but I do on this occasion. My noble friend Lord Filkin and the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, have cast a ray of light over this complicated Bill. Although I do not always agree with the noble Baroness, she is always very polite. The principal praise I give is to my noble friend Lord Filkin. He has tackled the issue with humanity and understanding. I associate myself with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Renton.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Health (Wales) Bill
6.38 p.m.
Report received.
Schedule 1 [Schedule 7A to be inserted in the National Health Service Act 1977]:
Lord Roberts of Conwy Lord Roberts of Conwy moved the amendment:
Page 6, line 8, after "district;" insert—

"(aa) to report annually to the public on the discharge of its duty;"

The noble Lord said: My Lords, we were all agreed in Committee that this Bill received fair scrutiny. There were few outstanding points of difference. That remains the situation. That is why, perhaps, only one amendment has been tabled. We are also all agreed on the importance of CHCs. We on these Benches welcome their retention in Wales and regret their passing in England. Their duties are spelled out in the first paragraph of Schedule 1 and each has the primary role,
"to represent the interests in the health service of the public in its district".
I pointed out in Committee that the Bill makes no provision for enabling CHCs to report back to the public on how they have discharged that all-important duty. The amendment seeks to remedy that deficiency by requiring each council to produce an annual report. After all, that is a fairly minimal standard requirement. I tabled another amendment to the same effect in Committee but Amendment No. 1 is an improvement.
It might be argued that the point may be covered by a regulation made by the National Assembly but there is an advantage in including the requirement to report in primary legislation as a counterpart to the duty to represent the interests of the public. The amendment will give CHCs just the measure of independence that they may require if councils feel that they must be critical of some aspect of the health service in their localities.
We have received firm assurances from Ministers that the Government have every intention of ensuring that CHCs will be independent but it is not difficult to see how that intention cart be thwarted—God forbid—
66
by regulations prohibiting this, that and the other. We must not forget that the Assembly government that will initiate regulations has a direct responsibility for the health service in Wales and an interest in ensuring that it is seen in the best possible light. I hesitate to suggest that it might be tempted to suppress local criticism on occasion and to muzzle its watchdogs. The Minister is familiar with that accusation because it has already arisen in the context of the proposal for a commission for health care audit and inspection— and that Bill is not yet law.
There is plenty of scope currently for criticism of the NHS in Wales and that may be the case in future—although we all wish otherwise. We want to ensure that CHCs are fully and freely able to express their views. Reporting back to those whose interests they represent is the very least that we can ask of them. I beg to move.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I pay tribute to the assiduous way in which the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, addresses the Bill. He is right to do so, from his lengthy experience as a Minister of State in the Welsh Office. However, I have said on a number of occasions that I do not believe that we should seek to second guess the Assembly's desire. I do not think that it is appropriate for the amendment to be passed.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, I also commend the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, has examined the Bill and drafted the amendment. Reporting on activities to the public is an important principle. However, I share the reservations expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, as to tying the Welsh Assembly government to one system. It may find it better to have a report every second year with an interim report annually; or reporting more frequently—such as six-monthly interim reports as the role of CHCs changes. I am concerned that flexibility may be constrained by the amendment.
6.45p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for allowing us to debate again community health councils in Wales. He welcomed their continuance in Wales and regretted their passing in England. I feel a little like the Lord High Executioner in saying that I welcome the Welsh Assembly's decision to continue CHCs but equally welcome my department's view that in England it is appropriate to make changes and develop rather more sophisticated mechanisms for patient and public involvement. One of the great joys of devolution is that we shall see how the two systems work side by side and learn the good and bad points of each. That is the spirit in which we approach this issue.
I agree also with the noble Lord that the matter has been extensively debated here and in another place. There are essentially two aspects to the argument—requiring community health councils to produce annual reports on their activities and the extent to which any annual report by a CHC would encompass not just its activities but the quality of NHS provision in the area.

67
The Bill gives the Welsh Assembly sufficient power to ensure that annual reports are made and cover important issues of public concern. New Schedule 7A(2)(h) allows the Assembly to place a duty on each CHC to publish an annual report about its activities and performance. That power already exists. Each CHC will be required to send copies of its report to the Assembly, relevant NHS bodies and local authorities and to make its content public. I agree that the public have a right to know what is being done by the CHC responsible for their area and that the publication of an annual report gives the council the opportunity to give an account of itself.
Current CHC reports contain details of visits undertaken, public consultation exercises, issues of concern regarding local health provision, the number of meetings and attendances by individual members, and budget details. Those reports are sent to relevant health bodies, which are required to comment on any issues raised. They are also made known to the public by being sent to citizens advice bureaux and libraries and being published on CHC websites. NHS bodies are expected to comment on those reports and to record any steps taken in consequence of advice given or proposals made by the CHC.
The new regulations will re-state the provision of the Community Health Council Regulations 1996, which require CHCs to produce annual reports and make them widely available to the public. In terms of content, the only difference between the reports is that they will contain details of complaints handled by the new CHC complaints advocates and a summary of visits made to inspect general practitioners' premises and other local family health service practitioners.
The Assembly is right to want evidence that CHCs are performing consistently to a set of agreed standards—but how that will be done is the subject of discussion between the Assembly and CHCs. As to independence, it is my understanding that there is no intention to control the activities of CHCs. But they are public bodies and the Assembly has a duty to ensure that their funding achieves the best value for money. The precise details of the matters to be included in CHC annual reports will be set out by the Assembly in regulations, following consultation and agreement with community health councils.
The other strand of the debate is the duty of CHCs to report on the quality of NHS provision in their areas. Traditionally, annual reports have primarily been about the functions and performance of the council itself, rather than the level and quality of health service provision in the area. NHS organisations have a duty to report regularly on the level, quality and performance of service through their own annual reports, directories of services and patient leaflets. Requiring CHCs to do that would create the danger of undermining the good work done elsewhere. The noble Lord, Lord Roberts, mentioned the new commission in forthcoming legislation for health care audit and inspection. The Bill will include special considerations for Wales. But, at present, CHI is charged with reporting on the quality of local healthcare provision. If CHCs undertook that
68
work, there would be a danger of conflicting with CHI and other inspection bodies. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, that the point of annual reports and whether CHCs should produce them must. under devolution, rest with the Assembly.
The Assembly has already made its intention clear of wanting CHCs to report to the public and to enable information about them to be readily available so that their performance can be judged. The regulation-making power in the Bill gives the Assembly sufficient power by which to order the affairs of CHCs and their appropriate reporting. On those grounds, I ask the noble Lord not to press his amendment.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, for their kind words about me at the opening of their remarks. However, they do not hide the fact that neither supports my amendment. I am nevertheless consoled by the considerable assurances given by the Minister about the regulations that the Assembly will propose that will cover the area of reporting by community health councils.
I am also grateful to the Minister for his assurance of the independence of community health councils and, indeed, for the rest of what he said.
So I am content to have emphasised the point about CHCs. To my mind, they are good institutions hut must have the element of independence that will allow them to be real watchdogs on behalf of their districts. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Business
6.52p.m.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, with the leave of the House, later this evening my noble friend Lady Symons will repeat a Statement on Iraq and, again with the leave of the House, I shall make a short Statement about arrangements for tomorrow's debate on Iraq and the various contingent business changes.

Iraq: Legality of Armed Force
6.53 p.m.
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart rose to call attention to the obligations of the United Kingdom under international law concerning the use of armed force, and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords. shortly—in a matter of hours—President Bush will no doubt deliver a final ultimatum to Iraq. Within 24 hours of that, probably, there will almost inevitably be war with Iraq in which British troops will be involved.
As we have just been told, we shall have another debate tomorrow. The purpose of this debate is limited to one specific aspect of that wider debate: the legality

69
of the use of armed force in Iraq without the specific authority of a further resolution of the Security Council. The Government have during the past weeks and months laid great stress on the importance of legality. They have said that they would not ask the Armed Forces to intervene unless it was lawful for them to do so.
A second resolution in the Security Council would have given legitimacy, but it is now clear that no second resolution will be passed by the Security Council. The Government now have to face the question of whether force is lawful without such a resolution. The noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General says yes, but I must say that I believe he is wrong.
Can force be justified without United Nations authority in any circumstances? Sometimes, yes. There is of course the right of collective dissent under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. Another example, although still a controversial one, is the right of humanitarian intervention outside the charter, as exercised in Kosovo— an occasion on which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, appeared on behalf of the Government to argue the case in the International Court of Justice for the existence of the right of humanitarian intervention.
As I explained in my speech of 26th February in your Lordships' House, I believe that neither of those grounds—collective defence nor humanitarian intervention—can be relied on to justify the use of armed force against Iraq today. The Attorney-General does not base his case on either of those grounds, so I shall not pursue them.
Probably the most important document in international law today is the United Nations Charter. Under chapter 7 of the charter, the Security Council deals with threats to peace and acts of aggression. Article 39 gives the Security Council power to decide what measures should be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42 to maintain or restore international peace and security. Article 41 gives the Security Council power to impose measures not involving the use of armed force, such as economic sanctions. Finally, Article 42 states that if the Security Council considers that the measures provided for under Article 41 would be or have proved to be inadequate, military action may be taken to maintain or restore international peace and security.
Those powers were the basis of the Gulf War in 1991 and subsequent UN action in Iraq. The Attorney-General bases his case that there is an existing authority to use armed force on resolutions arising from Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990 and its aftermath. We therefore need to consider those resolutions.
Resolution 660, adopted on 2nd August 1990, demanded that Iraq withdraw its forces from Kuwait. Resolution 661 imposed economic sanctions under Article 41 on Iraq. Resolution 678, adopted on 28th November 1990, authorised member states, unless Iraq withdrew from Kuwait by 15th January 1991,
70
"to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 … and to restore international peace and security in the area".
In that context, all necessary means obviously included armed force.
Resolution 687 was adopted after the end of the war on 8th April 1991. It affirmed the previous resolutions. It required Iraq to accept the destruction and removal of chemical and bacteriological weapons and missiles with a range of more than 150 kilometres. It required from Iraq a commitment not to use, develop, construct or acquire banned weapons, and not to acquire or develop nuclear weapons. It reaffirmed the economic sanctions, with a relaxation for foodstuffs, and provided for sanctions to end when Iraq had completed the required actions.
The resolution declared,
"that, upon notification by Iraq to the … Security Council of its acceptance",
the formal cease-fire would become effective. The motion also decided that the Security Council would,
"remain seized of the matter and take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the resolution and to secure peace and security in the area".
There is nothing in Resolution 687 that authorises the further use of armed force against Iraq by member states without a further resolution of the Security Council. Such action, would, in my view, be plainly inconsistent with the terms of the resolution.
We now move to Resolution 1441, adopted on 8th November last year. It decided that Iraq was in breach of its obligations under Resolution 687, but should be given a final opportunity to comply. Paragraph 12 decided that the Security Council would convene immediately on a report from the inspectors of non-compliance by Iraq,
"in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security".
Paragraph 13 recalled,
"in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations".
By paragraph 14, the Security Council decided,
"to remain seized of the matter".
That is the background. We now have the summary of the advice given to the Government by the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General. We welcome the fact of that disclosure, although we should have liked to see much more detail of what must have been a lengthy opinion dealing with the complex arguments involved in the case and showing possible qualifications and reservations. All we have seen is the baldly stated summary. We also regret that the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General has not given us the opportunity to ask questions and to hear his answers.
The Attorney General's opinion reaches a highly questionable conclusion, which is based on a dubious interpretation of deliberately ambiguous wording. If do not dispute that some reputable experts in international law have reached the same conclusion as the Attorney General. I mention Professor Ruth Wedgwood, of the

71
law school of Columbia University, for example. But they are in a minority, especially in the United Kingdom. The opinion of 16 leading academic international lawyers, including the professors of international law at Oxford, Cambridge and University College London, in a letter to the Guardian on 7th March, was contrary to that which the Attorney-General has now disclosed.
Resolution 687 is crucial because it set up the ban on weapons of mass destruction. It also set up the inspection regime. As I said, there is nothing there that constitutes an authority to go to war without going back to the Security Council for authoritative act under Article 42.
Resolution 1441 is undoubtedly the most important of all. I have already read the main provisions of paragraphs 12, 13 and 14. I cannot see how anyone could conclude that a breach by Iraq was sufficient to justify armed force without further reference to the Security Council. Paragraph 12 requires the Council to convene on the report,
"in order to consider the situation".
That in itself is inconsistent with an automatic trigger of further action. The motion says that the Council recalls that it has warned Iraq of serious consequences as a result of violations. Indeed, that is the case. This is a further warning that breaches may well lead to the use of armed force, but it is no automatic authority to go ahead. The final paragraph states that the Council decided,
"to remain seized of the matter".
It is plainly not delegating it.
The Attorney-General says that Resolution 1441 would have said so if a further decision were required. I see no justification for his argument. Both the United States and British ambassadors to the United Nations when Resolution 1441 was adopted said that it contained no automaticity. I believe that there was a clear understanding that Resolution 1441 did not confer a right of action without referring back to the Security Council. Unless there had been such an understanding, it would have been difficult if not impossible to get Resolution 1441 through the Security Council.
A final decision on the use of armed force requires judgment as to the seriousness of the breaches by Iraq, the effectiveness of the inspection system and whether the breaches could be corrected by means short of war. Those are difficult decisions. The Attorney General is arguing that the Security Council has delegated those decisions to the United Kingdom and the United States of America—in effect, to the US alone. I do not believe that that is the kind of decision that the Security Council could, or would delegate to any one member, however powerful. A decision to use armed force under Article 42 in full scale war is the most solemn decision that the Security Council can ever take. The idea that vague and ambiguous words in those resolutions can be read as implying a delegation to the United States, with or without the United Kingdom, to take these decisions verges on the absurd.
Where does that leave the Government? I speak as someone who believes that Saddam Hussein should be disarmed by force if no other way succeeds. I believe that he does have weapons of mass destruction. His failure to co-operate with the inspectors when cooperation would have led to the lifting of sanctions can have no other rational explanation. But I also believe in the rule of law. I respect what the Prime Minister and the Government have done up to now. They have undoubtedly worked their guts out to achieve a second resolution, but it is now apparent that they have failed. It is not the fault of the Government, but mainly that of the Bush Administration who have have shown contempt for the United Nations and for international law. To some extent, it is also the fault of the French Government, who seem animated more by hostility to Anglo-Americans than by a willingness to seek a compromise. But failure there has been.
War and British participation now seems inevitable. The Government should face up to the fact that what we are about to do is not lawful. They will have to bear the consequences of that, and so will we. I beg to move for papers.
7.7 p.m.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, for introducing this debate on the UK's obligations under international law concerning the use of armed force. Speaking as a non lawyer, I have been greatly perturbed in recent months by the outpouring of statements and opinions by many lawyers on this subject with specific reference to Iraq.
I should have liked to deal with this in my speech in the debate on the 26th February, but there was insufficient time and I could only say then:
"Although I am not a lawyer. I really have problems understanding how anyone can raise fears about international law being breached by military action against Iraq. Chapter 7 specifically allows the use of force and Saddam has failed to comply with 23 separate obligations under a series of resolutions under Chapter 7".—[Official Report, 26/2/03; cols. 263–264.]
I wanted to go on to spell this out in more detail, which thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, I can now do. and also to express my dismay at the way in which the words "international law", "legal" and "illegal" were being bandied around as cover for opinions, which in my opinion were in fact political and personal.
I should say here that looking round the Chamber I see many members of the legal profession, and what I have to say will not be music to their ears. I should at the beginning enter a caveat that. of course I am not speaking of all lawyers and, of course on Iraq, as other issues, lawyers hold very different views and have spoken on different sides of practically every aspect of the situation.
Of course also I have no problem with those who have political and personal objections to military action against Iraq and I understand very well those who have political and moral problems with that, but

73
I do take issue with international lawyers who invoke legality when that is not justified, and is not in truth what they are really talking about.
If anyone reads Resolution 687 of April 1991, they will see that it is a very long resolution of some 34 operational paragraphs and the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has dealt with quite a lot of it. I know it well having, as I have told the House before. spent the last 12 months of my government service, up to the end of July 1991, totally immersed in the Gulf crisis and war. One can see that 687 is very specific in the obligations it laid on Iraq and the time-scale for compliance by Iraq— for example, in the case of a declaration of locations, amounts and types of all items specified in a paragraph which was a detailed list concerning chemical and biological weapons—was 15 days. It was, like all the 17 resolutions on Iraq over 13 years, passed under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter, and it ended with the crucial words, which I did not hear the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, quote,
"decides … to take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution".
Resolution 687 was, of course, the conditions for the ceasefire in the military action authorised in 678 of November 1990.
The Security Council has authorised the use of force, as it is entitled to, under Article 42 of Chapter 7 by means of various wordings—in 1950 on Korea; in 1990, 1992 and 1994 on Kuwait, Somalia and Haiti; in 1993 for UNPROFOR; in 1997 for Albania; and in 1999 for East Timor. I shall not quote all the words because of the time constraint, but my point is that if you look at them all there is no one formula—which is a point some international lawyers seem confused about, to say the least.
There is no question that the use of force was authorised in 678 in 1990 and the subsequent Chapter 7 resolutions on Iraq, up to and including 1441, were all trying to achieve compliance with Resolution 687, which was the ceasefire. That is my reading of the situation as someone who is not a lawyer, but I am pleased that as far as I can see from the Answer of my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General to my Question for Written Answer today, I have been thinking along the right lines.
The reason I have laid this out in some detail is because I have been bewildered to read and to hear some of the so-called legal points advanced by international lawyers attacking the legality of military action against Saddam Hussein. The argument that 687 was in 1991 some 12 years ago and therefore this somehow affects is legality really does not stand up. There is no statute of limitations on Chapter 7 resolutions. Fifteen days was a deadline for Saddam to comply, not for action to be taken against him.
The length of time, 12 years, is a political reason why it was important to have 1441 as a final opportunity for compliance, but surely never a legal one. Yet a much quoted letter in the Guardian of 7th November, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, signed by some 15 teachers of international law, deals only with 1441, as if it stood alone, with no hinterland of the 16 previous resolutions. The letter declares,
74
"before military action can be lawfully undertaken against Iraq a Security Council must have indicated its clearly expressed assent. It has not yet done so".
But I am sorry, yes it has, and it is surely peculiar that international law teachers should be so simplistic and ignore the context and history of 1441. They give no indication at all that there could be a doubt about their way of reasoning. I recognise that people have their own agenda and positions on controversial issues, but I expect them to have the intellectual honesty not to use the cloak of academic cover to claim to my mind a very doubtful objectivity.
When I was an undergraduate, I was told by an eminent professor of law that there was no such thing as international law. I certainly do not want to accept that. having been a fervent supporter of the UN since my school days, and I am an enthusiast for the International Criminal Court—
Earl Russell: My Lords, in academic matters disagreement is frequent and normal. It is more easily resolved if we do not call in question the honesty of those with whom we disagree.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend Lady Ramsay has reached the end of her time. Time is very short in this debate and I think we would do better without interventions.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I thank my noble friend, and I will now conclude my remarks. I am an enthusiast for the International Criminal Court, but I am perturbed by the ease with which international law practitioners seem to be able to use it as a political football.
I am not a lawyer, and that is not said apologetically. I am glad that I am not because I think it helps me to see clearly the differences between what is a matter of law, of politics, or of morality—something which some lawyers all too eas1ily blur. It is of course acknowledged that international law is not an exact science, but it surely does not have to appear as bizarre as some of its practitioners have made it appear in recent months.
7.16 p.m.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, it is now with a certain queasiness that as a mere wretched lawyer I rise to offer my opinion that military force against Iraq will be lawful, notwithstanding the absence of a successor resolution to 1441. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay, and the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, I do so as a firm upholder of the United Nations Charter. I believe that its adoption marked the beginning of a new world order of immense promise and that the organisation, for all its manifest deficiencies, has on the whole served the world well—and certainly irreplaceably—for over half a century.
I would not support action which flouted the principles or purposes of the charter. Central to those is the restoring or securing of international peace and security. Equally, I have to accept that the United Nations is a relatively new jurisdiction. We are far from having an article or precedent for many of the fraught

75
situations which this volatile world throws at us. Therefore, there will frequently be respectable arguments on both sides of any issue—arguments which it would take years to litigate in any international court to an authoritative conclusion, even if that were possible.
This is, in my view, such a case. I believe that the exigencies of the situation simply do not afford us that comfort any more than they did when we intervened in Kosovo, controversially at the time but an action now accepted as lawful as well as expedient.
This is not to claim that the law is what we say it is. It is to recognise that member states must sometimes have the courage to act when the law may not be explicitly cut and dried and to bear the heavy responsibility themselves for doing what they conscientiously believe to be necessary and lawful.
In view of the body of opinion that holds that use of force against Iraq would be unlawful unless authorised by a further resolution, I have found it helpful to go back to Saddam's invasion of Kuwait. When Iraq invaded Kuwait and seized its territory in 1990, our own Government gave immediate help under the doctrine of collective self defence, now enshrined in Article 51 of the charter. At the same time, we pressed for an urgent Security Council resolution condemning the invasion and demanding Iraq's withdrawal. We were determined to get this engagement of the Security Council as soon as possible, and within a very few days it was achieved, with Resolution 660 the result.
When Saddam's forces thereafter stayed exactly where they were, we remained resolute in upholding the jurisdiction of the Security Council. We worked hard for subsequent resolutions, and in particular for 678— already referred to this evening—which authorized member states to use "all necessary means" to uphold and implement Resolution 660 and to restore international peace and security in the area.
"All necessary means" embraced, as it embraces today, military means; that resolution mandated the ensuing military operations which expelled Saddam from Kuwait and were halted when that was done. I have some reason to remember those matters because I was at the time the Attorney-General in the War Cabinet.
It may be that the mandate would have covered us if we had gone on—if we had continued military operations after we had liberated all Kuwaiti territory. The arguable ground—and it has since been argued— would have been that they were still necessary to restore international peace and security. But that would have been to introduce great controversy where previously there had been remarkably little. We instead worked, I believe rightly, for the conditional ceasefire set out ultimately in Resolution 687. This was binding on Iraq, which formally accepted it anyway, and it remains binding on Iraq today. Because it was a conditional ceasefire, it left 678 undischarged, in force, but, as it were, to be placed in abeyance or suspension provided Iraq fulfilled its obligations and continued to fulfil the conditions.
76
Iraq has never complied with these conditions, as the council has repeatedly found. Some 17 further resolutions have failed to secure compliance, and so 678 is now not in abeyance or suspension—it is available.
This extraordinarily lengthy and, some might say, indulgent series of resolutions culminated in 1441 on 8th November last year. The resolution specifically recalls in its preamble that Resolution 678 authorised member states to use all necessary means to restore international peace and security in the Gulf. It further recalled that 687 imposed obligations on Iraq as a necessary step for the achievement of the council's stated objective of restoring peace and security. It recited that the council was determined to secure full compliance with its decisions, and it then recorded the decision that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations, including those under Resolution 687. That position remains the same today as common ground, as shown in the latest Blix report. It is surely implicit that in deciding that, the council found that international peace and security in the area have in consequence not been restored.
Resolution 1441 went on to declare the decision to offer Iraq a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations, specifying what in particular must be done within 30 days. If this final opportunity is not taken, Iraq is reminded that it has been repeatedly warned that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violation of its obligations.
Following the critical report of Dr. Blix and his colleague, it is plain, now four months later, that the final opportunity to comply with Iraq's obligations has not been taken and the council has duly discussed the situation. It has not adopted any further resolution, politically desirable though that would have been. But 1441 does not lay down that it shall do this, only that it shall convene to consider the situation and the need for compliance with all its resolutions in order to secure peace and security. That is what it has done.
Because Resolution 678 has remained in full effect since its adoption or has, at the very least, been revived by Saddam's current and continued non-compliance, its mandate must be undiminished. Its exercise will not have been triggered by 1441, nor will it have followed automatically from 1441. Any military force used against Iraq will have drawn its justification from the mandate which 678 has never ceased to afford to member states—because the council has always decided that peace and security in the Gulf area have not been restored following the events of 1990.
Those who today refuse a further resolution in the council are entitled to make that choice for whatever reason. But that choice cannot have the effect of a retrospective veto on the operation of 678.
That is my view of this anxious matter. I am fortified today to find that it accords with that of the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General. I hope I shall not be thought frivolous if I end with a thought that in any event it reflects what the law ought to be. In international law, what the law ought to be generally turns out not to have been a bad guide to what it is later found to have been.
7.25 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Goodhart for raising this important matter at such a sensitive time. It falls to me to take up the challenge of the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay of Cartvale, to defend what she describes as a bizarre interpretation of the law.
I go back to the beginning. On 2nd August 1990, following the invasion of Kuwait, Resolution 660 determined that the invasion constituted,
"a breach of international peace and security"
and demanded withdrawal. It was not an authorisation for the use of force, since it was made under Articles 39 and 40 of the charter which call upon states to comply with "provisional measures" before deciding on sanctions, whether forceful or otherwise. It was followed by Resolution 661 which imposed economic sanctions. Further resolutions were passed, condemning the consequences of Iraq's invasion, but the Security Council reaffirmed its determination at that time to ensure compliance by Iraq with the Security Council resolutions by maximum use of political and diplomatic means—not force.
It was not until 29th November 1990, with Resolution 678, that force was authorised. Paragraph 2 of the resolution:
"Authorises Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait … to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 … and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area".
Resolution 660, the upholding of which was the cause for force to be authorised, was confined to demanding the withdrawal of Iraq from Kuwait. The subsequent resolutions referring to economic sanctions said nothing about disarmament or regime change.
The provision to restore international peace and security in the area referred at the time to the violation by Iraq of international peace and security by its invasion of Kuwait. It was focused and specific. No further breach was identified. That phrase cannot be construed to authorise, 13 years later, an invasion of Iraq by armed forces of the United States and the United Kingdom to topple the regime and eliminate weapons of mass destruction. Such a construction is, to use the description of my noble friend Lord Goodhart, absurd.
In April 1991, after Desert Storm had been completed and hostilities had ceased, Resolution 687 welcomed in its preamble the restoration to Kuwait of its sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity, and affirmed the commitment of all member states to the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence not only of Kuwait but Iraq. It also noted the intention of the member states co-operating with Kuwait to bring their military presence in Iraq to an end as soon as possible. The resolution decided that Iraq must unconditionally accept the destruction, removal or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of all chemical and biological weapons and all ballistic missiles. That is why inspectors were
78
appointed, for international supervision. There was no mention of force. There was no mention of force of arms or war at that stage.
Paragraph 33 of that resolution declares that upon official notification by Iraq to the Secretary-General and to the Security Council of its acceptance of the provisions, a formal ceasefire is effective between Iraq and Kuwait and the member states co-operating with Kuwait in accordance with Resolution 678. The formal ceasefire did not require the final implementation of Resolution 687 to have taken place.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay of Cartvale, referred to paragraph 34. That decides that the Security Council shall remain seized of the matter and shall take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of this resolution and to secure peace and security in the area. As my noble friend said, it did not delegate to the United States or to the United Kingdom. It kept the matter in its hands—the power to authorise the further use of force. No individual state or group of states acting outside the clear mandate of the Security Council retained the right to use force, even to punish Iraq for breaches of the resolution or to compel its compliance.
The Attorney-General suggests that Resolution 678 suspended but did not terminate the authority to use force. Such an interpretation is in clear conflict with the expression of the Security Council's intention. The limited ends in Resolution 660—the expulsion from Kuwait—had been achieved. Significantly, in the latest Resolution 1441, whereas there is specific reference to Resolutions 661, 678 and 687. there is no such reference to Resolution 660; its ends had been fulfilled. Indeed, on 11th April 1991, the President of the Security Council, following the unqualified acceptance by Iraq of Resolution 687, declared that the formal ceasefire was effective.
So, we come to Resolution 1441 on 8th November of last year. France and Russia and others negotiated over the draft to ensure that resolution did not include the authorisation of force. Russian Deputy Foreign Minister, Yuri Fedotov, said on 8th November:
"Russia, with the support of France, China and other UN Security Council members, 'managed to have the most unacceptable formulations from the project excluded' including 'provisions which would permit an automatic unilateral use of force'".
They have not changed their position. That was their position when Resolution 1441 was passed. If there was a lack of clarity about it, the representatives of the United States and the United Kingdom must accept responsibility because the United States Permanent Representative to the United Nations, John Negroponte, said in the Explanation of Vote on the same day:
"The resolution [1441] contains no 'hidden triggers' and no 'automaticity' with the use of force".
Similarly, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, our representative, agreed in the United Kingdom Explanation of Vote:
"We heard loud and clear during the negotiations the concerns about 'automaticity' and 'hidden triggers' … there is no 'automaticity' in this Resolution. If there is a further Iraqi breach of the disarmament obligations the matter will return to the

79
Council for discussion as required in Operational Paragraph 12. We would expect the Security Council then to meet its responsibilities".
So our representative was saying, "It is for the Security Council to decide what to do". The essential point is that it is for the Security Council to decide whether and to what extent Iraq is in breach of its obligations and to determine what is the appropriate action. The United Kingdom may, by promoting a resolution in cahoots with the United States and Spain, act as prosecutor, but it has to persuade the jury of world opinion, represented by the Security Council, that there has been a material breach of Resolution 1441 which is punishable only by recourse to war. Neither the United Kingdom nor the United States is entitled to enforce the "will" of the Security Council.
7.34 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Salisbury: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, for securing this debate on our obligations under international law concerning the use of armed force.
I am among what may be a relatively small number of those who feel that many of the arguments deployed in your Lordships' House and elsewhere seem to revolve around a fairly limited sense of what counts as legal. Noble and learned Lords will give us their opinions as to how we might or might not justify the action the Government are proposing to take, and they will be able to argue, as lawyers are trained to do, from the small print about what "all necessary means to secure peace and security in the Gulf" actually means. But is getting the small print right what moral leadership requires when most of the world seems against the course of action that this country proposes? Is the acid test in this case not so much whether or how we can get away with going to war with Iraq but how that decision sits with our wider responsibility to uphold a world order where peace, justice and truth prevail?
Behind our debate this evening there are, I suggest, two complementary attitudes to the law. One view is of a minimalist structure that allows people to do very much what they want and comes into play only when liberties collide, and my freedom to do what I want invades your life and limits your ability to live your life as you would wish. On this view, the law sorts out the boundaries and patrols them. The other views the law as an overarching framework that holds people together and never lets them forget that they are neighbours one to another. Its fundamental premise and starting point is not me and my rights but us and our world's needs.
I should like to belong in a society where the second view is the one that holds, where we think first of the kind of community that we long for and of the needs of others and only secondly of what suits us and of how much we can get away with before others stop us. I know that is an idealist position but the other long considered licence for those who have the power to exercise it is our current norm for self-centred living. My point is this: the world is simply too small for that
80
view. Even if it is technically legal, what about the future? What is the long-term aim of our policy? Is it simply to be rid of this particular threat and this particular tyrant? I hope that we shall all say amen to that, but is it not also to build a more secure and interconnected world? How will the world be more secure and more interconnected after this venture, however successful, if we embark on it with ourselves and the United States alone? In that regard the policy of the Government of the United States seems to me to be short term and isolationist. That can only have the effect of giving permission to other nations to act as they wish in pursuit of their own immediate and short-term goals.
The Minister will probably tell me that 12 years is a long time to wait for Saddam to disarm and that it is only our threatened use of force that is squeezing some concessions out of him now. Yet the world's gaze is now fixed upon Baghdad and the inspectors have been reporting progress. Why not pursue that legally established process to the very end until every opportunity for peace has been exhausted? Might not that be the way to build a global certitude that war is the only option left? We do not seem to have persuaded many of that now.
I know from my links with the Sudan that patient work in building up partnerships of trust between nations is being undermined by our proposed action. I am not surprised that the Secretary of State for International Development views the unravelling of her work over the past few years with some dismay. What kind of a world, what pattern of relationships, what international authority will we land ourselves with if we act virtually unilaterally in such a way? How will the nations of the Arab world view us and our use of the law? What kind of an example will we set? We are commending unilateral action by those who have the power to act. How do we propose to rebuild trust between nations when we are campaigning with only the United States as our companions? The United Nations, founded with such great hopes, has been damaged and belittled by what we have seen of attempts to cajole or bribe it into rubber-stamping the decisions of the powerful. Yet we desperately need a vision of a world where the voice of the weak and powerless resonates as clearly as that of the mighty, where the exercise of strength can always be held to account, and where collaboration and unity are prized and not undermined.
That is the kind of world that is upheld by embracing the law as a delight sweeter than honey in the honeycomb. That is what our Judaeo-Christian forbears prized, and of that they were proud to be the guardians.
7.40 p.m.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, it is with some trepidation that I rise to speak in the debate. I am not a lawyer, and the subject matter is complex and open to different legal interpretations, as we have already heard. Nevertheless, the topicality of the subject, with the Government having clearly reached a decision to commit our Armed Forces to achieve the disarmament

81
of Iraq by the use of force, and my own personal involvement, as Britain's ambassador to the United Nations during the first Gulf War and in the adoption of many of the UN resolutions that are relevant to the matter, have overcome my qualms. I hope that my direct experience will compensate for my lack of legal expertise.
Any consideration of the current circumstances relating to the use of force against Iraq by the United Kingdom and its allies has to go back to Security Council Resolution 678 of November 1990, which explicitly authorised the use of force by the allies of Kuwait to reverse Iraq's aggression against that country. In passing, I would like to comment on what the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said about it being inconceivable that the Security Council would delegate such authority. It did so on that occasion. did so again in the case of Somalia, and then—surprise, surprise—did so on behalf of the United States.
Security Council Resolution 678 cast its net wider than just the reversal of Iraq's aggression, because it authorised the use of force in addition,
"to restore international peace and security in the area".
It is that second part of the mandate, the first part having been fulfilled in 1991, that is crucial to the present situation. When the Security Council came to lay down the terms for the cessation of hostilities after the Gulf War in Resolution 687—it was known in the argot as "the mother of all resolutions", in tribute to the person who gave rise to it —it was the second part of the mandate that underpinned the provisions relating to disarming Iraq of its programmes for producing weapons of mass destruction and also any missiles of more than 150 kilometres' range.
That was very clearly explained in the preamble to Resolution 687, which speaks of the need to be assured of Iraq's peaceful intentions, refers to Iraq's threats to use chemical and biological weapons contrary to its international obligations, expresses concern at Iraq's nuclear ambitions, states that all weapons of mass destruction pose a threat to peace and security in the area, the precise words of Security Council Resolution 678, and sets out the objective of Resolution 687 as—those words again—restoring peace and security in the area.
Moreover, the operative parts of Resolution 687 are even clearer. Iraq must unconditionally accept the destruction, removal or rendering harmless of all its chemical, biological and nuclear programmes under international supervision. It was stated that the ceasefire was dependent on Iraqi acceptance of that. As several noble Lords have said, the resolution ends rather unusually by stating that the Security Council would take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution and to secure peace and security in the region.
In the event, Iraq's arsenal of weapons of mass destruction turned out to be massively greater than had been expected on the basis of existing intelligence, a warning against the view that intelligence invariably tends to overstate the threat. Despite its promises to the contrary, and with a tenacity worthy of a better
82
cause, Iraq set about deploying every trick of the trade to retain as much of its weapon programmes as it could. That has been the history of the past 12 years, interspersed with a series of unavailing and inadequate attempts to bring it to compliance by the limited use of force.
One further reference is perhaps germane to that earlier period. When Iraq first began to drag its feet over the removal of its weapon programmes in the summer of 1991, the Security Council adopted a further resolution that has not been quoted by any noble Lord. Resolution 707 of August 1991 explicitly referred to section C of Resolution 687, the section that deals with disarmament, and slated that Iraq's actions constituted a material breach of Resolution 687,
"which established a ceasefire and provided the conditions essential to the restoration of peace and security in the region".
The link back to Resolution 678 could not be set out much more clearly than that.
Let me cut now to the autumn of last year—cut I must because of time constraints—and to Security Council Resolution 1441, adopted by a surprising unanimity in November 2002. That resolution gave Saddam Hussein what was explicitly stated to be one last chance to comply fully with all the earlier resolutions on disarmament. It set out in great detail how that needed to be done. What it did not do was, in itself and on its own, provide authority for the use of force in the event of non-compliance. It did not purport to do that, for the very simple reason that it did not, in the light of the analysis that I have given of the earlier resolutions, need to do it. The authority already existed. It was intended to send a clear and strong signal to Iraq that, in the event of non-compliance, there would be serious consequences. That there has since been non-compliance is surely not seriously in doubt.
That there has also been some limited measure of compliance is not really the point. The most recent of Iraq's many full, final and complete declarations, handed over in December to the chairman of UNMOVIC, was not full, final or complete, as Dr Blix told the Security Council. There has been no fundamental change of Iraqi attitude, no policy decision at the highest level to abandon the proscribed weapons programmes, such as was taken some years ago by South Africa in respect of its nuclear weapons programme, which led to its rapidly receiving a clean bill of health from the international inspectors. Instead, we have seen a continuation of existing policy designed to give up only what could not be successfully concealed.
Faced with the evidence of non-compliance, the Security Council has unfortunately fallen prey to divided counsels, expressed most graphically in the agonisingly prolonged debates over whether to adopt what has come to be called "the second resolution", although it is in fact about the 18th, depending on where one starts counting. There are many misunderstandings about that second resolution. as there have been about Resolution 1441. It too was not in itself an authorisation for the use of force.

83
Anyone who has examined the text of the draft and all the successive iterations of it that followed can see that it did not explicitly authorise the use of force.
The purpose of the resolution was surely political and not legal, to draw a line under the phase of non-compliance with Security Council Resolution 1441 and to signal that serious consequences were now imminent. If it could have been adopted, it would have sent a powerful signal to Saddam Hussein of the determination of the whole international community to bring an end to the matter one way or another. Alas, that will now not happen, and perhaps the best chance of getting Saddam Hussein to blink has been squandered in a bitter wrangle over the timing of sending such a signal. Signal or no signal, the authority remains the same in this analysis. It derives not from the now-moribund second resolution, nor from Resolution 1441 alone, but from Resolutions 678 and 687 as well.
What then remains to be said? It is certainly ironical that the authority for the use of force derives in this case from two resolutions for which France and Russia, at that time still flying under the flag of the Soviet Union, voted in favour. However, it also follows in this analysis that action by the UK, the US and its other allies does not herald either a new doctrine bypassing the system laid down in the UN charter, nor the flouting of international law. In fact, it is far less daring than was the decision by NATO to use force against Yugoslavia in the case of Kosovo, where it was recognised that entirely new ground was being broken under the justification of an overwhelming humanitarian emergency. This really is as close as it is possible to be to a one-off situation. The UN has not often voted explicitly to authorise the use of force in the past and it does not look likely to do so very often in the future.
So, sweeping conclusions about the legitimisation of pre-emptive action are rather wide of the mark. Moreover, the action being taken is not designed to further the interest of one country or one group of countries; it is designed to bring about compliance with a series of mandatory resolutions of the Security Council. It is thus, in this view, very firmly situated within the framework of international law.
7.50 p.m.
Lord Brennan: My Lords, this debate is about international law. It is not about lawyers or words but about the legal system by which we try to keep the peace in our world. When we signed up to the United Nations Charter as a nation, we did so to avoid for future generations the scourge of war. In seeking to achieve that objective, we agreed, as signatories to a treaty, that the use of force between nations should be permissible only in the case of armed or imminent attack or under United Nations authorisation when a threat to the peace had been declared by the Security Council and non-military measures had been determined to be inadequate.
84
That is the international law that we agreed to support. It explains the valiant and unstinting efforts of our Prime Minister, Foreign Secretary and others in recent months to achieve a solution to the Iraqi problem through the United Nations. It explains why, in his statement today, my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General sought to explain the legal basis for action against Iraq within the context of resolutions from the United Nations—not the humanitarian example of Kosovo but reliance on the system in which we play our part.
Today, I believe that my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General, most helpfully and with clarity, established his view of the legal position. I do not agree that he should have attended this House to answer his case. I do not agree that the legal opinion of my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General is a subject for heated parliamentary exchange which includes him; it is for us to debate his view objectively. But it is a view that I cannot accept.
We, whether lawyers or not, have concentrated in this debate on the terms of the past resolutions. I propose to extract our thinking from simple semantics and to remember the objectives of those resolutions. Resolution 660 condemned the invasion of Kuwait. Resolution 678 agreed that all necessary means could and should be undertaken to restore the sovereignty of Kuwait. The subsequent resolutions—Resolutions 687 and 707 up to 1441—dealt with the disarmament of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.
In my view, by no means is it clear that when we agreed internationally to take all necessary means to fight a war to restore the sovereignty of Kuwait, we thereby explicitly agreed that in 12 years' time we would agree to an invasion of Iraq if we were not satisfied about its disarmament in terms of weapons of mass destruction. My noble friend Lady Ramsay is right: it is a lawyer's fault ever to concentrate on those words. That was not the intention, and no amount of semantics will persuade me that such a conclusion is to be drawn from these resolutions now.
Nothing in the resolutions justifies a present war. A further resolution is required. I shall not rely on lawyers for that conclusion; I shall rely on three people. A week or two ago, President Bush Senior said that the way to world peace was through multilateral negotiation, collective agreement and collective action. It is upon that foundation, which he so eloquently described, that the United Nations worked. Ten days ago, President Clinton, as well versed in security matters as anyone, said that there should be more time—not unlimited time but such an amount of time as will combine an ultimatum with satisfying the people whom we represent that this is a justified war.
The last of the three is Kofi Annan—not a lawyer but a noble servant of international peace. Ten days ago, in The Hague, he said the following:
"The members of the Security Council now face a great choice. If they fail to agree on a common position. and action is taken without the authority of the Security Council, the legitimacy and support for any such action will be seriously impaired".

85
He said plainly:
"I think that under today's world order, the Charter is very clear on circumstances under which force can be used … If the US and others were to go outside the Council and take military action it would not be in conformity with the Charter".
That comes from no lawyer; there are no specious semantics. It is a statement by the first servant of world peace about international law and justice with which I personally agree.
I do not support the theory of anti-war; Saddam should be disarmed. I do not support unlimited delay; I agree that an ultimatum should be set up. But I do not agree that this action can properly be taken outside the context of the United Nations. But perhaps it will be—the die may be cast. If it is, then I, as one lawyer, shall stop contributing to these debates as of this evening. Once the action begins. nearly 50,000 of our soldiers—men and women—deserve the maximum moral support of our country. They will not be assisted by yet further incessant analysis of what is right and what is wrong, whatever may subsequently be argued.
But I hope that if we act, as the Government may choose to do, with the United States outside the United Nations. we shall very quickly remind the world that as a nation we support international law; we shall fight this war according to all civilised principles; we shall arrest where we can those who should be charged before an ad hoc international criminal tribunal for their crimes; and we shall guarantee—I underline the word —the future functioning of a civilised and democratic society in Iraq in so far as we can.
This is not the end of the United Nations; neither is it the collapse of international law. But if action is taken outside the United Nations, we as a nation must return to the fold of international law as quickly as possible.
7.59 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, two issues have been raised by my noble friend's Motion. The first is whether the use of force against Iraq is lawful under international law; and the second is that, even if it were lawful, what are the legal limits governing the use of force under international humanitarian law? I shall deal with the second of those issues rather than the first.
As I am sure all noble Lords will agree, it is obviously essential for members of the Armed Forces and civil servants to have clear guidance about the legal obligations imposed on them as we face imminent war against Iraq. The Cabinet Secretary, Sir Andrew Turnbull, has recognised this in evidence to a committee in another place and has indicated that at the earliest opportunity that position will be clarified in a parliamentary debate. That is why this debate is particularly timely. I very much hope that the Minister will reply clearly to both those issues. In the light of some Questions for Written Answer that I had tabled, I wrote last Thursday to the noble Baroness asking her to do so. Having waived privilege in respect of the Attorney-General's conclusions, I hope that in
86
fairness to the Attorney-General the Government will publish his full reasons so that we can see more than the one-page summary.
Forty years ago, I learned the principles of public international law as I understand them not in this country but in the United States Harvard law school. My mentors were two great American jurists, Professor Richard Baxter who became the American judge on the International Court of Justice and Professor Louis Sohn, the expert on United Nations law. On the basis of their teaching and my subsequent practice, and my reading not only of the various opinions which have been referred to but also the four detailed opinions by Rabinder Singh QC and his colleagues, I agree with the views expressed by my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Brennan. I am not convinced by the summary reasoning given by the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General.
International humanitarian law is inspired by the desire of all civilised nations to reduce the evils of war by protecting both combatants and non-combatants from unnecessary suffering, safeguarding the fundamental human rights of those who fall into the hands of the enemy, particularly prisoners of war, the wounded, sick and civilians, and facilitating the restoration of peace. English law makes it quite clear that a military commander is responsible for offences committed by forces under his effective command and control. English law makes it an offence to commit crimes against humanity or war crimes. I am sure the Minister will be able to confirm that there are effective sanctions under English law for any such offences. I ask the Minister also to confirm that those principles are rooted in well-established, customary and conventional international law; and that Ministers, civil servants and members of the Armed Forces of this country and the United States are bound to comply with those obligations.
On Saturday the Financial Times published an important letter from the Director-General of the International Committee of the Red Cross in Geneva, Mr Angelo Gnaedinger who wrote:
"If a war is fought, all combatants must behave in a way that prevents indiscriminate and excessive suffering and destruction. International humanitarian law prohibits direct attacks on civilians and stipulates that everything possible must be done to minimise incidental civilian deaths and injuries. Furthermore, combatants must avoid damaging or destroying vital structures. These provisions can only become a reality if the warring parties do not use weapons that indiscriminately kill and maim, cause excessive and long-lasting suffering and damage or pose long-term threats to health and security".
The director-general also noted that during the Gulf War tens of thousands of people from both sides were detained as prisoners of war or civilian internees. He wrote:
"It is essential that everyone in this situation is treated humanely and in accordance with the Geneva Conventions. The potential conflict parties must also do everything possible to care for the sick and wounded, whether combatants or civilians, friend or foe. This implies that combatants respect the work of medical staff and facilities protected by the Red Cross and the Red Crescent emblems. In addition, everyone should do their outmost to ensure that humanitarian organisations can deliver medical care and emergency relief".

87
Do the Government accept everything that the Director-General of the International Committee of the Red Cross has said is required? I hope and believe that the answer will be in the affirmative.
Finally, the director-general wrote:
"If war cannot be avoided, everything must be done to contain its effect on the safety and stability of the region. Much of this depends on how the hostilities are conducted and on the space given to human dignity and integrity in the midst of turmoil".
Do the Government agree with that? Do they accept the obligation to meet the needs of the people and their rights for help and protection under international humanitarian law?
To be just, a war against Iraq would have to respect the principles and rules of the international rule of law. Even amid the clash of arms, the laws are not silent. In the pursuit of the international rule of law, our Government as well as the Government of the United States must surely be ruled by international law in war as in peace and must demonstrate that they will fully comply with those fundamental principles in their conduct. We are not Romans; nor are we barbarians; nor, if I may say so, cowboys enforcing gun law in the Wild West. I hope that the United States Government will understand in their conduct of this war that, in Shakespeare's words,
"it is excellent to have a giant's strength, but it is tyrannous to use it like a giant".
I look forward to the Minister's full explanation of the Government's understanding of the international legal obligations imposed upon them and their allies in the use of armed force and the Government's acceptance of the matters raised on behalf of the International Committee of the Red Cross. In case there is any doubt about the matter, I wish to reiterate that for the reasons already given, and to be given, my view is firmly that what we are about to do is in breach of fundamental international legal principles.
8.6 p.m.
Lord Owen: My Lords, within a very short time this country will, sadly, be at war again with Iraq. I believe that it will be a just war, a necessary war and a war that is fully compatible with the UN Charter. I realise that people hold different views and I respect those views. But I come to this debate with one very profound memory. As an 18 year-old medical student I watched this country go into the Suez war divided. undoubtedly, we now know, acting illegally, sending its troops out without public opinion behind them. It is right, therefore, that we seek to establish whether or not this action is legal. It is of fundamental importance that people being asked to risk their lives are in no doubt about the legality of the war. I hope that today's debate contributes to showing our forces in the field how resoundingly this House rejects the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart.
First, the noble Lord is profoundly wrong. Of the three resolutions mentioned, he chose to concentrate on 1441. He said it was the most important resolution.
88
However, by far the most important resolution is 678. It was quite wrong to stop reading at "Kuwait". It was a continuous sentence which concluded,
"to use all necessary means … restore international peace and security in the area".
We have not restored peace and international security in the area. Nor has there been any real halt in hostilities—just a few months in 1992. In fact, we have been asking our air force pilots to risk their lives year after year in order to stop the Kurds being pushed again right up to the borders as they were. Unfortunately, we have not been able to stop a virtual genocide of the Marsh Arabs. So we are still using force, and using it under the most important resolution of all; that is, Resolution 678.
I should like to say to the right reverend Primate, who happens to be my diocesan bishop, that I respect and like the fact that the Church and the new Archbishop have taken such a strong view, even though I oppose it. But of all people, the clergy should have a vested interest in trying to establish a rule of law and practice whereby cease-fires can bring a war to an end as quickly as possible.
I urge Members of this House and others discussing this issue to understand that the Security Council is not a court. I spent almost five years of my life in and out of the Security Council, listening to the arguments—all related to war and resolutions on war. It is a council—a cabinet in a way—which makes political judgments. It listens to lawyers, rightly so, but must determine what is the overall good, in this case for the world. It is surely a fundamental good to establish the integrity and necessity of cease-fires.
President Bush senior did not have to stop when he did. We had General Schwarzkopf and General Powell in what was called a turkey shoot on the Basra route. I prayed that night that they would stop it, and they did. But they stopped it not without conditions, quite rightly. Having behaved in the way he did, Saddam had to be disarmed of the weapons of mass destruction which we knew he contemplated using on the warheads which could have landed in Tel Aviv or Saudi Arabia.
It is no use our trying to get away from the question: why have we not done anything over the past 12 years? Let us be political and realistic. The only country which could topple Saddam Hussein, post-1992 through to 2000, was the United States. But they did not have the will to do it. They did not want to send their troops back in again. It was only after September 11th that they found the national will and resolve to go ahead. I believe it was decisive and correct leadership of the British Prime Minister to decide that he was not going to stop them. Now that they had the resolution to deal with this issue, he was prepared to back them.
And let us not have lectures on containment from the French Government. Initially, under President Mitterrand, they co-operated. They flew with their pilots to enforce the no-fly zones. But they backed off from the military need for containment. Let no one say containment has worked; it has failed miserably. I have attended humanitarian conferences throughout

89
the world. People constantly ask me, "How can you justify what is happening to the infant mortality rate in Iraq and the failure of sanctions?". I said that I could not justify it. It is a humanitarian outrage. But it would be a worse humanitarian outrage to allow Saddam Hussein to get away with it; to stop the no-fly ban and to allow what would undoubtedly happen again to the Kurds.
So although we are discussing legal questions and respecting legal arguments—I want a law, a charter, an international discipline—let us set the matter in its political framework. Let us face the reality. Let us accept what horrors are taking place. The argument is put forward: let us leave it for a few more weeks, a few more months. I understand that argument. But the decision to amass 250,000 troops must be taken months in advance. We have to make a judgment. The French admitted that without those troops being there, there would not even be the limited compliance we see. But Iraq is still in fundamental breach.
At the end of the day it comes to a judgment. You can listen to the lawyers and you can listen to our bishops. You have to make your own choice. But how many people in their homes tonight, tomorrow and in the next few tortured weeks will ask the real question that underlies this: who but the United States were ready to take on and risk their troops and undoubtedly lose many lives. Thankfully, this country was ready, and there are many other countries too. We are not alone. Why are we doing it? It is because of a basic, deep humanitarian belief that this particularly vicious dictator has to be stopped.
We have behind us 17 or 18 UN resolutions. We can argue about the number but it is not one or two. We have a clear mandate. We did not do the job in 1991. I will not be Professor Hindsight. I wanted that ceasefire. I did not want them to go through to Baghdad. But when I see a ceasefire as brazenly broken as it has been by that man, and when I now see the most powerful country in the world ready to take risks with its own people to fulfil the United Nations Charter's own resolutions and demand the ceasefire and enforce it, I believe it should be supported.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, is to be congratulated on securing this opportunity to discuss the implications of the present situation in international law. In our more general debates, various contributors pursue different themes and any specific theme such as international law tends to disappear in the general cacophony.
This is our opportunity to debate our differences. I have the misfortune to differ from a number of noble Lords with whom I frequently find myself in agreement, but that is one of the consequences of the present situation in international law, which develops daily and does not exist in tablets of stone.
The major theme of our discussion is whether there is Security Council authority under Article 42 for military action. Any of us may feel strongly that something should be done to intervene in what is the
90
career of a foul dictator in Iraq. Unless we can persuade an international consensus as to that, it may just be that we are wrong. It may just be that the conduct that we are pursuing is not the appropriate conduct. It is not a bad idea to listen to what other people say even if one is convinced that they have discreditable motives.
The possible justifications for armed force in the absence of such authority are interesting, but they bear no real applicability to the present situation. The problem about Resolution 1441 simply is that it manifestly does not authorise military action. If the council had intended to do so it could have said so quite unambiguously. To seek to spell out such authority from a reference to "serious consequences" is to treat the Security Council as a Delphic oracle. It is not necessary to be an international lawyer to see the common sense of that.
It has always been recognised that authority for something as serious as war should be unambiguous, at least partly because if the council chooses to authorise action under Article 42 it needs to spell out specifically what that action is. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lester, that it is not simply for any individual state which chooses to act on a general authority to decide precisely what action it is entitled to take irrespective of the humanitarian consequences.
It was not by oversight that the council refrained front authorising military action. When Resolution 1441 was under discussion, the council specifically considered whether to authorise military action and it declined to go so far. There were those who supported the resolution, as has been said, on the understanding that it did not include automaticity. Indeed, the resolution specifically provides that if Iraq fails to co-operate, the inspectors should report back to the council. Those who wanted automaticity failed to persuade the council.
When it was repeatedly pointed out that nowhere does Resolution 1441, expressly or by implication, authorise military action, the new doctrine emerged: "This is not about 1441 after all. What we are really talking about is Resolution 678 of 1990, and Resolution 687, which gave conditional authority to use all necessary means for the purpose which was then under consideration; that is, to secure withdrawal from Kuwait". The problem with that is that since then the Security Council has considered Iraq again and again and has passed at least 10 further resolutions—it may be there were far more—in which it set out what further action Iraq is required to take in a different situation and specified what further steps UNMOVIC and IAEA are to take in the light of the new circumstances.
The argument appears to be that we should go back to 1990 or 1991, ignore all that has happened since, all the intervening resolutions, all the further discussions and return to Resolutions 678 and 687 as though they were the last word on the subject. The sleeper has been reawakened and looks just as he did 12 years ago. But Resolution 687 had a last word: that the council resolved to remain seized of the matter. To go back to

91
1991 and to rewrite the history of the past 12 years would be like a man ordering a beef steak 12 years ago which is now brought to him, but in the meantime he has become a vegetarian, and it is argued that he never cancelled the order.
I understand the frustrations of those—particularly the Prime Minister—who believe fervently that an Iraq with weapons of mass destruction is a potential threat to world peace and security, if not in the immediate future at least at some future indeterminate time. I pay tribute to the Prime Minister's efforts to persuade the international community of that danger. Some of us were saying that long before it became apparent to the United States. We may suspect the motives of those who express their disagreement, although we may also consider it possible that they too, like the United Kingdom Government, are expressing what they genuinely believe. But the UN charter and the machinery that is now in place are the only criteria that until now have generally been accepted as forming a consensus among the international community.
I happen to believe that it is in need of reform. It places too high a premium on the interests of individual nation states. Perhaps now, or at least when the situation is less emotional, the world will set about constructing a more objective international authority, but for now the Security Council is all that we have. Destroy that and we may wish to have back what we have destroyed. I agree with my noble friend Lord Brennan that if we fail to persuade the Government, we should accept that events have overtaken our arguments, but I believe that history will decide who was right.
8.23 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Good hart, and unlike some of my noble friends, I support his contention that any action in Iraq now should be expressly sanctioned by the international community. Resolution 1441 was yesterday's resolution; it was not a war resolution. In 2003 it cannot be right for two nations to enter a major regional war without a very specific UN authority, even against the advice of their closest allies.
I wish to raise a related issue: the interpretation of international law concerning the use of our Armed Forces in humanitarian work. I speak with Iraq in mind, but I shall begin with the example of Afghanistan. Noble Lords will remember that the mandate of ISAF, the International Security and Assistance Force, does not extend beyond Kabul. Yet the aid workers have had to operate in the provinces at considerable personal risk. Staff of UN agencies and NGOs have been active, often without formal protection beyond that of the local warlord.
To provide that protection and to assist in humanitarian work, the US-led coalition has created new units known as PRTs (provincial reconstruction teams). There has been considerable concern among NGOs about the role of those units. They point out that confusion arises when soldiers plan or carry out
92
humanitarian work while their regiments may be simultaneously involved in conflict elsewhere in the country. It is unreasonable to expect local people to draw a distinction between soldiers handing out supplies or building a school and others who are carrying weapons with obvious military intent. There are also off-duty occasions when soldiers mingle with. and may be indistinguishable from, aid workers and indeed the local population.
Until recently when the NGOs complained, even co-ordination of their work was to be undertaken by those US-led teams rather than by the UN. The new teams do not, apparently, appreciate the problem, perhaps seeing themselves as liberators after the conflict has ended. Yet we know that, beyond the control of central government, the provinces are subject to frequent insecurity, ambushes and attacks on aid workers. Last month a UN de-mining team was attacked, and employees of the World Food Programme had their vehicle seized by armed gunmen. Several agencies and NGOs have now closed down their programmes. Warnings are being issued by Taliban remnants, and the FCO states that the threat to westerners in Afghanistan remains high, due to heightened tension. The knock-on effect of the Iraq war can only be to worsen security in Afghanistan, and some German and Dutch forces may now even be withdrawn from ISAF.
My first group of questions to the Minister, some of which I have tabled is as follows. How many British troops are now being seconded to these new US-led teams, and will they come under US command and be subject to the same rules of operation? This has a relevance for Iraq. Is she aware of the strong concerns of NGOs—and here I declare an interest, having close links with Christian Aid and several other NGOs—that this blurred distinction could adversely affect, and even endanger, the organisations and people whom they may wish to protect? To quote from a recent Save the Children Fund statement:
"Humanitarian agencies will not be used as instruments of foreign policy. Nor should humanitarian assistance ever be used as a political or military tool".
Another statement from CARE International, quoted by the International Development Select Committee, this week said:
"Any action that fudges the distinction between military and civilian activities … makes us complicit … and identified in the eyes of ordinary people with … vigilantes".
Turning to Iraq, it is not difficult to imagine the same issue arising in many areas of conflict there, especially after the first strikes are over, and during the period preceding and following any ceasefire. I am not at all opposed to a humanitarian role for the British Army in controlled situations. The hasty construction of refugee camps in recognised areas of Macedonia was a good precedent. provided that they were properly co-ordinated by the United Nations.
In a war, it may not be possible to draw these straight lines, and military objectives will always have precedence. Yet the Geneva conventions—and this is where international law is clear, as the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, said—state that civilians

93
should be a focus of humanitarian work from the outset of a conflict. One only needs to look at Palestine and see how Israel disregards UN conventions and the role of humanitarian aid workers, to understand the fears now being expressed about Iraq.
This brings me to my second group of questions. Can the Minister give us an assurance that her Government already have a contingency plan for Iraq, which bridges the need of the army, the UN and NGOs? Why is the humanitarian operations centre in Kuwait run by the US military and not, for example by the UN Office for Humanitarian Affairs? How will this centre relate to USAID's disaster team, and their NGO based in Jordan? Meanwhile, what will be the role of the UN Regional Co-ordination Office In Cyprus?
Much of this ambiguity, as many noble Lords will have realised, stems from the lack of a UN mandate, or a successor resolution to UN Security Council Resolution 1441. Illegality will run right through the system. The military strength and sheer willpower of the US will lead to a chain of command all the way through the network of humanitarian and non-government agencies. The work of NGOs and their independent judgment may be compromised, whether it is over oil-for-food or refugees.
It seems very likely that the same pattern will emerge in Iraq as in Afghanistan. Under US military law, I understand, power does not automatically revert to the civilian authority, even after the conflict has ceased.
I have worked with NGOs long enough to know when they are voicing very serious concerns. They have a long history of independence and they have their own way of doing things. They have built up expertise in emergency assistance which is second to none and has informed and piloted much of the work of official agencies, as DfID will acknowledge. In particular countries in the Middle East they have developed great sensitivity to the needs of local populations. They do not want all this experience to be jettisoned by the misplaced sense of superiority of a bunch of US colonels or by an ill-conceived policy of our own Government. Remembering previous exchanges with the Minister, I am confident that she would not want this to happen in the case of Iraq or anywhere else.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Grabiner: My Lords, I believe that the use of force against Iraq in the present circumstances is justified and lawful under international law without the need for further Security Council authorisation.
As a matter of law, it is necessary to view everything that has happened since 2nd August 1990, when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, as a continuum. The issue we are debating today is not whether a material breach of Resolution 1441 is a sufficient justification for the use of force against Iraq. That, I believe, is the thrust of the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and of my noble and learned friend Lord Archer of Sandwell. In my view, respectfully, that is entirely the wrong question.
94
The real question, I suggest, is whether the use of force is justified having regard to all the circumstances and, in particular, to the events and "relevant resolutions" over the past 13 years. Not only is this the right question as a matter of law, common sense also suggests that the right conclusion will be reached only when regard is had to the full context.
Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait was followed later that year by Security Council Resolution 678. This resolution could have been, but was not, limited in its terms to the expulsion of Iraq from Kuwait. In fact, the resolution authorised the use of "all necessary means" to secure not one but two entirely distinct objectives.
The first objective was the expulsion of Iraq from Kuwait. The second objective—this point was, if I may respectfully say so, correctly picked up by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, and the noble Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick, but for some reason was wholly ignored by my noble friend Lord Brennan—was the restoration and maintenance of international peace and security.
Clearly the second objective was intended to go wider than the first, otherwise there would have been no need to include a second objective at all. This demonstrates that from the outset the Security Council did not see Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait as having consequences limited to Kuwait; the Security Council rightly recognised that Saddam Hussein's behaviour had consequences far beyond Kuwait because it demonstrated his tendency to take up arms, to attack and threaten Iraq's neighbours and to destabilise an entire region.
The conclusion of the Kuwait crisis and the consequent ceasefire did not cancel out Resolution 678 and its twin objectives. On the contrary, the ceasefire was itself expressly conditional on Iraq's acceptance of a detailed programme of disarmament and United Nations supervision, which included strict time limits to which Saddam Hussein was obliged to adhere. This was all spelled out in paragraphs 8 to 13 of Security Council Resolution 687, which was adopted on 3rd April 1991.
The unanimous view of the Security Council is that Iraq has not complied with Resolution 687. Indeed, paragraph 1 of Resolution 1441 of 8th November 2002 records,
"that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687".
In other words, all member states are agreed that Iraq has not complied with the ceasefire conditions. Its failure to do so drives one to the conclusion that the Security Council has existing authority to achieve through alternative means the second objective of Resolution 678; namely, international peace and security. It has that authority because the ceasefire conditions set out in Resolution 687 were not met. The ceasefire failed to achieve the objective of restoring international peace and security and that objective remains to be satisfied.

95
This is not a new argument. It was used in 1993 and in 1998 to justify the use of force against Iraq in response to its then breaches of Resolution 687. In 1993 the then United Nations Secretary-General accepted that the use of force conformed to the resolutions of the Security Council and the United Nations charter.
That analysis is, I believe, confirmed by the plain text of Resolution 1441 itself. First, the provisions of this resolution are described in terms in paragraph 2 as Saddam Hussein's "final opportunity". A final opportunity means what it says. It is very simple language capable only of one construction. There is nothing more final than a final opportunity.
Secondly, by paragraph 12 of Resolution 1441, the Security Council decided to convene if the inspectors reported a failure by Saddam Hussein. This paragraph specifically does not provide that no action may be taken in response to any such failure unless and until a further resolution is obtained. On the contrary, paragraph 13 recalls that Iraq has been repeatedly warned that,
"it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations".
Serious consequences cannot mean that Iraq may merely expose itself to a further Security Council debate. The words "serious consequences" speak for themselves, especially when one bears in mind that Resolution 1441 is itself described as Saddam Hussein's "final opportunity".
The conclusion from all this is that there is an existing Security Council mandate for the use of force against Iraq if that is what is necessary to disarm Saddam Hussein and thereby achieve international peace and security. It may be politically desirable to obtain a further resolution from the Security Council, but that is another question.
I believe that similar arguments have been made by my noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith, the Attorney-General, and by my learned friend Christopher Greenwood QC, who is the distinguished Professor of International Law at the London School of Economics.
I have confined my arguments so far to the context and the construction of the relevant resolutions. There are, however, two further arguments. The first is that Chapter VII of the UN charter does not set out an exhaustive list of the circumstances in which it is lawful for member states to have recourse to force. NATO's intervention in Kosovo provides a recent and powerful precedent for the legality of the use of force in a situation not covered by Chapter VII. That point was fairly acknowledged by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, in his speech. The Kosovo intervention did not fall within that chapter because it was not specifically authorised by any Security Council resolution. It was none the less justified and, in my opinion, lawful because of the urgent need to provide humanitarian relief.
The humanitarian argument was supported by all parties, including especially the Liberal Democrats. They did not and do not suggest that the bombing of
96
Belgrade was in violation of international law. What this demonstrates is that international law cannot be rigidly confined to the straitjacket of Chapter VII but must take account of the varied and complex situations that the modern world throws up.
Whether or not there is a comparable humanitarian justification for intervention in Iraq is very much a factual question. In my view, it is impossible to doubt that there is a pressing humanitarian need to intervene. It is accepted by all that Saddam Hussein has used chemical weapons on his own people and the brutality of his regime is not in doubt.
Those who believe, as I do, that the use of military force is necessary, lawful and morally right must believe that they can justify their position to the families of innocent victims of that use of force. I believe that we can do so.
Some would stand by and say that there is nothing lawfully that can be done to remove the long-term threat that Saddam Hussein presents or to save the people of Iraq from him. They have to say that—particularly in the face of Mr. Chirac's stated position that France would veto any resolution, whatever the circumstances. But those who do stand by must be able to justify their position to the families of innocent victims as well—that is, the victims of Saddam Hussein. I do not believe that they will be able to do so. Those families will not begin to understand the legal arguments that were used to justify such a culpable failure to act.

Business of the House: Debates, 18th and 19th March
8.41 p.m.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, with permission, I wish to make a brief Statement about future business.
Tomorrow, the House will meet at the usual time. After Starred Questions and the Report stage of the Public Service (Disruption) Bill—to which no amendments have been tabled—my noble and learned friend the Leader of the House will move a Motion to take note of the Government's policy towards Iraq.
A list of speakers is now open in the Government Whips' Office. It will remain open until noon tomorrow, as usual. We will not seek to proceed tomorrow with the Northern Ireland Assembly Elections Bill or the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill.
If the House approves the Motion to be moved tomorrow, on Wednesday the first business after Questions will be the Second Reading of the Northern Ireland Assembly Elections Bill. The Public Bill Office will accept amendments from 10 a.m. tomorrow until 30 minutes after the end of the Second Reading debate on Wednesday. Then the House will proceed with the first of the two balloted debates, the remaining stages of the Bill, the second balloted debate and the Unstarred Question.

Iraq
8.42 p.m.
The Minister for Trade (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a Statement in respect of Iraq and the debate which will he held in this House tomorrow.
"As the House will be aware, in the Azores yesterday my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, President Bush, Prime Minister Aznar of Spain and Prime Minister Barroso of Portugal called on all members of the Security Council to adopt a resolution—which would have been its 18th on Iraq—to challenge Saddam to take a strategic decision to disarm his country of his weapons of mass destruction as required by SCR 1441.
"Such a resolution was never needed legally but we had a preference for it politically. There has been intense diplomatic activity over the past 24 hours to secure that end. Yesterday evening, our Ambassador to the United Nations, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, consulted his fellow permanent representatives from other Security Council member states. Only this morning, I spoke to my Spanish, American, Russian and Chinese counterparts.
"Despite those final efforts, I regret to say that we have reluctantly concluded that a Security Council consensus on a new resolution would not be possible. On my instructions, Sir Jeremy Greenstock made a public announcement to that effect at about 3.15 p.m. UK time today.
"What we know about the Iraqi regime's behaviour over many years is that there is the greatest chance of their finally responding to the obligations on them if they face a united Security Council. So, over the months since Resolution 1441 was unanimously adopted by the Security Council in early November, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and I and our ambassador to the United Nations have strained every nerve in search of the consensus that could finally persuade Iraq to provide the full and immediate co-operation demanded by the Security Council.
"In all the discussions in the Security Council and outside, no one has claimed that Iraq is in compliance with the obligations placed upon it. Given that, it was my belief that, up to about a week ago, we were close to achieving the consensus that we sought on a further resolution.
"Sadly, one country then ensured that the Security Council could not act. President Chirac's unequivocal announcement last Monday that France would veto a second resolution, 'whatever the circumstances', inevitably created a sense of futility in our negotiations. I deeply regret that France has put Security Council consensus beyond reach.
98
"The alternative proposals submitted by France, Germany and Russia for more time and more inspections carry no ultimatum and no threat of force. They do not implement Resolution 1441 but seek to rewrite it. To have adopted such proposals would have allowed Saddam to continue stringing out inspections indefinitely. He would rightly draw the lesson that the Security Council was not prepared to enforce the ultimatum which lies at the centre of Resolution 1441: that, in the event of non-compliance, Iraq should expect 'serious consequences'.
"As a result of Saddam Hussein's persistent refusal to meet the UN's demands, and the inability of the Security Council to adopt a resolution, the Cabinet has decided to ask the House to endorse the United Kingdom's participation in military operations with the objective of ensuring the disarmament of Iraq's weapons of mass destruct ion, and thereby the maintenance of the authority of the United Nations.
"From the outset of this crisis, the Government have promised that, if possible, the House would have the opportunity to debate our involvement in military action prior to the start of hostilities, and on a substantive Motion. The House will have that opportunity tomorrow. Copies of the Motion, proposed by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and Cabinet colleagues, have been placed in the Vote Office. I understand, Mr Speaker, that you will specify the time by which amendments must have been received. My honourable friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Privy Council Office will make a short Business Statement.
"To inform the debate, I have circulated several documents to all right honourable and honourable Members today. Those include a copy of the response from the Attorney-General to a Written Question, in which he sets out the legal basis for the use of force against Iraq, as well as a detailed briefing paper summarising the legal background, which I have also copied to the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee. I have also made available a note summarising Iraq's record of non-compliance with Resolution 1441. A Command Paper comprising key recent UN documents, including Dr Hans Blix's paper entitled, Unresolved Disarmament Issues: Iraq's Proscribed Weapons Programmes, which was published on 7th March, is available in the Vote Office.
"The debate tomorrow will be the most important in the House for many years. Some say that Iraq can be disarmed without an ultimatum, without the threat or use of force, but simply by more time and more inspections. That approach is defied by all our experience over 12 weary years. It cannot produce the disarmament of Iraq; it cannot rid the world of the danger of the Iraqi regime; it can only bring comfort to tyrants the world over, and emasculate the authority of the United Nations. It is for those reasons that we shall be asking the House to support the Government's Motion tomorrow".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
8.48 p.m.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement made by the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, which is sombre.
To use President Bush's phrase, the moment of truth has now arrived. Diplomacy—at least in relation to the issue of Iraq—has failed; and so has the UN process. It is clear that the will is simply not there in the United Nations to enforce its own stream of resolutions, about which we have heard during the debate that surrounds the Statement. In fact, by declaring its resolution to veto any resolution, France, our neighbour, has in effect pulled the plug on the United Nations process.
All this is deeply regrettable and we shall discuss it in detail tomorrow. There is room for criticism from these Benches on the handling of the situation, but this is now where we are. I should make it clear that we endorse the position that the Cabinet has taken and for which it seeks approval from the other place in a debate tomorrow.
I shall state the main issues for tomorrow—indeed, for all time. First, there is the legality question, which we are in the middle of debating in your Lordships' House. This ought to have been settled long before we reached the point at which the troops are going into action, which is about to happen. Resolution 687 laid down the ceasefire and the total defeat of Saddam. People forget how he was defeated. But the ceasefire conditions have all been broken. Sixteen other resolutions have also been defied, culminating in Resolution 1441.
I feel some unease—even regret—that the legal basis of this action is still being questioned in debate here tonight. The noble Lord, Lord Owen, said that it would send out a clear message, but I can tell him and others that this debate will settle nothing. As the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay, rightly observed, lawyers can go on disagreeing for ever, and they will do so. We are adding nothing to the certainty, and something to the uncertainty of the message going out from this nation. I hope, along with the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, that the Attorney-General will be here later to favour us with his thoughts following his Written Answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay of Cartvale. She made a superb speech to which I shall refer later. It would be a pleasant courtesy, if I may put it that way, if the Attorney-General were to join us. It would also be very helpful to the Government's case. We are left a little sore at how that matter has been handled.
Secondly, there is the issue of imminence and danger of a threat, which was not so much mentioned in the Foreign Secretary's Statement tonight. Obviously, it is the conviction of the Prime Minister, Mr Blair, which some of us share, that just ahead there is a dark rendezvous between fanaticism and weapons of mass destruction. It is difficult to prove, but I have to ask whether there is more evidence on that aspect that can be brought out in tomorrow's debate. There is no doubt that the presentation of the case for intervention has been poorly put forward until late in the day, which has added greatly to the tensions, difficulties
100
and divisions. I noted that the Foreign Secretary did not attempt to repeat the wider case for action in his Statement. Will the Prime Minister do so tomorrow?
Other issues include mending the divisions. Let us have something on that tomorrow. I and others will be putting forward some thoughts on the way in which to bind together all the terrible wounds that have been caused. I would caution against too much bashing of France or Germany. That is for the tabloids, not for statesmen. The ragings of Ministers, such as Mr Peter Hain, are something that the Government will live to regret when it comes to rebuilding European unity on new foundations and reconstructing the trans-Atlantic alliance.
There was no mention of Turkey in the Statement. What has gone wrong there? Will the Turkish allies co-operate with the United States, or will their doubts, which are democratically based, slow down the whole operation?
There was not much mention of Israel, which was certainly referred to in the Azores. What precisely are the next steps in reactivating the road map? What part will the United Kingdom be playing? What part will the Russians, who are members of the quartet, be playing? Should we now be thinking of a bigger world summit to get a combined approach, not just on Palestine but North Korea, Iran's illegal nuclear weapons and all sorts of other things? Can we be assured that these issues will be the context in which matters will be debated tomorrow?
There is very little time but we want to raise a whole other tranche of issues, such as the state of our Armed Forces, whether they have all the equipment that they need and the possible use of new and terrifying weapons like the thermobaric bomb, of which details are carried today in the International Herald Tribune. Some of these thoughts should be shared before we go much further.
In view of time and the need to get on with the debate, which addresses an important element of this issue. I conclude by saying that the best thing is to pray that the intervention will be swift; that casualties will be minimised; and that, whatever the doubts and fears, we will present the kind of national unity and solidarity, both in Parliament and in the Cabinet, which our troops deserve as they go about their awesome and challenging duties in the name of a better and safer world.
8.55 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. I shall be brief because we are in the middle of a debate which touches on some of these issues and we shall discuss them again tomorrow.
We recognise that the Statement brings diplomacy to an end and commits us to armed conflict. We on these Benches much regret the absence of a second resolution and we recall that only a week ago the Prime Minister was strongly committed to a second resolution. We note that it was not only the French Government who made that impossible; the British

101
and Americans failed to persuade a clear majority of the Security Council, even without the prospect of a French veto, that the action was justifiable. There has been a failure of diplomacy—sadly, a failure of American diplomacy in particular.
We on these Benches recognise the efforts that all Members of Her Majesty's Government have made over the past few months to maintain a balance between European and American approaches to the issue and a multilateral approach to it. As I shall comment later, some of us fear that the United States and Britain are entering an armed conflict with different underlying objectives.
I note the declaration, and I thank the Government for providing a number of supporting documents, from the summit in the Azores. It remarked that our alliance rests on a common commitment to democracy, freedom and the rule of law. It repeats the blurring of the distinction between the problem of Iraq and the longer and wider-term conflict against terrorism. We note that it reaffirms the vision of Middle East peace. I wish that I did not so heavily suspect that that appears because Her Majesty's Government asked the Americans to include it, but that the American Government are not fully committed to a vision of Middle East peace. That is one of the issues that greatly concerns these Benches.
We note the reference to maintaining—and, we hope, strengthening—the authority of the United Nations. Our concern about the current action is that we risk weakening the authority of the United Nations. We therefore greatly hope that the conflict to which we are now committed will be as short and as bloodless as possible; that on the conclusion of the conflict Her Majesty's Government will do their utmost to put the United Nations back in the middle of resolving the outcome of the conflict; and that they will do their best to bring European governments back together in their approach to the broader problem of security and peace in the Middle East as a whole. In that I strongly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford.
8.58 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Howell of Guildford and Lord Wallace of Saltaire, for their receipt of the Statement. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, is right in saying that it is a sombre Statement. Who could fail to agree with that? We are all facing a difficult moment and, sadly, I must agree with his point about France's position. I do so not in a raging way, as he indicated others have done, and not in a sense of bashing anyone, but very sadly.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, pointed to some of the issues we shall be debating tomorrow, but I believe that the legality of the position is indeed settled. I do not think we have ever had such a clear statement from the Attorney-General at a juncture like this. As the noble Lord cited to me, the Attorney-General's advice has been exposed before in relation to the Maastricht Treaty. However. the present situation relates not to a
102
treaty which has been signed but, first, to continuing international negotiations and, now, the very real and terrible possibility of war. I believe that this Government have gone further than any other Government to put that advice into the public arena, and the Law Officer with principal responsibility has given a clear statement of his opinion.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, that there are so many opinions that it would take years to litigate. I suspect that that statement is likely to excite relish and gloom in equal measure on the part of your Lordships, but I am bound to say that, as we have seen already this evening, there will always be a variety of opinions on these issues.
I heard what the noble Lord, Lord Howell, said about more evidence in respect of tomorrow's debate. However. I remind him that we have already put into the public arena a full history of the United Nations Security Council resolutions, starting with 660 and going through the 17 relevant resolutions. That is in Command Paper 5769. We have also published a detailed statement on the legal basis—a fuller statement than that which my noble and learned friend gave in answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay of Cartvale. There are other documents, including that which contains Dr. Hans Blix's comments on the unresolved disarmament issue. So a range of documentation is available to your Lordships on this issue.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, said that a week ago the Prime Minister was strongly committed to this second resolution—or, indeed, the eighteenth resolution, as it should more accurately be described. I am bound to say that I thought that the noble Lord. uncharacteristically, did not completely hear what I said regarding the statement and how we had thought those votes were secure. If the noble Lord does not want to take it from me, he can take it from our ambassador to the United Nations, Sir Jeremy Greenstock. My noble friend Lady Amos has worked tirelessly with the three African countries and there were also exchanges with our friends in Latin America. But I am afraid that the bald and sad position is that the unequivocal statement from President Chirac that he would veto the resolution whatever the circumstances, no matter what it said, demonstrated the futility of those negotiations with other countries. I am afraid that in doing that, France put a consensus on this issue beyond reach.
The noble Lord said that he suspects American motives about what has been said over the publication of the road map and the Middle East peace process. We will have to see. I hope that the road map is published. I have been answering questions in your Lordships' House on the Middle East peace process for many weeks; I have gone on and on, probably to the irritation of some of your Lordships, about how important it is that the road map is published. I, for one, greeted the statement from the United States on that point last week with very great pleasure, and I look forward to the publication of the road map in due course. But as the noble Lord, Lord Howell of' Guildford, reminded us, we will have an opportunity

103
to debate all these issues fully tomorrow. I do not suppose any of us look forward to that debate but I am sure all of us will take it very seriously.
9.3 p.m.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. I hope that this House, while tonight disunited on semantic matters of international law, will be fully united in its support for the Armed Forces involved in any conflict against Iraq. Can the Minister confirm that the strategic objectives are agreed with the United States Government? Will she spell out those objectives for the record? Will she confirm that our forces and those of the United States have been given the same directives for military action?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, of course I agree with the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, about support for our Armed Forces. Whatever our differences in the House, and they have been ably demonstrated this evening, if we come to the point of military conflict, I am sure the House will be united in supporting our brave service people overseas.
The noble and gallant Lord asked me about strategic objectives and about sharing those with the United States of America. Although we are now on the brink of a situation where military conflict looks almost inevitable, I am not yet in a position to expose to your Lordships the strategic objectives. I hope that we shall be able to do that properly in a debate tomorrow and to satisfy some of the questions that the noble and gallant Lord raised. I hope that he will bear with the Government Benches for a few more hours. I hope that we shall be able to satisfy his questions in the debate tomorrow. I agree that they are very important issues.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I hope that I may ask the noble Baroness a question that I asked in both the previous debates on Iraq to which she responded. I repeat it as I should really like to know the answer. In assessing the threats to international peace and security posed by alternative courses of action, how far have the Government considered not merely events inside Iraq but also events across the Middle East, across the Muslim world and across the world as a whole? If they have seriously considered that wider context, will they be prepared to share some of their thoughts with us either today or tomorrow?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, of course, the noble Earl must know that a responsible government in considering whether or not to embark upon military action must look at all the exigencies and all the possibilities of that military action. Papers are being circulated. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Bach has seen papers in the MoD and I have seen papers in the Foreign Office which consider all the possibilities of what might happen—the terrible "what if?" papers. Of course, any responsible government would do that.
104
The noble Earl asks how far we are able to share those thoughts. I am bound to say to the noble Earl that we come, as we often do on these matters, to the great difficulty of my having to say to your Lordships that it is really impossible to discuss these matters openly in public, not because I do not want to share thoughts with the noble Earl, Lord Russell, but because I do not want to share them with a potential enemy. To discuss publicly what the eventualities may be supposing one side decides to up the ante by the use of certain weapons or the movement of troops in a certain way and the consequences of what might happen in those circumstances, which is really what we are talking about here, and not only that, but also what might happen to political relationships in the Middle East, to all the countries of the Gulf and the immediate neighbours of Iraq, Iran and Turkey—we can all think these things through, as I am sure the noble Earl has done—is not in the interests, as I am sure the noble Earl if he thinks about this will agree, of the safety of the people about whom we must care most now. I refer to our own troops in the Gulf and, of course, to those innocent people in Iraq whom we do not want to become the innocent victims of war but who, sadly, as is always the case, inevitably do suffer in such circumstances. We do not want to make their position any worse.
Lord Elton: My Lords, will it, by contrast, be possible tomorrow to be rather more explicit about what Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States intend to happen when they have secured Iraq in the matter of re-establishing its coherent independence and the well-being of its people?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I believe that we can be more explicit about that. I can already tell the noble Lord that we believe that the territorial integrity of Iraq must be maintained. We believe that the Iraqi people themselves, in consultation with the international community, should generate ideas for the future political arrangements in Iraq. We also expect a successor regime to be a significant improvement on the existing one in terms of good governance and in terms of respect for human rights as well as in terms of its willingness to comply with its international obligations. We also hope and believe that the United Nations must be at the centre of any transitional administration in Iraq. I believe that that is enormously important. I hope that that concentration on the United Nations will answer some of the doubts that I know many of your Lordships have about what might happen in a period immediately after a military conflict.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, although I appreciate the views of those on our Front Bench when they refer to "us on these Benches", does the noble Baroness understand that I and a considerable number of other people agree with the Government and the

105
Prime Minister and the actions they have taken? We wish him and the Government every success in the very difficult circumstance in which we are at the moment.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. That does not come as a surprise to me, because he has talked to me about the issues. What he says demonstrates that the issue cuts across all parties. The government party is not of one mind over it. I understand that those on the Conservative Benches are not of one mind, and it comes as no surprise that the Liberal Democrats are not all of one mind either. I simply hope to reiterate what the noble and gallant Lord said a few moments ago, which was that, if we sadly embark on military action, there will be no division among noble Lords in the support that goes out to our troops overseas.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, is it the intention that there will be a vote at the conclusion of tomorrow's debate in this House?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: No, my Lords, there is no such intention.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that there has been ample demonstration so far this evening that there is a legal base for what we are about to do? In any case, we have troops sitting in the Gulf. The longer time passes, the more danger to their lives. This is becoming a serious issue which we cannot ignore. It has also rightly been said that many people inside Iraq long to be liberated. What we are doing is exactly what the UN ought to do.
The United Nations would be deeply discredited if we were not to take action and pursue the proper and right goal, which the Prime Minister and the President have initiated. Great patience has been displayed, almost too much, in order to defer to the tender consciences of many people whom I contend have not thought about the actual need of Iraq to be liberated.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I agree that there is a legal base. It has been amply demonstrated by my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General. We know what it is right to do, not only legally but in respect of weapons of mass destruction.
The noble Baroness makes a very powerful point about many people in Iraq itself. Those people could not have a debate such as this. Only last week I read an appalling account of someone who had suggested that the best thing for Iraq might be to see the back of Saddam Hussein. That person died in a very public and horrible way. I am sure that many noble Lords will have read that account.
There are those in the region who also believe that action needs to be taken. I spoke with representatives of many of the Gulf states only a couple of weeks ago when I was in the Gulf. They made their views very clear. Of course they are not necessarily happy to do so
106
very publicly, but I assure noble Lords that for many of them the removal of Saddam Hussein has become a matter of real urgency.
I am sure that our troops will acquit themselves well. We do not want them to tire in the Gulf, of course, but we had to do what we have done. The noble Baroness talked about tender consciences. It was right that we pursued every option as much as we did. The Prime Minister's judgment was right that we should have been seen to exhaust all the possibilities. We can only regret that consensus was put beyond our reach.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, were the Government able to command a majority in the Security Council for the 18th resolution, regardless of the position of France? The burden of blame appears to be placed entirely on France. One wonders whether the Government were satisfied that all the other members of the Security Council were on board.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I believe that that point was covered by my right honourable friend's Statement, which I repeated. But, for the sake of clarity, perhaps I may say it again.
"Given that, it was my belief" —
that is, my right honourable friend's belief, and he is a good and truthful man—
"that up to about a week ago, we were close to achieving the consensus that we sought on a further resolution".
The noble Lord can talk to my noble friend Lady Amos about her conclusions. She has visited the three states in Africa which are on the Security Council.
However, when the noble Lord implies that we were somehow unreasonable in what we said about Iraq, I am bound to say to him that the statement that there would be a veto on the resolution, whatever the circumstances, was very final. It was not that there would be a veto as the resolution stood or that we could talk about it but we might have to think about the use of the veto. It was an absolute statement that there would be a veto, whatever the circumstances. I am not entirely sure how the noble Lord can argue that that does not mean that the door was closed on negotiations.

Iraq: Legality of Armed Force
9.15 p.m.
Debate resumed.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords, my first point is that the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General does not seek to justify the use of force by the United Kingdom on the ground that Iraq presents an immediate threat to the United Kingdom and that we are therefore entitled to defend ourselves under Article 51 by a pre-emptive strike. Secondly, he does not seek to justify the use of force on the ground of an impending humanitarian catastrophe of the kind

107
which was said by some to have justified our actions over Kosovo. Nowhere does he mention the word "genocide".
So far, I find myself in complete agreement with the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General in what he does not say. It means that much of what has been urged in previous debates on Iraq in this House and in the press is no longer in point so far as concerns lawfulness. Surely we must now concentrate on the arguments on which the Government are presumably relying.
Therefore, instead of the wider arguments, many of which, I accept, involve difficult questions of international law, the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General has, for reasons of his own which must seem good to him, confined himself to a single, fairly narrow point—that the use of force has been authorised by the United Nations. I say at once that I find that argument unconvincing and I hope to say why in a very few sentences.
When we went to war in 1990, we were authorised to use force in the clearest possible terms. Resolution 678 refers to "all necessary means", and we all know what that means. By contrast, nothing could be less clear than Resolution 1441. That must surely have been one of the reasons, if not the main reason—I accept that it may not have been the only one—that we have tried so hard to obtain a second resolution.
If Resolution 1441 was intended to provide the authority contained in Resolution 678, which now appears to be the main argument, why, I ask, does it not say so in express terms? Why does it refer instead to "serious consequences"? Any lawyer will tell you that if you use two different expressions in a single document or in a series of connected documents, they will be taken to mean two different things.
Therefore, why does Resolution 1441 refer only to "serious consequences"? I suggest that the answer is obvious. Resolution 1441 was a compromise. When I suggested that in the course of the debate last week, the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, was good enough—or, at any rate, was inclined—to agree that Resolution 1441 was a compromise. I refer noble Lords to col. 1144 of the Official Report of 10th March 2003. She went on to say that she believed that the countries which signed up to Resolution 1441 did not have much doubt as to what "serious consequences" meant. On that, with great respect, I beg to differ. If Resolution 1441 had authorised the use of force in the event of any further material breach, it is clear to me that it would never have been agreed; and the proof of that pudding is in the eating. The countries which would have opposed Resolution 1441 if it had contained any teeth are the very countries which have made it impossible now to secure the second resolution.
It is difficult for me to imagine that any of the countries which signed up to "serious consequences" thought that those words authorised use of force or in some way revived the previous authority to use force which had been contained back in 1990. There is a reason for saying that. The construction of Resolution
108
1441 is itself inconsistent with any such argument. One has only to look at paragraph 12 which states that if there should be any further material breach the Security Council will meet again "to consider the situation". That hardly sounds like a call to arms. Yet the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General says that in some way paragraph 12 supports his argument. I cannot see how. He says that it shows that the Security Council had already decided back in 1990 what to do in the event of a further breach. I regard that argument as quite unreal and it appears contrary to the understanding at the time of our own ambassador, Sir Jeremy Greenstock.
Resolution 678 authorised the use of force in the immediate aftermath of the invasion of Kuwait and its clear purpose was to compel Iraqi forces to withdraw. It is the only resolution which has ever referred to the use of force. It succeeded in its objective. I simply cannot read it, even by implication, as authorising the use of force 13 years later in the event of a failure by Iraq to disarm, especially when that earlier resolution is read in the light of Resolution 1441 which seems to negative any such implication.
The debate no longer involves any difficult questions of international law. It is simply a question of the meaning of ordinary English words contained in the two resolutions. With the great respect for the Attorney-General which one must have, I find it impossible as at present advised to accept his argument—although, like others, I hope very much that he will come to support his arguments in this House. I greatly regret reaching such an unpalatable view especially in the light of the powerful arguments advanced by my noble friend Lord Owen and repeated to some extent by the noble Lord, Lord Howell. The strict question before us at the moment is limited to the lawfulness in international law of what we propose to do and I have to express the position as I see it.
9.24 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, the lawyers have spoken. We have heard eight lawyers during 13 speeches. My noble friend Lord Rea and I are not lawyers. When I read the Motion, I thought that we were going to discuss not Iraq but the general proposition about the obligations of the UK under international law. I went home with several books and worked hard over the weekend. I could have saved myself the bother. Everything I wanted to say has already been said much better than I could have said it.
From the debate tonight and having read the judgment of the Attorney-General—with which I concur—all I can say, in the words of a Foreign Office document from 1984, is that the subject under discussion,
"cannot be said to be unambiguously illegal".
That is about the most sound judgment I can come to and all I can say on the legal situation.
I make one point in connection with what was said by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Salisbury. He asked what kind of world we want to live in. He said we live in a global village. Do we not want the rule

109
of law? Do we not want peace and security? But when people say that they live in a village, they must have in mind a very different village from that which I am used to. Their village must be modern; British suburbia with everyone driving into town in a Mercedes-Benz on roughly equal incomes, whereas I think of villages as theatres of conflict and division.
If I was living in a village and knew that domestic violence was taking place in a nearby household, would I say, "That is nothing to do with me. Existing law says we shall not interfere with family life"? Or would I say that all decent people ought to intervene in such a situation if we want a decent world? As I have said before, I am not worried whether or not Saddam has weapons of mass destruction and threatens us. I have always been more worried that he threatens his own people.
In international law aggression can only be committed by one country against another. In international law a country cannot commit aggression against its own people. The whole international law is based on a notion of sovereignty of the state, which I find offensive if not immoral. Many crimes are being committed every day, not just in Iraq, Iran or China, but by governments of countries which are supposed to be legally sovereign. They can do whatever they like to their own people and all we are supposed to say is, "But the law says you cannot do that".
United Nations Article 2(4) does not allow the use of force unless it is self-defence or collective defence. Thankfully the world has ignored that kind of injunction and gone on happily—or unhappily as the case may be—to make a number of interventions whether or not the United Nations allows it. When India intervened in East Pakistan in 1971 to prevent what West Pakistan was doing to the people of Bangladesh, its actions were illegal. The General Assembly condemned India for that. I say, "Tough". It was the right thing to do. We have seen a number of other acts like that, Kosovo being the most recent one. We also went into Sierra Leone.
I ask myself whether I want the ideal law as it is enshrined in a hook, or can I reduce human misery by an act of aggression, which may be illegal but may be just? There is law and there is justice, and I am not sure that they always agree with each other—of course, I speak as a non-lawyer.
We place the United Nations on a big pedestal as if this was an ideal world. It is the only thing we have, but we had better cast a cold, critical look at what the United Nations has done. Way back in 1970—I have to show off all the hard work I have done—in the American Journal of International Law, an article entitled, "Who killed Article 2(4)?" stated:
"The practice of these states has so severely shattered [mutual confidence in] … the precepts of Article 2(4),
which prohibits the use of force,
"that … only the words remain. In the twenty-five years since the San Francisco Conference, there have been some one hundred separate outbreaks of hostilities between the states".
That was in 1970.
110
In a sense, if anything Kosovo more or less put an end to any pretence. It is rather like prohibition in Pakistan. You cannot drink if you are an ordinary citizen, but if you go to the house of a Minister you can always get a good drink. There is the law, and I here is compliance with the law, and those who can get away with it do not comply with it.
We must stop pretending that the United Nations works as we think it should. We must replace what we would like the world to be with how the world is. A charter which forbids something and which has been seriously violated over the past 58 years must have something wrong with it. A number of times when it has been violated the results have been good. I ask why that is the case.
When we went into Kosovo, in the words of Javier Solana in the European Council statement of 25th March 1999, the justification was:
"It cannot be permitted that in the middle of Europe the predominant population of Kosovo is collectively deprived of its rights and subjected to grave human rights abuses".
If it cannot be permitted in the middle of Europe, why can it be permitted in the Middle East? Are they not the same as us? In the words of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Salisbury, are 'we not in the same village? If we are, it is our duty to act.
9.32 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, in the run up to this debate I had done a considerable amount of homework on the legal issues surrounding SCR 1441 and whether it alone or together with previous resolutions constituted a legal case to launch military action. But, coming last, all my points have been made very well by a galaxy of legal talent. Suffice it to say that by my count the balance of legal opinion expressed tonight in your Lordships' House believes by a score of six to two that there is not an adequate legal basis for the military action that now seems inevitable. Therefore, they do not agree with the opinion of the Attorney-Generah who has found himself with a rather difficult brief.
Several noble Lords have pointed out that Kofi Annan, the Secretary-General of the UN, has made it clear that to launch military action without a further resolution would be outside the terms of the UN charter. We should remember that the USA and the UK were both instrumental in drawing up that charter in 1945. Unfortunately, the decision taken in the Azores yesterday means that we are almost certainly going to war without a further resolution. That will be because of the unilateral decision of the present US administration to attack now rather than wait for the few further months that Hans Blix says he needs to complete his work. The military build up of the past few months has gathered its own momentum, seemingly as if discussions at the Security Council were not taking place at the same time. In the Security Council the USA has used every critical word from Hans Blix about any Iraqi reluctance to co-operate as a justification to use force urgently to disarm Iraq and has not seemed to hear his words reporting considerable progress and increasing co-operation.

111
Prodigious efforts by Sir Jeremy Greenstock, by the Prime Minister, by the Foreign Secretary and by my noble friend Lady Amos to persuade or to entice other members of the Security Council to support the second resolution giving the go ahead for early military action have failed. Those nations do not perceive any Iraqi threat as imminent or dangerous—if they see a threat at all—and wish to allow more time for the inspectors. The arrogance of the current US administration in pushing ahead regardless is breathtaking.
It has been a tragic mistake to nail our colours so firmly to the US mast, as quite apart from failing to avert what will be a very destructive war, our reputation as an upholder of international law is likely from now on to be tarnished. It is just possible that if at an early stage we had withheld our military support from the Americans, as we did in the Vietnam War, they might have thought twice about going alone. But even if war had still occurred we would have earned an enhanced international reputation for dissociating ourselves from what many feel is an illegal act. Whether the UN can rescue any continuing credibility after this fiasco is doubtful. But that may not matter to the Americans who in any case treat the UN with disdain, despite its building forming a prominent part of the New York skyline.
I think it is very sad that the Prime Minister did not listen to some older and wiser advisers, let alone the opinion of his own people, before committing the UK to following the current American agenda so closely. I am thinking here of some very distinguished and senior people indeed, who sit in your Lordships' House such as the noble and gallant Lord. Lord Bramall, former chief of the defence staff, the noble Lord, Lord Hurd of Westwell, distinguished former Foreign Secretary or the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond, former head of the Foreign Office. All of them and many others of great eminence have spoken or written warning of the dangers ahead. The noble Lord, Lord Hurd, wrote in Friday's Evening Standard, suitably diplomatically of course:
"On balance I believe that a pre-emptive war against Iraq would be wrong and in the long term unwise".
I repeat that he said it would be wrong and in the long term unwise. He added:
"But once British forces are in action the position changes for me … At that point people like me shut up and hope that our fears were misguided. Two days ago I lit a candle for peace in Durham Cathedral. It seemed that afternoon the most sensible thing to do".
I am afraid that I cannot follow the noble Lord and shut up, although I shall not criticise the Armed Forces. They have been given a dangerous job to do and I am sure that as always they will do it efficiently and as humanely as any military operation can be done. My main concern has been and will continue to be that the humanitarian operation that follows the fighting will be carried out equally efficiently; the Iraqi people have already suffered enough, from past wars, from sanctions and from Saddam Hussein's regime. But that is for another debate on another day.
9.38 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, we shall return to this subject tomorrow so noble Lords will view this debate as part of moving from a discussion of what needs to be done to a discussion of the context in which action is now to be taken. The noble Lord, Lord Owen, who I am sorry to see is not in his place, said powerfully at the beginning of his speech that ideally there should be no doubt as to the legality and the legitimacy of the action that British troops are called upon to take. He made the powerful comparison with Suez, which for many noble Lords was the beginning of their political engagement. We are now going to war. Sadly, doubt remains about the legality and the legitimacy of the action.
A great many respectable, honest lawyers, politicians and informed members of the public remain unconvinced. Our Prime Minister has spoken of the importance "of a firm legal basis" for action. President Bush has spoken of the importance of carrying the international community with us. Neither of those have been carried. Their support has not been won. At the brink of war our arguments have to stop. We have to hope for the most rapid and happy conclusion of the conflict. We recognise the viciousness of the Iraqi regime, and the desirability not only of its disarmament, but of a change of regime for the benefit of its people.
We recognise that the United Nations Security Council has been seized of this issue for nearly 13 years. However, we also recognise that a doctrine of permissible regime change is a radical departure from international law, on which the international community is not yet agreed. A campaign to democratise the entire Middle East, which is part of the underlying rationale for American action, is not one which even the democratic world as a whole, let alone non-democratic states, are yet persuaded to support. Why then have the majority of the UN Security Council, and the majority of international lawyers, remained unpersuaded?
As several participants in this debate have said, Resolution 1441 was unanimous. However, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, remarked, it was achieved by compromise and by requiring a report back to the Security Council. There was very careful drafting. The commitment was to inspections. The resolution established an inspection regime with the threat of force behind it, which is now under way. Those inspections have not yet been completed, and nor have they failed. The inspectors have not reported back to the Security Council that they have definitively failed. They have been proceeding with relative, though not yet complete, success.
The attempts to resurrect Resolution 678 from before the last Gulf War, cannot obscure that. Resolution 1441 superseded 678, 687 and the many others. We all share a common commitment to the importance of the structure of international law and its institutions, which has managed to civilise the international society of states. It is the legacy of efforts by Dutch, Swiss, British, French

113
and American lawyers, politicians and diplomats over the past 150 years. As I teach international institutions, I recognise the particular importance of the American contribution to this construction. That included, above all, President Franklin D. Roosevelt's immense contribution in the last years of the last war and, in the end, America's sponsorship and design of the United Nations and the other agencies of the UN family.
The UN remains an imperfect body. It is still a very fragile body. Nevertheless, around that has been built a complex fabric of international law and international conventions. Our shared aim must be to strengthen this fragile construction, and to weave more threads into the fabric, not to weaken or to tear it. We must not damage what has been woven together so far. I am persuaded that the Government intend to strengthen it. Sadly, I am not persuaded that the current US Administration shares that objective.
That is partly why we have ended up in the situation that we are now in. We have an Administration which, before they had won the election, were talking about reducing American observance of the structure of international law and conventions; an Administration which, when they came into power, withdrew from several international conventions—including agreements on arms control—and refused to accept several more; we have an Administration which, since September 11th, have breached the Geneva convention on the treatment of prisoners in a number of ways. There is the extraordinary legal limbo of Guantanamo Bay; we heard yet again last week a series of well-sourced allegations in the American press of the mistreatment and torture of prisoners at Bagram; and I remind the Minister of the repetition in the reports in the American press last week that that is also taking place on British territory in Diego Garcia.
There are deeply divided counsels within the US Administration. Again this is a part of the problem as we face the situation we are now in. We have the most bitterly divided US Administration as our partner, with some senior officials dismissing the UN, NATO and international law as such. Calls on the United Nations to "face up to its responsibilities" as the US alone defines those responsibilities are not helpful. I regret that our Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, has repeated that statement, that demand, in those exact terms.
The US Administration have slipped in terms of their rationale from disarmament to regime change, sliding from a war on terrorism to a very different war on Iraq; sliding from a war on Iraq itself to the objective of remaking the entire Middle East within an American-led framework; and responding very differently to the far more imminent threat from North Korea.
The legality of the conflict must come under Article 42 of the UN Charter and not under Article 51. There is no imminent threat from Iraq to either the United States or Britain which justifies our action. There is a potential threat to Iraq's neighbours, even to Israel, but not to us— unless one accepts the accusation of Paul Wolfowitz and others that the war on Iraq is exactly the same as the war on terrorism, and we have no evidence that that is so.
114
Article 42 seeks,
"to maintain and restore international peace and securaty".
So, for that, we need a regional approach clearly under multilateral auspices with the support of other states within the region—unless Her Majesty's Government were to accept the view of the neo-conservative right in the United States that the whole of the Middle East, except Israel, is corrupt and needs to be reshaped, with most of its regimes overthrown. That suggests that we are going to change the regimes of some 10 to 20 member states of the United Nations.
Kofi Annan said very clearly that,
"If the United States and others were to go outside the Security Council and take unilateral action they would not be in conformity with the charter".
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Desai, that sometimes it may be necessary for states to act outside the charter when they are persuaded, as the Indians were in what is now Bangladesh, that their actions are justified even though the rest of the world does not wish to pay attention to what is happening locally. The question for us is whether this action is justified and whether or not the rest of the world is prepared to take its responsibilities seriously.
As we have heard, international law is an imperfect instrument and the UN has many flaws, but legality and legitimacy matter. We are now committed to the conflict, unfortunately without a consensus and without persuading the international community. So we have to underline, first, the importance of international law in the conflict, as my noble friend Lord Lester said, proportionate force, care of civilians and proper treatment of prisoners. Secondly, we have to underline the UN framework for post-war reconstruction and for regional settlement, and, lastly. an emphasis on strengthening international law and institutions—regionally the EU, and globally the UN.
9.50 p.m.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, who proposed this Motion, on one thing at least. It is embodied in the question: where is the Attorney-General? We admire him and are rather proud that he is a Member of your Lordships' House. On such an occasion as this, I would have hoped that he would be able to join us. We know that he is a vastly able person, and fully able—I am sure—to prevent having wormed out of him any properly confidential advice that he has given to the Government. But it is a disappointment. I said that earlier and I say it again.
As to the debate itself, it is customary in all debates to say how timely they are. But, as I hinted in an earlier response to the Statement, the timeliness of this debate does not overwhelm me at all. It seems rather pointless at this late stage to go on questioning legality. It just prolongs arguments which ought to have been closed, at the very moment when our troops are standing by for action in difficult circumstances in the desert. Anyway we know—and all the distinguished lawyers who have spoken know—that all these arguments will

115
always be challengeable and open to question. There will always be legal experts ready to question whatever conclusion is reached.
So, despite what the noble Lord, Lord Owen, was saying about how he hoped the message would go out from this debate, my fear is that the message—if anything at all leaks out of this debate from your Lordships' House, which is not usual—will be thoroughly confusing and not particularly helpful to the position that we have reached and which we have to resolve with determination and, one hopes, with some national unity.
I am very much at one with the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay of Cartvale, that if there is one clear rule of international law, it is that international lawyers always disagree. Even this evening, the party of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, the Liberal Democrats, seemed to disagree with each other. We have heard one comment of dissent. The noble Baroness rightly said that all our parties have dissenters in them on this very complex issue. But here was the eminently sensible Menzies Campbell MP—an old acquaintance whom I much admire—clearly stating back in September, that,
"legally, no resolution is required for the use of force to implement resolution 687".
Yet, the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, this evening said the exact opposite. I must confess that the whole position of the Liberal Democrats on this issue is bewildering. They say that action will be illegal but they say they will support the troops who presumably they regard as fighting illegally. I do not understand how those two positions can be held at once. Perhaps on second thoughts I do because the confusion is forgivable. Why? It is forgivable because we are operating in wholly new and unfamiliar circumstances, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, argued with great authority, which he certainly possesses.
As the US national security strategy pointed out last November, while there is nothing new about the legitimacy of pre-emptive strikes—those have been argued for by scholars, theologians and others down the ages—the concept has always been associated in the past with the other concept of "imminent threat". What now has to be adapted is that latter concept in the age of global terrorism, where the whole idea of imminent threat being armies massed to attack is displaced by far more amorphous, diaphanous and difficult threats which have to be analysed and foreseen rather than patiently waited for until they inflict murder and mayhem, as happened in September a year ago in New York. I can understand why some lawyers are confused because they have not yet perceived that the world is an entirely changed place and that the nature of "imminent threats" has changed as well.
On the narrower issue of the legality of intervention in Iraq, the basic contention that disarmament by force is legal seems irrefutable. We have heard from the Attorney-General and from US legal authorities. I took the trouble to consult over the weekend and my
116
suspicions were fully confirmed. They were extremely strong in their argument. We have heard from numerous legal experts on both sides of the Atlantic.
All agree that Articles 51 and 42—which say that the UN may take such action by air, sea and land forces as may be necessary to restore international peace and security—the reinforcement given by the phrase "all necessary means" in Resolution 678 that we have all quoted at each other this evening; and the combination of Resolutions 678 and 687 and a string of further resolutions leading to Resolution 1441 establish beyond doubt the legal nature of any intervention.
The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, gave his own criteria in a clear and telling speech the other night. As well as the universal acceptance of the doctrine of humanitarian war—which is new to the global scene—they seem to underpin the same view. The well-documented genocide of the Marsh Arabs is a cut-and-dried case. Genocide has been committed. Humanitarian intervention is the custom of the age. To me, that is the end of the matter.
The interventions in the 1990s, when President Clinton was in office and cruise missiles rained down on Iraq, was fully justified and supported by the resolutions that are now being called upon. The noble Lord, Lord Grabiner, is so right when he says that one must consider the full context, not just the narrow niceties—although I can see that great legal minds focus on such matters.
The real issue is no longer legality. Although that is important, that argument is either over or will never be decided and will go on for ever. The issue is the nature of the threat. Does one believe, as I certainly do, that ahead there is a crossroads, a fatal rendezvous, where fanaticism and weapons of mass destruction will meet—and where not only our interests in the Middle East region but here on UK soil could and would be directly assaulted?
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, who is an enormous authority on international affairs, dismissed that point, as many of his colleagues have done again and again. But those who have to take political decisions and lead nations are not in a position to dismiss those questions. Professor Christopher Greenwood, a professor of law whose views have already been mentioned, recently told the Foreign Affairs Select Committee in another place that the gravity of a threat must be taken into account—that is, the nature of nuclear or biological attack and the methods of delivery, which these days might be completely clandestine. He wisely added that the judgment of whether such a threat exists lies with governments, not lawyers.
If war is illegal, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and his colleagues seem to imply, what is the attitude of the International Criminal Court'? The noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, made his usual perceptive comments about the conduct of the war. If it is believed that the war will be illegal, will actions taken during that war by leaders or the rank and file become war crimes? Incidentally, I understand that ICC crimes have been adjusted. I learnt that only by chance. The

117
crime of aggression has had its jurisdiction deferred while lawyers try to define what it means. If that is correct, we should know a little more about it; in fact we should be told about it.
There remain a long list of war crimes on the statute hook. Is it proposed that our soldiers be judged against those? Are those issues on which it would have been helpful for the Attorney-General to disentangle the complex questions involved?
Diplomacy has failed, in this instance, as has the UN process. As I said, the will to enforce the resolutions is not present. That is deeply regrettable, and the situation could have been better handled. I am tempted to agree with the observations of my noble and learned friend Lord Howe of Aberavon that there was a danger in calling the situation a war, when in fact it is a disarming and cleaning-up operation—a determination to free the world from a poisonous virus that has been polluting the whole Middle East—and that that would have been a better description and might have led to lower and more realistic expectations.
Tomorrow we will debate the whole issue and will also debate how, despite the errors and blunders, a new and better foundation for European advance and transatlantic relations can be built on all the divisions and tensions.
Meanwhile, as I said, France has pulled the plug on the United Nations. A second resolution is impossible, so there is plainly a right to go ahead without what is unattainable. The right to go ahead remains, and the exercise of that right is a matter for political decision, not for lawyers. I agree with Professor Greenwood about that. The decision that has now been made is wise, lawful and opens a better chance of peace in a hideously dangerous world.
10.1 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, for initiating this debate and thank all your Lordships for your manner of participation in our debate.
Last Thursday, in answering a Question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, I reminded your Lordships that, by long-standing convention, followed by successive governments and reflected in the ministerial code, legal advice to the Government remains confidential. That convention is confirmed in page 389 of Erskine May.
I am sorry that the noble Lords, Lord Goodhart and Lord Howell, were somewhat niggardly in their approbation of my noble and learned friend's statement. The Attorney-General has been more open-handed than any of his predecessors in publishing his advice in the way that he has. Furthermore, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has also tried to help your Lordships by circulating a further paper.
In recognition of the enormous importance of this issue, my noble and learned friend has decided to disclose his view of the legal basis for the use of military force. As I said, that is almost unprecedented. The last time that a Law Officer's views were disclosed
118
concerned the Maastricht Treaty in 1992. It is right that what has happened today remains the exception rather than the rule.
Many shades of opinion have been expressed this evening both among noble Lords who are lawyers and those of us who are not. I remind my noble friend Lord Rea that although my noble and learned friend may take a different view from several of your Lordships, he has had access to all the relevant documents. That fact must be borne in mind.
My noble friend Lady Ramsay of Cartvale explained that she is not a lawyer. Nor am I, but the position before us is relatively clear and the basis of our legal view is fairly plain and straightforward.
The legal basis for any military action that might be taken against Iraq would be the authorisation which the Security Council, by its Resolution 678, in 1990, gave to member states to use all necessary means restore international peace and security in the area. That authorisation was suspended, but it was not terminated by Security Council Resolution 687 in 1991. It has been revived on previous occasions and UNSCR 1441 revived it again.
In UNSCR 1441 the Security Council determined, first, that Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction constitutes a threat to international peace and security; secondly, that Iraq has failed in clear violation of its legal obligation to disarm; and, thirdly, that in consequence, Iraq is in material breach of the conditions for the ceasefire laid down by the Council in UNSCR 687 at the end of the hostilities in 1991.
I shall reiterate some of the detail of the argument. As my noble friend Lord Grabiner said, it is a question of the full context of what has happened since Resolution 660 which we should take into account. As the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, pointed out, chapter 7 of the United Nations Charter gives the Security Council the power to authorise states to take such military action as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. In the case of Iraq, the Security Council took such a step following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. Paragraph 2 of SCR 678 authorised,
"Member states co-operating with the Government of Kuwait … to use all necessary means to uphold and implement Resolution 660 and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area".
The phrase "all necessary means" was understood then, as it is now, to include the use of force. Following the liberation of Kuwait, the Security Council adopted UNSCR 687. That resolution set out the steps that the council required Iraq to take in order to restore international peace and security in the area. Iraq's acceptance of those requirements was the condition for the declaration of a formal ceasefire. Those steps included the destruction of all WMD under international supervision and the requirement that Iraq should not attempt to acquire such weapons or the means of their manufacture. As a means to achieving the disarmament required by the Security

119
Council, UNSCR 687 also required Iraq to submit to extensive weapons inspection by UNSCOM, now UNMOVIC, and the IAEA. The Security Council was quite clear that those steps were essential for the restoration of international peace and security in the area.
I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, and the noble Lord, Lord Owen, that UNSCR 687 did not repeal the authorisation to use force in paragraph 2 of SCR 678. On the contrary, it confirmed that SCR 678 remained in force. The authorisation was suspended for so long as Iraq complied with the conditions of the ceasefire, but the authorisation could be revived if the council determined that Iraq was acting in material breach of the requirements of SCR 687.
This is an important point. SCR 687 suspended but did not terminate the authorisation. The formality of acceptance of the terms was not sufficient. Iraq was and is required to comply with those terms. I make that point strongly for the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, as well as for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick.
Although almost 12 years have elapsed since SCR 687 was adopted, Iraq has never taken the steps required of it by the council. Throughout that period the council has repeatedly condemned Iraq for violations of SCR 687 and has adopted numerous resolutions on the subject. In 1993 and again in 1998 the coalition took military action under the revived authority of SCR 678 to deal with the threat to international peace and security posed by those violations.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Salisbury was right to say that I would say something about 12 years being a long time. Indeed, 12 years is a long time for Iraq to comply. More particularly, I say to the right reverend Prelate that 17 resolutions is a great number for Iraq to have failed to comply with.
In relation to the action in 1993 the Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Douglas Hogg, wrote:
"The Security Council determined in its statements of 8 and 11 January that Iraq was in material breach of resolution 687 and its related resolutions, and warned Iraq that serious consequences would ensue from continued failure to comply with its obligations. Resolution 687 lays down the terms for the formal ceasefire between the coalition states and Iraq at the end of hostilities mandated by the Security Council in resolution 678. These terms are binding in themselves but also have been specifically accepted by Iraq as a condition—
the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew—
"for the formal ceasefire to come into effect. In the light of Iraq's continued breaches of Security Council resolution 687 and thus of the ceasefire terms, and the repeated warnings given by the Security Council and members of the coalition, their forces were entitled to take necessary and proportionate action in order to ensure that Iraq complies with those terms".
120
Again, on 14th January 1993 in relation to UK and US military action of the previous day, the then UN Secretary-General, Dr Boutros Ghali, said:
"The raid yesterday, and the forces which carried out the raid, have received a mandate from the Security Council, according to resolution 678, and the cause of the raid was the violation by Iraq of resolution 687 concerning the ceasefire. So, as the Secretary-General of the United Nations, I can say that this action was taken and conforms to the resolution of the Security Council and conforms to the Charter of the United Nations".
This is not a new point. Indeed, we reiterated it fairly recently. I remind my noble and learned friend Lord Archer that in relation to the military action taken in 1998 I said, I believe from this same Dispatch Box, that any action involving UK forces would be based on international law. That is our position today.
The charter of the United Nations allows for the use of force under the authority of the Security Council. The Security Council resolution adopted before the Gulf conflict authorised the use of force in order to restore international peace and security in the region. Iraq is in clear breach of Security Council Resolution 687, which laid down the conditions for the ceasefire at the end of the conflict. Those conditions included a requirement on Iraq to eliminate its weapons of mass destruction under international supervision. These conditions have been broken. It is the same argument—it goes back to Resolutions 678 and 687, but now it is reinforced by Security Council Resolution 1441.
It is against that legal background that the United Kingdom and the United States brought to the council the draft resolution which was eventually adopted unanimously as SCR 1441 on 8th November. I remind the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, and the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, that the preamble to that resolution again expressly referred to SCR 678, confirming once more that that resolution was still in force. It also recognised the threat that Iraq's non-compliance with the council resolutions posed to international peace and security; and it recalled that SCR 687 imposed obligations on Iraq as a necessary step for the achievement of its objective of restoring international peace and security. I say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, that in paragraph 1 the council went on to decide that Iraq,
"has been and remains in material breach"
of its obligations under SCR 687 and other relevant resolutions.
On this occasion, the council decided, in paragraph 2, to offer Iraq,
"a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations".
Iraq was required to produce an accurate, full and complete declaration—all those words are important; "accurate, full and complete"—of all aspects of its prohibited programmes, and to provide immediate and unrestricted access to UNMOVIC and the IAEA. Failure by Iraq to comply with the requirements of SCR 1441 was declared to be a further material breach of Iraq's obligations, in addition to the continuing breach already identified in paragraph 1.

121
In the event of a further breach, or interference by Iraq with the inspectors, or failure to comply with any of the disarmament obligations under any of the relevant resolutions, the matter was to be reported to the Security Council. The Security Council was then to convene,
"to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security".
That appears in paragraph 12. In paragraph 13, the council warned Iraq that,
"it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations".
UNSCR 1441 did not require a further decision by the Security Council to be taken. SCR 1441 afforded Iraq a final opportunity to comply and provided for any failure by Iraq to be "considered" by the Security Council under paragraph 12. That consideration has taken place regularly since the adoption of 1441. It is plain from UNMOVIC statements to the Security Council, its 12th quarterly report and the so-called "clusters document". that Iraq has not complied, as required, with its disarmament obligations. Whatever other differences there may be on the Security Council, no member of the council has questioned that conclusion. It follows that Iraq has not taken the final opportunity offered, and remains in material breach of the disarmament obligations which, for 12 weary years, the council has insisted are essential for the restoration of peace and security. In these circumstances, the authorisation to use force contained in SCR 678 revives.
The noble Lords, Lord Goodhart and Lord Thomas of Gresford, spoke about automaticity and hidden triggers. The US and the UK made it clear that there were no hidden triggers or automaticity because everyone in the council understood the consequences of a finding of material breach and everyone agreed that there would be a further council discussion before force was used. The statements by the UK and the USA at the time made that clear.
Mr Negroponte, the American Ambassador to the UN, said on 8th November that if the Security Council failed to act decisively in the event of further Iraqi violation, the resolution did not constrain any member state from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by Iraq or to enforce the relevant UN resolutions and protect world peace and security. Our own ambassador, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, said at the same meeting that there was no automaticity in the resolution. He said that if there was a further Iraqi breach of its disarmament obligations, the matter would return to the council for discussion as required by OP 12. That is the point—that is what has been happening, and it has been happening for four months.
The noble Lords, Lord Brennan and Lord Wallace of Saltaire, spoke about the Secretary-General. The UN Secretary-General stated that if action were to be taken without the authority of the council, it would not be in conformity with the charter. Our position is that as the council has authorised military action through UNSCR 678 and subsequent resolutions, such action is in accordance with the authority and would therefore be in conformity with the charter.
122
The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich. talked about the strong concerns of the NGOs. I agree that there are real concerns about the humanitarian issues. Her Majesty's Government's policy is clear that an immediate priority is to continue to support humanitarian efforts to relieve the suffering of the Iraqi people. We in the United Nations system are planning for a range of humanitarian contingency matters. Our planning includes the MoD and DfID We are in contact with the United States and with a range of United Nations humanitarian agencies. We are all making detailed contingency plans.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, made much of UNSCR 1441 being a compromise. So are most treaties and most legislation, but words still mean what they say, even in a compromise. There is nothing wrong with a good compromise, provided that it does the job it needs to do, and UNSCR 1441 certainly did.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, raised a number of points about international humanitarian law. I am still being advised by the FCO on these matters. As an FCO Minister and, even more particularly when I was an MoD Minister, I cannot recall a time when these matters were not thoroughly, painstakingly, almost agonisingly discussed, as they should be. I assure the noble Lord that these extremely complex questions are gone into in great detail when all the stages of any military action are engaged upon. I shall write to the noble Lord and make sure that a copy of the letter goes into the Library of the House. I assure him that, as always, whatever we do will be in compliance with international law.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords. I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. In the light of what the Cabinet Secretary said to a committee in another place, will the Government give the Armed Forces and civil servants very clear guidance about their obligations under humanitarian law? Will she confirm that there are effective remedies in English and American law if they breach those obligations'?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, of course; we always do when we are in these difficult situations. I have no reason to think that this particular armed conflict, if, sadly, it must come, will be any different.
The Government have said since the start of this process—as we did during similar processes leading to military action in 1998—that we shall always act in accordance with international law. I hope that I have been able to set out the basis for international law as regards the action that may follow Iraq's failure to comply. We still hope that Saddam will take a decision open to him even now to disarm voluntarily but I am bound to say that that hope is dwindling fast, as many of your Lordships indicated this evening.
As my right honourable friend's Statement made clear, tomorrow the House of Commons will be asked to endorse the UK's participation in military operations and it will be asked to do so with the objective of ensuring the disarmament of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and thereby the

123
maintenance of the authority of the United Nations. As part of the same village, as my noble friend Lord Desai put it, these issues are of enormous importance not just in Iraq and the region but right the way across the world. In many ways I agree with many of the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford.
I am sure that all your Lordships join me in sending the strongest possible message of support to our Armed Forces already in the Gulf and to those who will join them shortly. I am sure that, although we do not take any relish in the debate that we shall have tomorrow, we shall approach it in the same serious frame of mind as we approached the very interesting debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, this evening.
10.21 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who took part in this difficult and rather unhappy debate. We have seen tonight a deeply divided House. There have been powerful speeches in support of the Government by, among others, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, who was the Attorney-General at the time of the first Gulf War, the noble Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick, who was our ambassador to the United Nations at the time of the first Gulf War, and the noble Lord, Lord Owen, who is a former Foreign Secretary.
There have also been powerful speeches the other way, not only from my noble friends but also from a former Law Lord, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, and from two distinguished lawyers on the Labour Benches, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, a former Law Officer, and the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, a former chairman of the Bar Council.
124
I should like to make a special mention of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Salisbury, who for a few minutes raised our thoughts away from the narrow details of the text of resolutions of the United Nations and up to a higher level.
It is not appropriate for me at this stage to make a speech in reply. However, I should like to make one comment; that is, that the arguments of the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General and of those who supported him in this debate are that ever since Resolution 678 in 1990 there has been a right for the USA or, indeed, any other member state, to launch an attack on Iraq up to the level of full-scale war without any further approval by the Security Council at any time when Iraq has been in serious breach of Resolutions 678 or 687. That, I have to say, in my view stretches the interpretation of Resolution 678 far beyond the breaking point. It might have been wiser to be more frank and simply to adopt the view of the noble Lord, Lord Desai, that what is illegal may also be just—not an argument which I accept in this case but one which seems to me to be seriously arguable.
We now therefore move to war. I say in response to the noble Lord, Lord Howell, that I see no inconsistency between our stating our views frankly while we are still at peace and recognising that, once war begins, that debate should cease, as it will as far as we are concerned. I join entirely with the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, in sending messages of support to our troops in the Iraq theatre. On this sombre evening, we must hope that the war is quick and that casualties among military and civilians on our side and the other are as low as possible. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
Northern Ireland Assembly Elections Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time. and to be printed.
House adjourned at twenty-six minutes past ten o'clock.

Official Report of the Grand Committee on the

  Electricity (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill
  Monday, 17th March 2003.
  The Committee met at half-past three of the clock.
  [The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne) in the Chair.]
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): Before I put the Question that the Title be postponed, it may be helpful to remind your Lordships of the procedure for today's Committee stage. Except in one important respect, our proceedings will be exactly as in a normal Committee of the Whole House. We shall go through the Bill clause by clause; noble Lords will speak standing; all noble Lords are free to attend and participate; and the proceedings will be recorded in Hansard. The one difference is that the House has agreed that there shall be no Divisions in a Grand Committee. Any issue on which agreement cannot be reached should be considered again at the Report stage when, if necessary, a Division may be called. Unless, therefore, an amendment is likely to be agreed to, it should be withdrawn.
  I should explain what will happen if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting. The Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and then resume after 10 minutes.
  Clause 1 [Expenditure relating to British Energy p.l.c.]:
  Lord Ezra Lord Ezra moved Amendment No. 1:
  Page 1, line 6, at end insert "in relation to qualifying activities"
  The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 1 has been grouped with Amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 7. The purpose of these and other amendments tabled today is to limit the aid and support proposed for British Energy so as to put a cap on such aid and support and to prevent it being used for other purposes and other companies. The trouble with the Bill as presented is that it is too open-ended. I believe that it is a proper exercise of our responsibilities to ensure that some limit is placed on the Government's freedom of action in this connection.
  I turn first to Amendments Nos. 1 and 7. The purpose of introducing the concept of "qualifying activities" is to limit the Government's aid to the historic liabilities of a company, which is indeed in line with what the Government have said, and to prevent it from incurring operational losses at the taxpayer's expense in the future. There is no doubt that the Government will have to make a major contribution to decommissioning liabilities, and that is allowed for in the figure quoted in Amendment No. 7. I beg to move.
  Baroness Miller of Hendon: These amendments are very similar to ones tabled by my honourable friend the Member for Reigate in another place when he supported Liberal Democrat amendments that would have the same effect. We agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, that there cannot be a case for giving unlimited sums to various sectors within the electricity industry, especially when the rest of the sector is under such pressure. We certainly support the amendment.
  Lord Jenkin of Boding: I attached my name to Amendment No. 1 because, as I believe I made clear at Second Reading, I entirely share the objective that we should limit the impact of this apparently open-ended Bill. Clause 1, of course, deals with support for British Energy. Later this afternoon, or when we debate later amendments, we shall deal with proposals that might extend that to other companies. The whole question of the support that may be given to British Energy seems to me to be absolutely open-ended and it does not seem to me that that is right. I say that as someone who spent a year or two, some years ago, as the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. I find it strange that the Treasury should be content to allow such an open-ended commitment to stand on the statute book. It is open ended in terms of both the amount and the scope of the activities that it can fund.
  I believe that, if accepted, Amendment No. 1 would be a considerable step in the right direction by allowing Parliament to perform one of its proper duties—the control of expenditure. If there needs to be substantial additional expenditure, surely it would be right—as the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, indicated in his reply at Second Reading—for the Government to come hack to Parliament for fresh authorisation. That seems to me right. We must impose some limits, both on how much can be spent and on what it can be spent on. The amendments in this group would achieve that purpose. I look forward to the Government's response.
  Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: I rise briefly to support this group of amendments. I apologise to the Committee for being unable to attend the Second Reading debate; I was abroad on business. Both the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and my noble friend Lord Jenkin have mentioned the blank cheque aspects of the proposal, but it seems that the problems are less broad than that. However, the proposal is unsatisfactory for a wide range of reasons. It makes no distinction between the need to keep British Energy's generating capacity, which is necessary to ensure adequate surplus capacity to cope with spikes, and decommissioning expenses. Furthermore, it does not differentiate between historic losses and costs and prospective costs and losses.
  I believe that we should be dividing the options available to the Government between the four parts of that quadrant: historic and prospective, and generating and decommissioning. I think that my noble friend Lord Jenkin and the noble Lord,

  GC 3
  Lord Ezra, have done a valuable service in asking the Government to be clear on how those parts of the quadrant will be constructed.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): I shall speak first to Amendments Nos. 1 and 7 and then to Amendments Nos. 3 and 4. I think that a certain amount of clarification is needed on the amendments.
  Amendments Nos. 1 and 7 seek to limit the Government's expenditure under Clause 1 of the Bill to historic liabilities. Amendment No. 1 proposes that subsection (1)(a) of Clause 1 be amended so that financial assistance could be provided to the company only in relation to "qualifying activities", which are defined in Amendment No. 7 as,
  "financial liabilities generated by a British Energy company prior to 4th September 2002, to a maximum of £2,100 million".
  However, the purpose of Clause 1 is not to deal with liabilities in the way suggested by the amendments tabled. It is, of course, true that the Government have stated their commitment to provide assistance for BE's nuclear liabilities. But that will be done using the power provided in Schedule 12 of the Electricity Act 1989, rather than under this clause, provided that this Bill removes the ceiling for expenditure under Schedule 12. I did stress that point at Second Reading when I stated,
  "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"—[Official Report, 3/3/03; col. 607.]—
  and I reiterate it again today.
  So if Clause 1 is not intended to deal with BE's historic liabilities, what is its purpose? Quite simply, Clause 1 is there to cover other expenditure which is not covered by Schedule 12. Principally, this would concern ongoing operational support to keep BE going during the period when a restructuring plan is being put into place. The clause could provide statutory authority for expenditure on British Energy in a number of situations. It puts the loan facility that the Government have provided to BE on a firm statutory footing.
  The statutory authority provided by subsection (1)(a) could also be used to authorise Government to provide funding in the event of administration. That would include essential funding to keep the nuclear business running safely as well as funding the administrator in such an eventuality. That would clearly come under the remit of this clause rather than Schedule 12. Finally, it would also allow Government to continue funding the trading arrangements of the operating companies going forward should the restructuring deal fail and should they at any point come into public ownership. Amendments Nos. 1 and 7 would narrow the use of this clause to BE's historic liabilities; but of course, as I have just explained, this clause is not about expenditure on nuclear liabilities, whether historic or future.
  GC 4
  Nevertheless, the principles which motivated the amendments should be discussed. I agree with the principle put forward by the noble Lord that any long-term restructuring aid should be restricted to historic nuclear liabilities. However, we have of course reflected that in government support to the restructuring plan. The key is that, in going forward, British Energy has to pay its own way. That is precisely what is established in the restructuring plan, where, following the restructuring, BE will pay its operating costs going forward, including future spent fuel costs. There is, therefore, no need to amend the current legislation as the clause deals with a separate issue and the points raised in the amendments have been addressed elsewhere.
  I should point out that Clause 1 could be used only to the extent permissible under EU state aid rules. So there is a restriction on it in that context. As a result, I invite the noble Lord not to press Amendment Nos. 1 and 7.
  I turn to Amendments Nos. 3 and 4. I have already explained how it is not the Government's intention to use Clause 1 for expenditure on nuclear liabilities. Government support for nuclear liabilities under the BE restructuring plan will be done under Schedule 12 to the Electricity Act 1989. That is a provision that deals specifically with nuclear liabilities, and indeed it quite clearly defines,
  "the storage or reprocessing of nuclear fuel",
  as a qualifying expenditure. So, as with Amendments Nos. 1 and 7, Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 are inappropriate. They attempt to narrow down the type of support for nuclear liabilities possible under Clause 1. However, we have already said that we shall not be using Clause 1 for nuclear liabilities.
  However, looking behind the specific form of this amendment and considering the principle behind it, I am still confused. Debating this point in another place, the honourable Member for Twickenham said:
  "We would all accept, given the Government's position, that the taxpayer will have to assume decommissioning liabilities in some form".—[Official Report, Commons, 6/2/03; col. 473.]
  The honourable Member has clearly recognised the special features involved here. Decommissioning costs are unavoidable. They have to be paid for whether or not BE continues to generate. The Government need to ensure that this important nuclear liability is dealt with safely and properly.
  However, those arguments apply also to historic nuclear fuel liabilities—I stress "historic liabilities". Fuel that has already been used in nuclear reactors needs to be dealt with—there is no avoiding that—and it certainly needs to be dealt with safely. If British Energy were to fail, then someone would need to pay to deal with the spent fuel. But that is not to say that we think that BE should have no responsibility for dealing with nuclear fuel costs in the future. Government are taking on responsibility for paying for the legacy of BE's historic spent fuel, but we are not paying for the new contracts for future spent fuel. Those contracts have to be paid for by BE. That is an important

  GC 5
  economic principle. BE has to be able to pay its own way going forward. There is no ongoing operating subsidy.
  I hope that that has helped to clarify matters. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, not to press the amendments.
  Lord Ezra: I have noted very carefully what the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, has had to say on these amendments. He has made the point that the specific issue raised is in fact raised later in the Bill. None the less, the fact remains that the wording is open-ended. I do not think that it is satisfactory for us to note that some limits to the proposal may be imposed by Brussels. We do not know what those amendments might be; they might be highly variable. I strongly believe that some limit should be placed on this. If we have identified the wrong issues, let us identify the right ones. Let us have the chance of coming back to this. If the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, would advise us as to what issues are raised here, we would gladly put that in a revised amendment for consideration at a later stage. He has not answered the point that the arrangement is open-ended so far as the UK Parliament is concerned; I leave alone whatever Brussels may be able to do. We should return to the matter.
  3.45 p.m.
  Lord Jenkin of Roding: I, too, find the Minister's response only partly adequate. I recognise entirely his point that in the Bill we are dealing with two different objectives for financial aid. The objective with which we are concerned in this context involves the provision of help towards financing running costs; the other objective involves the question of dealing with long-term nuclear liabilities. Neither of the Minister's answers about short-term or medium-term cash help should be as open-ended as they were.
  I shall deal with those points in reverse order. The Minister referred to Brussels and the possibility that the Commission may impose some restraints under competition law. Will he say more about where that has got to? Now that the final restructuring proposals are on the table—we finally had announcements about what is being done only a week ago—has there been a submission to Brussels for the necessary consent under the state aid legislation? I asked about that at Second Reading because I had been told that it would take anything up to 18 months to secure that. Has the Minister more information to give to the Committee about where the process has got to and how long it is likely to take? Given the considerable opposition from other generators—I attach much more importance to them than to environmental groups, which have their own agenda in this regard—are the Government confident that the restructuring proposals that British Energy has advanced and which the Government have accepted, will achieve the necessary consents in Brussels? If not, what then?
  I turn to the first point, which was about the need for a limit on the sum that can be put in. The Minister referred to Schedule 12 of the 1989 Act. We shall later
  GC 6
  discuss the fact that some of that Act has been repealed. Paragraph 4 involves the "financial limits" of Schedule 12. Sub-paragraph (1)(b) states that grants, loans and guarantees,
  "shall not exceed £1,000 million or such greater sum, not exceeding £2,500 million, as the Secretary of State may by order specify".
  It was recognised then by my right honourable friends who were in charge that there might be a need to increase the amount. Paragraph 4(2) states:
  "No order shall be made under this paragraph unless a draft of the order has been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons".
  In other words, Parliament was given a very clear power to withhold or sanction the increase in expenditure. We do not have a power here to do anything; moreover, it is not subject to any parliamentary procedures whatever.
  The Minister prayed in aid the provisions of Schedule 12 of the 1989 Act as the provisions under which the Government are giving their support to British Energy. Why on earth cannot he make that subject to the same limitations as applied when the 1989 Act was passed? It appears that the Government want to have it both ways. With the greatest respect, I do not believe that Ministers should be allowed to do that. I ask the noble Lord: will he have another go?
  Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I shall continue with my clarification. On Schedule 12, there is a debate to be had about how the limits should be changed. On Brussels, the plan was submitted on 7th March and will take a considerable time. I raise that only to say that, as with all situations involving state aid, that will obviously involve a limit on what the Government can do in terms of subsidising any future company. Noble Lords were rightly concerned that we should not be in a situation in which we were providing support on an ongoing basis that would interfere with competition between BE and other generators. That is the correct way to look at that.
  On the issues involving what the money will be used for, I tried to set out clearly the particular categories of expenditure that the provisions would allow us to cover. In that context, it is difficult to specify a limit because there are two different routes that one could take. One route involves the situation in which the company does not go into administration and the other involves the situation in which it does. In either case, there would be a restriction, which would come from state aid regulations, about any ongoing support, to which other generators could object.
  Lord Jenkin of Boding: I mentioned earlier that I had been at the Treasury and was surprised by the way in which the Treasury appeared to have dealt with this matter. Rolls-Royce was one of the events with which I had to deal as Chief Secretary to the Treasury, which noble Lords will remember went bust in, I believe, 1972—I have not looked up the date. There was clearly a huge national interest in making sure that the continued supply, maintenance and upkeep of the engines—not least for defence—should continue. That

  GC 7
  was all done under administration. There was a necessity to handle that; the same applies in this regard.
  It is ironic—historians will find this an interesting observation—that a Conservative government, faced with a necessity to protect the national interest by dealing with a major manufacturer, were not afraid to allow Rolls-Royce to go into administration, and a large part of it became a public corporation. It later fell to me to appoint a chairman with a specific remit to prepare it for privatisation. The noble Lord, Lord Tombs, will remember that. It was nationalised and subsequently privatised.
  We now have a new Labour Government who are determined that the company should remain in the private sector, notwithstanding the fact that substantial sums of government help are necessary. They are doing their utmost—I give them some credit for this—to prevent the company from going into administration. As the noble Lord told us at Second Reading, there was no prospect of anyone else wanting to buy it. The Government, as purchaser of last resort, would have to buy and run it; that is to say, it would be nationalised. I am not sure whether there is a very close parallel between the way in which the government dealt with Rolls-Royce in the 1970s and the way in which the Government are dealing with British Energy in the 21st century. In either case, the Treasury needs some control and Parliament needs some control, as was required in paragraph 4 of Schedule 12 to the 1989 Act. So far we have not got that.
  Under the rules about which we were informed at the beginning of our sitting, we cannot vote on the amendment at this stage; these would probably not be the right amendments to vote on. We shall return to the matter. I do not believe that the Bill should leave the House without adding some clear limitation on what can be spent without coming back to Parliament for a further permission. Perhaps that reveals the way ahead in this regard. I find all of this highly unsatisfactory.
  Lord Ezra: In the light of the Minister's comments, we may need to reword the amendment, bearing in mind that we still feel strongly that there should be a better definition about what the money would be used for and some limit imposed beyond which the Government would have to come back to the House and seek further powers. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Jenkin of Roding Lord Jenkin of Roding moved Amendment No. 2:
  Page 1, line 7, leave out paragraphs (b) and (c).
  The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 2, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 5 and 6, which are wholly consequential on the lead amendment.
  The amendments raise the issue of whether the Government are right to take the power to acquire the assets or security of British Energy—that is, to buy
  GC 8
  the company or a substantial share of it. The Government say that the power is necessary in case the restructuring fails and the company must go into administration, when the Government could buy the shares—but should they have both barrels loaded at the same time?
  The Minister and the rest of the Government have firmly hitched their wagon to the restructuring option. That is their decision, although administration would have been preferable, as I said at Second Reading and others have said in another place. Mr Vincent Cable, the Liberal Democrat spokesman, made it clear in another place that he would have preferred administration. However, the Government must now pursue their option. Surely, retaining the power to buy assets or to buy the company in the Bill, without any further parliamentary step needed to authorise it, is to water down their commitment.
  The Minister nodded vigorously when I questioned whether the Government needed that power, but it is absolutely open-ended. The Bill refers to,
  "the acquisition … of …

  (i) any securities of a British Energy company; or

  (ii) any part of the undertaking or assets of a British Energy company; or

  (c) the carrying on of any undertaking acquired".

  The definition is very broad. In the case of Rolls-Royce, the government of whom I was a member did the only sensible thing to do in the circumstances. This Government have chosen the other option, of trying to keep the company in the private sector. Thereby they have endorsed the whole process of privatising the electricity industry; but I mention that only in passing. Should they have the power to do that automatically, if the restructuring fails? Should they not at least come back to Parliament, and should the power not be subject to statutory instrument, so that Parliament can vote again? Do the Government imagine that events will occur so suddenly that restructuring will fail and the administrator will be appointed one day, and that the next day they will have to step in and act? I do not believe that that would be the case.
  As noble Lords and others have repeatedly said in debates on the Bill, an administrator would be perfectly capable of continuing to pay the staff, honouring the pensions and ensuring that the lights are not turned off. Using that continuity of operation as a reason to step in for restructuring has worn a bit thin. An administrator could carry on the business and, if the Government really wanted to, they could provide the administrator with funds to enable him or her to do that. It would not happen immediately, and there would be plenty of time for the Government to come back to Parliament for an order authorising the acquisition, in which case we could consider carefully whether the order was limited to what was necessary to achieve the immediate purpose. Simply to include it in the Bill as an open-ended power is going altogether too far, and I do not believe that the power should remain in the Bill as it is. I beg to move.
  4 p.m.
  Lord Sainsbury of Turville: Members of the Committee will be aware that this Bill is part of the Government's response to the problems faced by British Energy. Its purpose is to ensure that the Government are properly prepared to deal with BE so that they can play their part in the company's restructuring plan, or have proper contingency plans in place in case that fails and the company goes into administration.
  Paragraphs (b) and (c) of Clause 1(1) provide an important part of that contingency plan. They give the Government explicit parliamentary authority to incur expenditure on acquiring the British Energy operating companies or, alternatively, the business and assets directly in the event of administration. That is important, as it allows the Government to be fully prepared for administration should the situation arise.
  The provisions within paragraphs (b) and (c) are simply a matter of prudent contingency planning. They certainly do not represent an in-built preference to renationalise the company, as some Members of the Committee seem to fear. If we had wanted to do so, we would have done so already, as did the Conservative government of which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, was a member with Rolls-Royce. The subsections simply give the Government parliamentary authority to spend taxpayers' money; they do not require the Government to spend that money or change the law to give the Government any kind of special power of compulsory purchase. As I said, we would acquire BE's nuclear business only as purchaser of last resort, in case the company failed and no private sector company stepped forward.
  The amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, would remove the explicit parliamentary authority. Amendment No. 2 is the substantive amendment, with Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 being linked consequentially. These amendments would essentially prevent the Government from ensuring that the necessary contingency planning was in place in case the restructuring deal failed and the company went into administration. That would not be a responsible position to take. Surely, everyone will agree that, if British Energy goes into administration, the Government should be able to take the necessary action to ensure nuclear safety and security of supply.
  If the company were to fail and we were not prepared, I can imagine what the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, would say. He would tell us that it was scandalous and improvident that the Government, having had a period of warning of the situation, had taken no steps to take appropriate action. If the power were not in the Bill, we would have to come back and take up valuable parliamentary time in debating it. During the course of that time, which could be several months, we would be spending money on an administrator. That would hardly be prudent or sensible.
  Lord Jenkin of Roding: I specifically said not that the power should be left to another Bill in this case but that it should be subject to parliamentary control by
  GC 10
  statutory instrument, which could be introduced into Parliament in a few days or weeks. The administrator could be provided with funds in exactly the same way in which the company was provided with funds, to enable him to have the cash to keep the business going. It would seem entirely proper in those circumstances that the Government should come back to seek parliamentary authorisation.
  Lord Sainsbury of Turville: As this is a question of the powers that the Government would have in these circumstances, it seems strange to allow this power as a possibility and then to delay it. Nothing would be gained by delaying the use of the power, given that we can debate it and consider the issues at this stage. It would become a reality only in particular circumstances. I can see no harm in saying that, under those circumstances, we should have the powers in place.
  When nuclear safety is at stake, it is unacceptable for the Government to stand idly by in the hope that the BE situation will somehow go away. We are keen for the restructuring deal to succeed, but it would be truly alarming if we were not ready for a situation in which the deal failed. Paragraphs (b) and (c) of subsection (1) allow the Government to ensure that they are ready for every eventuality. Their removal would damage the Government's ability to meet their obligations to ensure continuing nuclear safety and security of supply.
  I therefore invite the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, to withdraw his amendments.
  Lord Jenkin of Roding: Clearly, there is some merit in what the Minister has said. We may return to the question on another occasion but, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 3 to 7 not moved]
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Clause 2 [Removal of restrictions on capacity to acquire certain securities]:
  Lord Jenkin of Roding Lord Jenkin of Roding moved Amendment No. 8:
  Page 2, line 17, after first "acquire" insert "from a willing seller"
  The noble Lord said: As we discussed at Second Reading, Clause 2 widens the Bill beyond the question of British Energy. We may have our own ideas as to why that is necessary, as I hinted in my Second Reading speech. The Minister for Energy and Construction was splendidly frank at Third Reading in another place, when he said that a Bill could not deal with one company alone. If it had attempted to deal with one company alone, it would have been hybrid.
  [The sitting was suspended fat a Division in the House from 4.7 to 4.16 p.m.]
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees: If noble Lords are agreeable, perhaps we could continue with the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding.
  Lord Jenkin of Roding: I shall not repeat what I said before we broke for the Division, except to say that we

  GC 11
  are now dealing with a power which could extend far beyond the concerns of Clause 1—namely, immediate help to British Energy. Clause 2 repeals the constraint imposed by the 1989 Act on the Government's capacity to acquire securities in electricity companies. Therefore, that can be left entirely at large, the argument being that it is all now expended and we are past that. However, the restrictions are being removed.
  Clause 2(1) states:
  "The repeal of section 72(1) does not affect the capacity of the Secretary of State or the Treasury, apart from any enactment, to acquire (or to acquire rights to subscribe for) securities of any company".
  I stress the words "any company".
  Amendment No. 8 is comparatively narrow. Although its wording may be open to suggestion and improvement, it makes it perfectly clear that it refers to the sale between a "willing buyer" and a "willing seller". A willing seller is one which is not being put under any constraints or pressure to allow the Government to acquire rights to subscribe to securities in the company. It is a comparatively short and simple question. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, will give an equally straightforward and simple answer that there is no intention to have a clause which could allow the Government to acquire forcibly or by compulsory purchase the securities in any company. I beg to move.
  Baroness Miller of Hendon: My noble friend Lord Jenkin explained very well what is meant by a willing seller and the difference between a seller under slight coercion and someone who is willing to sell. We support the amendment.
  Lord Tombs: I, too, support the amendment. It seems to me utterly unrealistic to speak of a "willing seller" when the other party in the purported transaction controls regulation and fiscal matters and is, therefore, in a position to dictate the terms on which the "willing seller" comes to the table.
  I do not like the manner in which this matter has been introduced. A certain amount of suspicious attention is required in order to realise what the clause enables the Government to do. To "smuggle" this provision into a Bill dealing with British Energy is less than fair to Parliament. Provisions of this kind should at least be subject to affirmative resolution but, preferably, the subject of separate legislation.
  Lord Sainsbury of Turville: Clause 2(1) repeals Sections 72 and 74 of the Electricity Act 1989, provisions which prevent the Government from buying shares in certain electricity companies and their successors. The repeal of those sections would restore the natural position of the Crown's powers to purchase shares in affected electricity companies.
  I explained at Second Reading the Government's motivation for repealing those sections. If the restructuring deal fails and the company goes into administration, the Government have to be ready to acquire the stations—either by directly acquiring the
  GC 12
  assets or through acquiring the operating companies. I also made it clear at Second Reading that we would, in principle, welcome an appropriate private sector buyer purchasing the companies. However, given the specific nature of the business, and the nature of the risk, we simply do not expect any such private buyer to come forward.
  In that case, the Government would need to stand ready to acquire the stations. This is no compulsory purchase. It is simply the Government being prepared to act as a purchaser of last resort if no other buyer steps forward.
  Amendment No. 8 proposes that we specify in the Bill that any securities acquired must be "from a willing seller". But that is unnecessary. The repeal of Sections 72 and 74 of the Electricity Act 1989 does no more than restore the Crown's natural powers to purchase securities in certain electricity companies. I must stress that the repeal of these sections does not give the Government a special power to take shares away from shareholders against their will. Essentially, the Crown will be placed in the same position as any other individual and be subject to the same constraints. We could acquire the shares only where a shareholder was prepared to sell.
  Therefore, the amendment adds nothing, except some possible confusion as to exactly what a "willing seller" is, as that is not an established concept. There is no hidden agenda to renationalise electricity companies. The Government simply want to ensure that the Crown's natural powers to buy shares in certain companies are restored in order that the Government are able to stand ready to acquire BE stations if that is necessary.
  Sections 72 and 74 of the Electricity Act 1989 now have a curious power in terms of which companies they protect. There is now no logic to that because the sections relate to the companies which were then existent. Events have moved on since those days. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
  Lord Jenkin of Roding: I must say that I am now less inclined to withdraw the amendment than I might have been when I started. Half of the Minister's reply related to the need to buy securities in British Energy. But we dealt with that issue in Clause 1; and I moved the amendment to suggest that it should perhaps be subject to more parliamentary restraint.
  Clause 2 relates to the acquisition of securities in any company—other than British Energy. I am sorry, I give way to the Minister.
  Lord Sainsbury of Turville: As a matter of correction, we have not dealt with the situation because, unless Sections 72 and 74 are repealed, they would restrain the Government from making the purchase which they have the power to make under Clause 1. It is incorrect to say that this issue has been dealt with under Clause 1.
  Lord Jenkin of Roding: I understand the noble Lord's point. But why is the provision extended to any

  GC 13
  company? If the proposal was merely to deal with British Energy, perhaps it might have been dealt with more appropriately in an additional subsection in Clause 1. We should then be perfectly clear that the repeal that is now being sought is simply to enable the Government to continue to deal with British Energy. That is not what the clause says. It refers to securities in any company.
  As the noble Lord, Lord Tombs, rightly said, because of the way in which regulators can work—or are not working—the market is subject to the considerable turmoil described by international bodies. Some companies have fallen into grave difficulties. Hitherto, the Government have been precluded from buying securities in those companies. The Bill removes that constraint. I find this an extremely difficult addition; it is tagged on to a Bill which is supposed to deal solely with the problems of British Energy.
  As has been repeatedly reported in the press, as a result of the 40 per cent fall in wholesale electricity prices, other companies have found themselves in considerable difficulty. Why does this clause not mean that the Government are now taking the power to acquire securities in any of those companies? They might be quite pleased to be taken over by the Government if they have got into difficulties and the Government do a deal which saves something for the shareholders. Is that what the Bill is about? That is not how it has been presented to Parliament, either in this House or another place. But that is what Clause 2 says and we should not let that go.
  Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I think the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, is that we could achieve the same end by keeping Sections 72 and 74 and amending them specifically for British Energy. The reason for not doing so is that those sections are completely out of date and are quite random in their effect. In that context, it makes total sense to have a clean sweep of what is now outdated and rather arbitrary legislation in terms of its impact.
  The provisions are narrowly defined and relate only to a small number of companies—the successor companies created in the industry restructuring privatisation. They apply only to that small number of specific companies as companies, and not to any wider corporate group of which they may now be part, or, indeed, to any new companies. Therefore, this seems a good moment—if we are going to amend the provision—to do a clean sweep and bring this legislation up to date.
  Lord Jenkin of Roding: If one is in a hole, one should stop digging. With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, he seems to be digging himself into an ever deeper hole. Quite rightly, he says that Sections 72 and 74 dealt with the predecessors to the successor companies and that the Government were limiting their powers to a small shareholding in any of the successor companies.
  I have not studied the debates but the Act is clear. If the Clause were simply dealing with successor companies, one would accept that. But that is not what
  GC 14
  the clause says. It seeks to sweep away all the constraints, all the limitations, and the Government are giving themselves the power to buy securities in any company. I am sure that the Minister understands why, on this side of the Committee, we are somewhat suspicious. As the noble Lord, Lord Tombs, said, the circumstances may arise when a company would be happy to be taken over by the Government and save something from the fire.
  I do not believe that Parliament should allow this to go by. We cannot vote in Grand Committee, but I make it clear that we shall want to return to this matter at a later stage. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  4.30 p.m.
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Amendment No. 9 will, if it is put to a vote, pre-empt Amendment No. 10.
  Lord Jenkin of Roding Lord Jenkin of Roding moved Amendment No. 9:
  Page 2, line 19, leave out subsections (2) and (3).
  The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 have been grouped. The substance of Amendment No. 9 has already been covered in our discussion about the repeal of Sections 72 and 74.
  Clause 2(2) refers to the Secretary of State's ability to,
  "repeal to any extent any of the other provisions of Part 2 of the Electricity Act".
  I have much sympathy with the argument that, there are provisions on the statute book that are spent because they were aimed at a particular situation that obtained some years earlier and for which there is no continuing need, it is right, in the interests of tidying up the statute book, that they should be repealed. However, Clause 2(3) gives rise to some concern. Subsection (2) gives the Government the power to make an order, and Subsection (3) says that the order,
  "may make consequential, transitional or saving provision (including provision modifying the Electricity Act 1989 or any other Act)".
  That goes far beyond what is appropriate in such circumstances.
  The Government have sought to explain their wish to deal with the matter by order by saying that it would give them more time to examine the position in detail and, as the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury of Turville, told us at Second Reading, consult stakeholders to make sure that there are no untoward consequences of any repeals that they have in mind. That may be a reasonable way to proceed, but Amendment No. 11 would make certain that any such action would be subject to affirmative resolution.
  In the mean time, we have the following words:
  "modifying the Electricity Act 1989 or any other Act".
  Amendment No. 10 would add the words "affected by this section". That is a necessary limitation of the power of the repeal. A few moments ago, we discussed the words,
  "to acquire securities in any company".

  GC 15
  Now, the Bill says that the order-making power can be used to amend not only the Electricity Act 1989 but any other Act. We could take out the words "or any other Act", but the amendment, which stands in the name of several Members of the Committee, suggests that the provision should merely be qualified by the addition of the words "affected by this section".
  For the life of me, I cannot see why the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury of Turville, could not accept the amendment. He has said that that is what the subsection means. Why not accept the amendment? I beg to move.
  Baroness Miller of Hendon: I shall add nothing to what my noble friend said about Amendment No. 9, but I shall say a few things about Amendment No. 10.
  As my noble friend said, our amendment is a simple drafting amendment that would in no way affect or detract from the operation of the Act. It would remove an ambiguity, so that there could be no possible misunderstanding or disagreement about what Parliament intends. Clause 2(2) gives the Secretary of State power to amend by order the provisions of Part II of the Electricity Act 1989. Clause 2(3) gives the Secretary of State power to make,
  "consequential, transitional or saving provision (including provision modifying the Electricity Act 1989 or any other Act)".
  It is the words "or any other Act" that bother us. They could be very ambiguous in their effect. I shall not trouble the Minister by reminding him of the day that we had the little contretemps about what the phrase "or otherwise" meant, but the phrase "any other Act" is far too wide.
  Undoubtedly, the Minister will tell us that, when an Act or part of an Act is repealed, it may be necessary for there to be,
  "consequential, transitional or saving provision",
  and that other statutory provisions that remain in force may refer to the repealed Act in some way and will need to be covered. Such residual provisions may be in the same Act, of which only part must be repealed, or they may be in a totally separate Act. As I said, we understand and accept that. However, the words "or any other Act" go too far. Unless they are qualified, they could be taken to mean absolutely any other Act whatsoever, including Acts irrelevant to the Electricity Act 1989 or to any aspect of the electricity industry. I anticipate that the Minister will tell us that the words "any other Act" are governed by the qualification that such amendment must be consequential, transitional or saving, following the provisions of the Act. The Minister nods his head, so I must be right to suggest that that is what he will say.
  We should not legislate in a way that creates a need for esoteric rules of construction to interpret what Parliament is saying. Nor should that interpretation depend on the application of legalistic semantics. I still recall, as I mentioned, the lengthy battle about the words "or otherwise". I am tempted to repeat it, but I ought not to; I do not want to irritate the Minister before he stands up.
  GC 16
  Before the Minister tells me, as he frequently does, that my amendment is unnecessary, I ask him to humour me on this occasion by adding just four clarifying words—whether they are necessary or not, as he may say—to the clause. It will not expend so much paper and ink as to cause an ecological disaster. My noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding said that he had already mentioned that. It would be neither a political defeat nor a rebuff to the draftsman. It would be just belt and braces, and, although I wear neither, I hope that the Minister will remove the ambiguity, however remote he believes it to be.
  Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I shall speak to both amendments but start with Amendment No. 9.
  Subsections (2) and (3) introduce a power to repeal the remainder of Part II of the Electricity Act 1989. Part II is concerned with the reorganisation of the electricity industry from its old nationalised structure to the successor companies, which were then sold into the private sector. As such, it contains a large number of provisions for transferring assets from the old bodies to the new companies; provisions to abolish the old bodies; provisions to finance the successor companies while they remained in the public sector; and, ultimately, provisions to sell the shares in those successor companies into the private sector. In short, that part was a set of transitional provisions that enabled the privatisation of the industry.
  Subsections (2) and (3) provide a delegated power to repeal provisions of Part II, provisions that were designed to be transitional in nature and are now outdated. We are doing that for two reasons. First, we are already, through subsection (1), repealing Sections 72 and 74 of the Act. We want to guard against any unintended consequences caused by interactions between those sections and the rest of that part. We want to be careful that nothing in the remainder of the part could act as an obstacle to the contingency plans that we have in place.
  Secondly, as we are already repealing Sections 72 and 74, and as we want a power to repeal any other provision in that part that might act as an obstacle, it is a sensible opportunity to take a power to repeal the whole of Part II. That is a sensible approach to tidying up old legislation that is no longer applicable. We are taking a delegated power to do that, to make sure that we have time to go through Part II in detail and check whether any of the provisions that it includes do or should still have lasting effect.
  [The Sitting was suspended for a Division in the House from 4.39 to 4.48 p.m.]
  Lord Sainsbury of Turville: The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, would remove the provisions to give the Government power to repeal the remainder of the outdated provisions in Part II. It would also prevent the Government from making any amendments consequential to those repeals in any other legislation.

  GC 17
  The noble Lord should take some comfort from the Delegated Powers Select Committee, which noted that,
  "much of Part 2 is now likely to he of limited practical effect".
  Taking the powers under Clause 2(2) and (3) allows us to tidy up essentially outdated and irrelevant provisions. I am aware that noble Lords expressed a desire to be able to monitor the use of that power. I draw the Committee's attention to my letter to the Delegated Powers Select Committee, in which I welcomed its recommendation that the provisions be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. That will be dealt with in due course. With that in mind, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
  It would perhaps be helpful if I outlined the intention behind Clause 2(3). As Members of the Committee know, Clause 2(2) gives the Government the power to repeal the remainder of the provisions in Part II of the Electricity Act 1989—apart from Sections 72 and 74, which are repealed outright. Clause 2(3) therefore gives the Government an essentially limited power to amend other legislation only so far as their effect is consequential, transitional or saving to any repeal of the provisions of Part II of the Electricity Act 1989. I re-emphasise that the power to amend Clause 2(3) is already narrow and can be used only to make amendments in some way consequential on using the power in Clause 2(2). It is a narrow power to repeal provisions from the Electricity Act 1989.
  The effect of Amendment No. 10 is superfluous, as the Government's powers in this regard must be read within the context of Clause 2, which deals primarily with the repeal of Part It of the Electricity Act. In accordance with all usual principles of interpretation and administrative law, the power would not be construed as an unfettered one. If we added the words proposed, which go further than the usual principles of interpretation and administration, the courts would be inclined to look behind that to see why.
  I know that the noble Baroness, like myself, takes seriously the views of the Delegated Powers Committee. On Clause 2(3) it said:
  "we accept that much of Part 2 is likely to be of limited practical effect, and consider that clause 2(2) and the Henry VIII power to make consequential, transitional or saving provision at clause 2(3) are justified".
  With that conclusion in mind, I hope that the noble Baroness is reassured that the provision is sufficiently limited to meet Committee Members' concerns. I ask her, therefore, to withdraw the amendment.
  Lord Jenkin of Boding: I wish to speak to Amendment No. 10. I am still worried by what the noble Lord has just told us. I fail to see why we cannot insert "affected by this section" after the second "Act". The current provision is very wide. The insertion of those words would be entirely in line with what the noble Lord said was the Government's intention. I fail to see why the addition of those words should confuse
  GC 18
  the judiciary. They are fairly skilled people and would understand that what we are talking about is not any other Act but any other Act affected by the section.
  Lord Sainsbury of Turville: The judiciary does not regard the usual principles of interpretation and administrative law as a frivolity; it has regard to how the law should be interpreted and interprets it according to those principles. Given those rules of interpretation and administrative law, if we insert in legislation a further statement that is not usually included, the judiciary will ask why. That might have consequences that we do not seek.
  Baroness Miller of Hendon: The Minister invited me to withdraw Amendment No. 10. As he knows, we must withdraw all amendments in Grand Committee.
  The Chairman of Committees (Lord Tordoff): With all due respect to the noble Baroness, Amendment No. 10 has not been moved and, therefore, cannot be withdrawn. We are speaking to Amendment No. 9. The noble Baroness is entitled to speak to Amendment No. 10 because it is in the same group. At the appropriate time, Amendment No. 10 will be called as not moved.
  Lord Jenkin of Boding: As I moved Amendment No. 9, it is for me to respond. I recognise entirely the advice that the noble Lord has been given by his legal advisers. I received much the same advice in various departments, and I recognise the force of it. One should try to remain within the normal canons of construction. The words proposed in Amendment No. 10 may not be appropriate to achieve our purpose.
  However, I still feel that to leave the wording as "any Act" is to go too wide. I am not certain that it would be appropriate. I have no doubt that the purpose is clear in the Minister's mind and that, if he were to make such an order, he would ensure that it fell within the terms he described to the Committee. But that does not necessarily apply to subsequent Ministers or administrations or even to new personnel of the department drawing up the order. I am grateful for what the Minister said in a pre-emptive strike about Amendment No. 11. No doubt, we shall discuss that in a moment. I do not feel that the wording should be left so broad.
  I shall conclude with a story. There is a case that appears in all legal storybooks about the Local Government Act, which was a private Act of Parliament hundreds of pages long that provided a huge amount of power to the local authority promoting it. It was so long that nobody read it the whole way through. The town clerk had successfully slipped into the Act, where nobody would look, a provision that the town clerk's marriage shall hereby be dissolved. The Bill was enacted, and he got his divorce. That happened before the Divorce Act. Such incidents could happen; therefore, the wording of Bills should be limited so that a permanent secretary cannot get a divorce by inserting a provision in the order without anyone noticing.

  GC 19
  I accept entirely that the Minister's intentions are honourable in how he described the intention behind the Bill. My unhappiness is that that is not what the Bill says. We shall return to the matter. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 9.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 10 not moved.]
  Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 11:
  Page 2, line 24, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
  "(4) No order shall be made under this section unless a draft of the order has been laid before and approved by a resolution of both Houses of Parliament."
  The noble Baroness said: I apologise to the Chairman for attempting to withdraw Amendment No. 10. I made the mistake simply because the Minister asked me to withdraw my amendment. I assumed incorrectly that he referred to Amendment No. 10.
  Amendment No. 11 is virtually self-explanatory. The Minister mentioned that there would be a change from negative to positive resolution, which is half the purpose of the amendment. However, I shall not alter my amendment until that happens—not that the Minister would say so if it were not the case. I shall, therefore, speak to my amendment.

  5 p.m.
  Lord Sainsbury of Turville: Perhaps I may briefly explain the rationale behind our decision to take a delegated power to repeal Part II of the Electricity Act 1989. Essentially, Part II outlines transitional arrangements for privatisation of the electricity industry. The intention behind this legislation has long since expired and, as the electricity industry has developed over time the provisions contained in Part II of the Act have become increasingly irrelevant.
  In effect, Part II of the Electricity Act is, to a large degree, spent. The Government have decided to take a power to repeal the remainder of Part II—apart from Sections 72 and 74, which are repealed outright. That is so that the Government have the opportunity to explore fully the effect of the repeal of existing provisions.
  Given the fact that the provisions contained in Part II of the Act are largely spent, we do not believe that there would be any potential repeals that would be particularly controversial. For that reason, we suggested that a negative resolution procedure would be the most appropriate for this particular power.
  However, we carefully considered the recommendations made by the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform. The committee points out that there is potential to repeal a provision which is both live and significant. Our view is that we do not expect any future repeals under this provision to be significant or controversial, and will not, as a matter of policy, seek to repeal live provisions. However, given that the impact of this change from negative to affirmative resolution is likely to be very small in practice, and as we cannot be certain that there will be nothing significant or controversial until the work is done, we are content to take the advice of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and have written to the committee stating as much.
  On that basis, we should like to accept in principle Amendment No. 11, tabled by the noble Baroness. I hope that she will not object when I say that we should like to make sure that the technical drafting of the amendment is sound. I should be grateful, therefore, if she would withdraw her amendment at this stage on the basis that a similar amendment will be tabled on Report.
  Baroness Miller of Hendon: I thank the Minister for his remarks. As he is accepting the amendment, there is no reason why he should not provide the technical drafting. That would include the second part that I mentioned; namely, that this should be by positive resolution of both Houses, not just one. We hope that the Minister will be able to take advice quite quickly, so that when we return to the amendment on Report we shall know whether or not that is acceptable. In any event, at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill.
  Lord Gray of Contin: I had not intended to speak on Clause 2 stand part. However, when I arrived today, I found that my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding had added his name to most of the amendments. I did not feel inclined to disagree with him each time, so I thought that I would keep my few remarks for the clause stand part debate.
  I strongly supported the Bill at Second Reading, and I still do. The Minister has dealt adequately with the amendments that have been moved. The answers he has given certainly satisfy me, if not my noble friends—but that is part of life.
  It would he a mistake, as was suggested in relation to Part I, always to create a set of prohibitions to be included in the Bill—for example, that money must not be used for this, that, or whatever—because one never knows what may lie in the future. For example, at some future time British Energy might have a subsidiary which might be involved in some kind of arrangement with a chemical company. Is the intention to have a Bill that would prohibit the transportation of dangerous chemicals? Why do we always pick on the nuclear industry? It seems to be the easy target when people want to launch criticism.
  I strongly support the nuclear industry and want to do everything to encourage it. I do not want to see anything included in the Bill or removed from it that might, at some future date, be of disadvantage to the industry. That is my main concern.
  [The Sitting was suspended for a Division in the House from 5.5 to 5.15 p.m.]
  Lord Gray of Contin: I gave the example of a possible association with a chemical company. But it does not stop there. At some time in the future, British Energy might have a relationship with a company involved in coal purification—dear to the heart of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. Are we to include that in the list of companies with which it will be prohibited from dealing just because, in years gone by, the coal industry was a major polluter, when today it is a most attractive source of power generation?
  My noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding was a distinguished Chief Secretary to the Treasury. But all those chaps who go to the Treasury never quite lose its influence when they leave. Something gets into their nature. They query everything to do with expenditure—which is probably a very good thing.
  I have had personal experience of this. Between 1979 and 1981, I was Minister of State for Energy. In the autumn of 1981 there was a Cabinet reshuffle. I was on holiday at the time, and my private secretary telephoned me, saying that I would be interested to hear who was the new Secretary of State for Energy. She told me that it was Mr Nigel Lawson—with whom I had been fighting for almost all of the previous two years when he was Financial Secretary to the Treasury. However, I learnt that those in the Treasury can change a little. Nigel Lawson taught me a great deal about the Treasury and how people there should and
  GC 22
  should not be approached. He got more out of the Treasury in his first year as Secretary of State for Energy than we had in the previous two. But that is beside the point. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Jenkin has the same gift, although he is not prepared to use it at the moment.
  Whatever restrictions are placed on the use of money which may in the future be available to the company, I do not want anything ruled out if doing so would bring disadvantage to the nuclear industry in general and to British Energy in particular.
  Nuclear waste is divided into several categories. The key problem lies in the disposal of the most highly active, long-lived components; namely, the used fuel elements, and, if reprocessed, the material left over. I refer to separated plutonium. But, given present technology, the waste package can be kept intact for several thousand years and stored in a deep burial chamber. Such repositories could be created without any problems. They already exist elsewhere. However, the "nimby" factor has yet to be overcome in the United Kingdom.
  It would have been so much easier for all those with interest in energy had the Government, in their recently published White Paper, been more positive and more definitive in regard to the various uses of energy and what will, and will not, be acceptable. They have left the energy industry in a difficulty: no one is quite certain just how much of any particular type of energy will be in favour. That applies particularly to the nuclear industry.
  Come what may, the nuclear industry is, and will be, essential for power generation in this country for the foreseeable future. It may be, costs being what they are, that the only way in which nuclear energy can truly progress is by a combination of interests. I refer not only to interests from within this country but. European interests. Nuclear energy has been very successfully developed in France, for example. It seems tragic that, certainly in Scottish universities at the moment, there is no course for nuclear technology in this country. One day, we may have to go begging to our European neighbours in a field where we once took the lead.
  Whichever government have to take these decisions, it will take a lot of courage and a lot of resolve to spell out the future for nuclear power. I hope that the Bill will lay a foundation to help British Energy and all the other generators to recover and prosper in the future. I single out British Energy not only because the Bill deals exclusively with that but because it is our largest generator of electricity from nuclear power.
  The fact that the Government have stepped in to save British Energy is commendable. I think that it would have been outrageous for the Government not to come to the aid of British Energy. I pay tribute to them for that. They do plenty of other things for which I would not pay them tribute, but I believe in giving credit where it is due. As far as I am concerned, they have done a good job here. I shall continue to support

  GC 23
  the Bill. I hope that, despite the enthusiasm of my noble friends, nothing will be deleted from the Bill on Report.
  Baroness Miller of Hendon: I should like first, if I may, to tell my noble friend Lord Gray of Contin that I am truly sorry. He had great difficulty in not opposing the first few amendments because our noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding had put his name to them and he wanted to be seen to oppose our noble friend only once. I am very sorry about that.
  We on this side oppose the Question whether Clause 2 should stand part, although I readily admit that affirmative resolutions will make the provision somewhat better. I agree with my noble friend Lord Gray of Contin that we certainly would not want to do anything that failed to ensure a nuclear dimension to our energy mix. The trouble with the Bill, and particularly with Clause 2, is that it is too wide and is taking all the other provisions with it. That is the problem. We wanted to open up that debate for consideration.
  I shall not repeat the points which I made in earlier debates about the need for regulations to be approved by affirmative resolution. We seem to have reached that position. However, I should like to draw the Committee's attention to the serious—perhaps even sinister—implications of Clause 2(1), which in my view has been slipped into the Bill for no valid reason. The provision bears no relationship to the Bill's objectives and does nothing whatever to further those objectives. As we heard, Clause 2(1) repeals Sections 72 and 74 of the Electricity Act. It is not necessary for me to trouble noble Lords with the complicated and convoluted provisions of the two sections themselves as the excellent Explanatory Notes outline the provisions very well. I should like instead to quote from the Explanatory Notes in a slightly abbreviated form. They state that Section 74,
  "originally ensured that the privatisation of a Government owned electricity company could not be subsequently reversed. It did this by restricting the Secretary of State's common law powers to acquire ordinary shares in certain privatised … companies beyond a specified limit".
  They go on to explain that Section 72,
  "is a special provision for purchase of shares in successor companies (which … comprise certain of the privatised electricity companies)".
  Clause 2 proposes simply to remove those restrictions. In other words, the Government want the power to purchase shares in privatised electricity companies—the very power that the Government admit those two sections were expressly passed to prevent. Specifically, the restrictions were intended, in the Government's own words, to prevent re-nationalisation. They do that under the pretext of the Explanatory Notes, which blandly claim:
  "In the main, Part 2 has served its purpose and the provisions no longer apply or are now irrelevant".
  The Minister repeated that twice earlier.
  Who, apart from the Government and the unions, says that the threat of re-nationalisation is no longer relevant? Who says that inhibitions against
  GC 24
  nationalisation or re-nationalisation have served their purpose? At the TUC conference only last year, a resolution was unanimously passed calling for British Energy to be re-nationalised. Sure enough, the Government included that provision in this Bill. 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.]
  As I mentioned at Second Reading, I naturally accept the Government's assurance. At 4.50 p.m. on 27th January, when the assurance was given, the Government probably did not have any such intention. I am sure that the Minister will repeat something similar this afternoon.
  We would like to put temptation entirely out of the way. If the Government change their mind and decide that re-nationalisation of electricity companies or any other company is necessary, let them come back to Parliament and specifically seek the power to do so rather than indulge in such a method at this stage. The Labour Party did not include in its manifesto for either the 1997 or 2001 general election any pledge to nationalise or re-nationalise anything. The Government do not have a mandate to do that, especially using this section of the Bill to do so virtually through the backdoor as the Minister in another place accepted could happen.
  In the call for re-nationalisation of British Energy at the TUC conference, John Edmonds, the leader of the GMB, called for what he called a Railtrack-style solution. I leave that on the table, the Government's manoeuvres that drove Railtrack into administration and, therefore, enabled the Government to appropriate it without compensation to the shareholders were in effect an act of re-nationalisation.
  The Prime Minister claims the credit for removing Clause IV of Labour's constitution, which expresses an aim to secure,
  "the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange".
  Clearly, that aim is still there in the person of John Edmonds. We feel that such provision could be slipped into the Bill. I hope that the Minister can assure us that there is no such intention.
  Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: The amendments to Clause 2 have been grouped under two major headings. The first is the aspect of the financial blank cheque. Clause 1 deals with British Energy, but, as various Committee members said, Clause 2 goes much wider. The second is the legislative black hole, which my noble friend Lady Miller of Hendon referred to. The Minister sought to reassure us about both aspects.
  My noble friend Lord Gray made a powerful argument, which I accept, about the importance of nuclear energy. Perhaps he will forgive me for saying that, if one wishes to support nuclear energy, it is an extension to Clause 1, not an opposition to Clause 2. Clause 2 is about the expansion beyond the narrower remit, whereas Clause 1 is about British Energy, our

  GC 25
  nuclear supplier. I accept his points, especially that on the White Paper, which fluffed the issue and left us no further forward despite months or years of consultation.
  I, too, accept with gratitude the Minister's change of heart about the proposal on statutory instruments. I accept his good intentions about how the legislation will be used. I accept that he believes in market forces. I heard him talk powerfully about the matter during the passage of the Enterprise Bill, so I know that he believes in the importance of the market. But, as my noble friend Lord Jenkin said, he cannot tie the hands of his successors, and his successors may not have the faith in the market that I know he has.
  5.30 p.m.
  Lord Sainsbury of Turville: Clause 2 is an important part of the Bill. It has two main elements: removing an existing barrier to acquiring shares from the Electricity Act 1989, and a delegated power to tidy up the rest of Part II of that Act.
  I shall focus on the first of those elements because it is the more substantive part of the clause and because we have already debated the delegated power in relation to Amendments Nos. 9, 10 and 11. As I explained, the Bill will ensure that Government are prepared for either eventuality regarding British Energy's restructuring deal. It allows us to play our part in the restructuring if the company can deliver on the other elements of that deal. However, it also ensures that we are prepared for the eventuality that the deal fails and the company goes into administration.
  If the company goes into administration, the Government need to ensure continuity for the nuclear business. We will do that by ensuring that they can step in to acquire BE if necessary. That is why we are removing the existing target investment limit block from the Electricity Act.
  I have explained why the Government want to be in a position to acquire shares in the BE operating companies. Let me now in turn explain why we are doing that by repealing Sections 72 and 74 of the Electricity Act 1989 in their entirety rather than through some more narrow provision that relates only to BE. The simple fact is that the provisions are now outdated and inappropriate to the current electricity industry and we believe that it is sensible simply to remove them.
  The provision of a target investment limit through Section 74 may well have made sense at the time of privatisation. It would have given some level of certainty to investors that the privatisation process would be carried through and not immediately reversed. However, those provisions are of very limited relevance now, a decade later, when the industry looks nothing like it did in 1989. The provisions are very narrowly defined and relate only to a small number of companies: the successor companies created in the industry restructuring for privatisation. They apply only to that small number of specific Companies Act companies and not to any wider
  GC 26
  corporate group of which those companies may now be a part or to any new ones. The provisions from 1989 do not anticipate the fact that the assets that were privatised a decade ago may no longer he part of the same Companies Act company—for example, if a company has restructured itself by moving assets into a new company within the same group. The provisions certainly do not take account of all the new entrant companies that have come into the market since then. In short, the provision relates quite narrowly to a specific set of companies from 1989 and not to the electricity industry as a whole.
  Indeed, there is a significant portion of the electricity industry to which the restriction on the Government's ability to purchase shares does not apply. In the generation sector, new entry and reorganisation already mean that much electricity generation plant is no longer held by successor companies under the Electricity Act 1989. As a result of the Utilities Act 2000, the former public electricity supply companies were required to reorganise themselves into separate supply and distribution companies, again making changes to the industry structure. So, the current barrier to acquiring shares in companies does not apply in a uniform manner. There is no level playing field. It applies in some cases and not in others: whether it applies or not is often a matter of historical accident rather than deliberate logic. The repeal of Sections 72 and 74 would simply remove the indiscriminate application of that law.
  I know that some noble Lords have questioned why the Government should still be taking the provision forward, given the progress that has been achieved by BE in relation to the restructuring deal. In particular, I refer to the agreement in principle by BE's creditors on 14th February. Indeed, at Second Reading the noble Baroness said:
  "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 … 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?".—[Official Report, 3/3/03; col. 610.]
  I admire the noble Baroness's optimism, but we must take a responsible position and be prepared for the worst. British Energy is by no means out of the woods on delivering its restructuring plan. Several important hurdles remain. BE has an agreement in principle from its creditors that it must take it a step further and get a full, binding agreement. It must also sell its stake in AmerGen, its venture in the United States, and the restructuring plan must be agreed by the European Commission under the state aid rules. None of those things is in any way a foregone conclusion, and there is still a realistic possibility that the restructuring plan could fail and the company end up in administration.
  A failure of the BE restructuring plan could happen, in spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, said, with limited warning, and Parliament

  GC 27
  might not be sitting. So, it would be remiss and shortsighted to assume that the risk of administration had gone away and to remove the provisions from the Bill.
  Clause 2 agreed to.
  Clause 3 [Amendment of Schedule 12 to the Electricity Act 1989]:
  Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 12:
  Page 2, line 29, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
  "(2) In paragraph 4(1) (financial limits on grants, loans and guarantees under that Schedule) for "£2,500 million" there is substituted "£5,000 million"."
  The noble Baroness said: Clause 3(2) repeals the provisions in Schedule 12 to the Electricity Act 1989, which limits the expenditure that the Secretary of State may incur for the storage or pre-processing of nuclear fuels; the treatment, storage or disposal of radioactive waste; or the decommissioning of nuclear installations. That limit goes from £1 billion up to £2.5 billion. Those are substantial sums in their own right, but the Government wish to remove that limit.
  The Government propose to remove the limit without giving any explanation in the Explanatory Notes. On 5th September last year, when challenged on the subject on BBC news, the Secretary of State said that there was no question of taxpayers writing a blank cheque to British Energy and its shareholders. What is the removal of any spending limit but a request for a blank cheque? At the same time, I ask the Minister to tell us what is the Government's current estimate of the costs incurred for the purposes set out in Schedule 12 that I have just described.
  The Minister in another place said that the removal of the limit would give the flexibility to meet eventualities. The limit that the Conservative government wisely imposed on the expenditure was expressly designed to inhibit such flexibility. Flexibility is Whitehall-speak for a free hand to do whatever a Minister decides to do, with no parliamentary control. A Conservative government with a well established track record of financial prudence would not put temptation in their own way to spend however much they chose. How much less should we give such flexibility to the current Government?
  In another place, a limit different to mine was proposed. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, has tabled an amendment proposing a figure of £3.5 billion. I have not plucked the figure in my amendment from the air; it is double the 1989 upper figure, to take care of inflation over the past 14 years and any contingencies that were unforeseen in 1989. It also takes care of the problem that I mentioned at Second Reading, namely that the ring-fenced decommissioning fund has been unwisely invested, resulting in paper losses of £110 million since last April. As I also said at Second Reading, it is Parliament's job to control the excesses of the Executive.
  I do not wish to conduct some sort of auction; I simply invite the Government to come up with a realistic figure that they can justify not only to us but
  GC 28
  to all noble Lords and to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. Interestingly, we supported the Liberal Democrat amendment in another place. We have no problem with it here today, other than the fact that my noble friend had tabled an amendment using a figure of £10 billion. His amendment was not called, so he supported the Liberal Democrat amendment. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, has added his name to this amendment, but we wait to see what the Government's position is. I beg to move.
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I draw the attention of noble Lords to the fact that if this amendment is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 13 because of pre-emption.
  Lord Ezra: I support the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. It is worrying that we again have a proposal for an open-ended facility. Surely the Government should give us a figure—figures of £3.5 billion, £5 billion and even £10 billion have been mentioned. There must be some limit above which the Government feel, even in the most extraordinary circumstances, expenditure should not be incurred. We believe that it would be quite wrong to introduce the concept of unlimited expenditure in this clause, as well as in previous clauses. I therefore strongly support the remarks of the noble Baroness.
  Lord Jenkin of Roding: In replying to the amendment, I hope that the Minister will tell us about the progress of the nuclear liabilities fund, into which all nuclear generators are contributing so as to provide a fund to deal with the problem. I believe that I am right in saying that the Nuclear Decommissioning Fund is up and running and that money is being paid into it. The nuclear liabilities fund was proposed in a White Paper some while ago but I believe that its inception has been delayed. I am not entirely clear where we stand now. Presumably, some part of the moneys that will be put forward on behalf of British Energy to cover its nuclear liabilities will go into the nuclear liabilities fund. However, if that does not exist, that might be rather difficult. It would be helpful if the Minister explained the situation.
  I will continue talking for a bit because the gentleman behind the Minister is still scribbling and I do not want to place the Minister in any embarrassment. Another relevant Bill will come before the House but I believe that it will not deal with this issue. We need to know where we stand. As I understand it, legislation is not required to set up the body; it merely requires a government decision to get it involved.
  On the figures, I am interested to hear the Minister's comments because we are dealing with vast sums. I turn to the length of time for which the nuclear waste process should be left before the approach starts in earnest. I say this in deference to the noble Lord, Lord Tombs, who chaired a committee four years ago and gave the Government a clear steer in that regard. So far, practically nothing has happened. That is part of the problem that the Government face in dealing with nuclear liabilities. I hope that the Minister can tell us

  GC 29
  something about that fund and answer the questions of my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and that he is now briefed!
  5.45 p.m.
  Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I thank noble Lords for tabling Amendments Nos. 12 and 13. There is understandably some concern about the size of the liabilities that the Government intend to take on. The amendments posed represent a constructive attempt to address those concerns. However, for reasons that I will explain, I do not agree with them.
  As noble Lords will know, the Government, as part of BE's restructuring package, have agreed to take responsibility for BE's historic spent fuel contracts with BNFL, and to underwrite the nuclear liabilities fund, which will meet decommissioning costs and uncontracted liabilities and to which BE will be making contributions. That nuclear liabilities fund will be established on the restructuring of British Energy.
  For the restructuring to work, the Government must be in a position shortly where they can give a binding commitment to BE, in the form of a legal undertaking, to meet those liabilities. There is an important point to note here Although those expenditures—payments for the historic contracts and any payments that might be necessary for underwriting the other liabilities—may have to be paid over many years, the binding undertaking needs to be given up front. The reason for that is that the other parties to the restructuring plan, such as the board of directors of BE and BE's creditors, need to have confidence that the Government will deliver on their part of the plan.
  There is a problem with that in the shape of the current limits in Schedule 12. As noble Lords are aware, Schedule 12 to the Electricity Act 1989 permits the Government to provide financial assistance towards nuclear liabilities. Expenditure under this schedule is currently limited to a total of £1 billion. This limit itself can be raised up to a maximum of £2.5 billion through a statutory instrument. These limits were set at the time of privatisation of the electricity industry in 1989. They have not been changed since. As they stand, the limits represent a barrier to the Government delivering on their part of the British Energy restructuring package. The existence of these upper limits could cast doubt on the validity of a commitment from the Government. The limits that are in place are too low. However, given the form of the commitment that we need to make, I do not think it appropriate to try to place any limit up front in this way.
  Noble Lords have already asked why the existing limits are too low. The undertaking from the Government needs to give enough certainty to assure creditors that the Government will deliver their part of the deal. It also needs to be able to be recognised by the company as an asset that can offset its existing provisions for nuclear liabilities. We do not expect to pay the full value of these provisions—the whole point
  GC 30
  is to get the company back on its feet so that it can make significant contributions itself—but we do need to be able to underwrite those amounts to allow this deal to work.
  [The Sitting was suspended far a Division in the House from 5.46 to 5.55 p.m.]
  Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I explained why we have a problem with the limits on Schedule 12 to the Electricity Act 1989. I turn to our position on nuclear liabilities.
  The company's estimate for the full cost of its nuclear liabilities—in other words for station decommissioning and spent fuel management—is £5.2 billion discounted at a rate of 3 per cent real per annum. The payments will not have to be made until many years—in some cases, many decades—in the future. By the time the payments are made, time will have changed the estimated present value of the cost, which is £5.2 billion, into cash of perhaps as much as £14 billion. Within that figure, the current estimate of the cost of the historic spent fuel contracts is £2.1 billion discounted, but that is expected to result in cash payments of perhaps as much as £5 billion.
  The actual amount of cash that will be paid out in due course will depend on a variety of timing issues and the rate of inflation of the costs in future, which is impossible to predict now. That point was riot recognised in Schedule 12 to the Electricity Act 1989— which set limits that would apply to the eventual cash payments, not to their present value, and therefore set the limits at a level that was clearly inadequate to deal with liabilities of such a magnitude.
  The sums that I mentioned are large. However, it is important that, rather than focusing on the numbers, we focus on why the Government have decided to give the undertaking and on existing mechanisms for monitoring and scrutinising government expenditure in this area.
  The Government have agreed to take on responsibility for paying for BE's fuel management contracts which relate to historic spent fuel. They have also agreed to stand behind the nuclear liabilities fund, which will cover the cost of decommissioning and uncontracted liabilities. The undertaking recognises the fact that, ultimately, the Government must ensure that nuclear liabilities such as these are dealt with safely and properly. If the company failed and could not afford to pay to deal with the liabilities, the Government would need to step in. Our commitment of support, and the removal of the limit that enables it, is largely an honest recognition of this position.
  Providing a commitment in this way has the benefit of providing BE with a chance of restructuring. The proposed restructuring deal ensures that the company will contribute significantly to the cost of its own liabilities. It will do that by making certain fixed payments to the nuclear liabilities fund and will in addition contribute 65 per cent of available cash flow in perpetuity to the NLF. Essentially, although the Government are underwriting the NLF, the mechanism is in place to ensure that the better the

  GC 31
  company does, the more it contributes to the cost of meeting its liabilities. The Government strongly believe that the deal offers the best option for taxpayers going forward.
  It is also important to note that in considering the restructuring proposal and the implications for the company's viability after restructuring, the company's exchange of a long-term liability for an obligation to make fixed and variable contributions to the nuclear fund—contributions that would vary depending on station lives and BE's ability to pay—was an important factor taken into consideration by the directors of BE and by the creditors. Any restriction on the Government's undertaking, and therefore the reopening of a potentially open-ended liability for BE, would mark a material departure from the proposal and would risk jeopardising the success of the restructuring deal.
  We all share a desire to keep BE in the private sector, if possible. If that is truly the position of the Members of the Committee who tabled the amendment, they must give the Government the legislative power to play their essential part in the restructuring. The Government have been careful to ensure that taxpayers' interests are met and that mechanisms are put in place to guarantee that the company is doing all that it should to meet the costs of its own liabilities. Under the operation of the NLF, the Government propose to put in place a series of controls and incentives to ensure that BE runs its nuclear stations as though it were exclusively responsible for the discharge of nuclear liabilities.
  I hope that the Government's prudent planning offers some comfort to Opposition Members. In addition to the ongoing monitoring provided by the Government, there are mechanisms for providing accountability to Parliament in the current system. Parliament will have an opportunity to scrutinise Government expenditure on liabilities through the usual supply estimates process. In addition, information on DTI-managed nuclear liabilities is also provided to Parliament in the annual expenditure plans report, including expenditure. That would also be the case for liabilities that we have taken on for British Energy. We believe that this process, complemented by the annual report to Government from the NLF, provides a far more sophisticated and transparent check on the Government's expenditure than could a fixed statutory limit.
  Some concern has been expressed at the idea of Parliament being given authority to spend money without setting a limit. But there are numerous examples of powers of expenditure in primary legislation, wide and narrow, that are not subject to any limit other than that provided by the existing system of parliamentary scrutiny; for example, Section 126 of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996.
  The Government are committed to meeting the cost of nuclear liabilities to the extent that the company is unable to meet them itself. The eventual costs of the
  GC 32
  undertaking is subject to some uncertainty, but it is certain that the Government need to ensure that liabilities are dealt with safely, whatever the cost.
  Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 would specify the amount that the Government could provide to meet nuclear liabilities. That is the wrong approach. Apart from the issues of the timing of payments and the future inflation rate, it would be difficult or impossible to set a limit flexible enough to ensure that the Government could give a valid undertaking to stand behind their responsibilities to meet those liabilities, should the company fail to do so. If the company could not meet its nuclear liabilities, the Government would have to step in and deal with them in any event.
  The existing accountability in the parliamentary scrutiny system, combined with the additional reporting mechanisms that the Government have put in place, should comfort Committee Members that they can apply the same level of scrutiny to the power to incur expenditure under Schedule 12 as they do to other legislation that does not include limits for expenditure. I ask that the amendments be withdrawn.
  6 p.m.
  Lord Jenkin of Roding: Will the Minister say something about the NLF?
  Lord Sainsbury of Turville: As I said, the NLF will be introduced as part of the restructuring of BE. I believed that that answered the noble Lord's point.
  Lord Jenkin of Boding: Perhaps I was looking for more information. The proposed fund has been on the stocks for well over a year, but it still does not exist. It is not entirely limited to BE's nuclear liabilities—it may also provide a place for other payments for other sources. That was all spelt out in the White Paper last year, but since then nothing has happened.
  Lord Sainsbury of Turville: The noble Lord may be referring to a separate fund for public sector nuclear liabilities, which will be established as part of the new nuclear decommissioning agency.
  Baroness Miller of Hendon: We thank the Minister for the detailed information that he gave us, but we take note that the question that my noble friend Lord Jenkin asked has not been answered to his satisfaction. Perhaps the Minister will add something to his reply on Report, because it deals with an important aspect of the legislation.
  We understand the Minister's explanation that the Government could not possibly give an upper limit because of the extensive sum that might be needed. The Secretary of State said on BBC radio that the Government were not giving a blank cheque, but it looks like a blank cheque if one cannot get any idea of the amount. However, we will read carefully what the Minister said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendmet.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 13 not moved.]
  Clause 3 agreed to.
  Clause 4 [Undertakings to make grants under Schedule 12 to be disregarded for tax purposes]:
  Lord Jenkin of Boding Lord Jenkin of Boding moved Amendment No. 14:
  Page 3, line 7, leave out subsection (2).
  The noble Lord said: The Explanatory Notes give a marvellous explanation of the proposal in Clause 4(1) for the provision of exemption from taxation. I tabled Amendment No. 14 in order that I may seek further information as regards subsection (2).
  Paragraphs 21 to 27 of the Explanatory Notes spell out in considerable detail why there must be a provision for exemption from the taxation of the value of the undertakings when they are given—namely, that it is based on the manner in which the accruals basis is used for making up the company's accounts. I accept that.
  However, I should like an explanation as to the purpose of including subsection (2). I believe that that might have been included as an excess of caution—one is not supposed to use Latin words to describe legal concepts. Is that all it is? Or does it have an operative effect which would occur if subsection (2) was not in the Bill?
  Lord Sainsbury of Turville: The short answer is yes, it does have a purpose. It is not an excess of legal caution. Perhaps I may explain. The Government have already indicated that they are prepared to play their part in supporting a private sector restructuring of British Energy. We shall do that by providing financial support in relation to British Energy's historic liabilities. Doing that will help put BE on a sound financial footing in order to go forward in the future. In that way, they could continue to run the stations and generate revenue that can be put towards these liabilities.
  To ensure that this restructuring plan can succeed we need to ensure that the Government can deliver their side of the bargain. That is why we are clarifying the tax effect of any support provided by Government in respect of British Energy's decommissioning liabilities. Without that, when the Government sign the restructuring deal committing to provide support for the liabilities, this promise of support will trigger an immediate liability to corporation tax. We would give with one hand and take back with the other. But, of course, what we give is a promise of money over a long period, whereas what we take back is immediate cash—cash that British Energy can ill afford.
  Amendment No. 14 would remove subsection (2) of Clause 4, changing the scope of the tax disregard. That scope was derived following discussions with the Inland Revenue and with advisers who understand the accounting system for nuclear liabilities. The disregard essentially comes in two parts—subsections (1) and (2). Subsection (1) states that the making of a Schedule 12 grant should not trigger a tax charge. Subsection (2) clarifies that subsection (1) refers only to the initial recognition of the Government's grant.
  The undertaking to provide financial assistance to BE will be long term, but it is the initial giving of the undertaking that we are concerned about in relation to
  GC 34
  tax. It is this initial giving of the undertaking that would trigger a significant tax bill if we did not address this matter through legislation.
  While we want a tax disregard for the initial value of the undertaking, we do not want a tax disregard in relation to changes to the value of the undertaking in future years. The value of the undertaking made by the Government will change over time. It will change in line with changes in the value of the underlying nuclear liabilities that they are guaranteeing and will be funding.
  The accounting value of the liabilities will change over time as the discount for the fact that payment of these liabilities is still some time in the future unwinds and as costs become accurately known. As that value changes, the value of the undertaking given by the Government will change by an equivalent amount. Therefore, any credit for the increase in the value of the undertaking will be matched by an equivalent debit for the increase in the value of the liabilities. The two will cancel out and symmetry will be achieved.
  That symmetry should apply to the ongoing tax treatment of BE's liabilities and the Governments undertaking. This is symmetrical in all ways. If BE's liabilities increase, any tax benefit that they might receive from increased provisions in its accounts, should be offset by an increased value of the undertaking. If its liabilities decrease, the tax charge that they might receive from reduced provisions would be offset by a reduction in the value of the undertaking.
  By changing the definition of the tax disregard, Amendment No. 14 could upset this symmetry. The result could be an increase in the tax benefit available to BE. It would receive a tax benefit whenever its liabilities increase—even though those liabilities are now covered by the undertaking from Government— because the result of the amendment would be to exempt any credit from a change in value of the undertaking.
  I imagine that that was not the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, and I ask him to withdraw the amendment.
  Lord Jenkin of Roding: I should want to study that explanation carefully. I think that I understood it. The noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, was reassuring when he said that this issue had been discussed with the Inland Revenue, as well as with advisors. This is the result of advice. I do not intend to take the subsection out in the light of what he says. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 4 agreed to.
  Clause 5 [Short title and extent]:
  Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 15:
  Page 3, line 24, at end insert—
  "( ) This Act shall cease to have effect five years after it receives Royal Assent unless it has been extended from time to time for periods not exceeding two years by resolution of both Houses of Parliament."
  The noble Baroness said: This Bill has been necessitated because of what amounts to an emergency in the electricity generating industry—particularly as regards the dire straits in which British Energy finds itself.
  We discussed the reasons for this problem at Second Reading. It is unnecessary for further recrimination at this time. It is to be hoped that the measures taken by the Government, the public funds pumped into British Energy and, not least, the passage of this Bill, will resolve the crisis once and for all. That being so, there is no reason why this Bill should be permanently on the statute book.
  The Government recognise that parts of the Electricity Act 1989 are no longer relevant. The Explanatory Notes to the present Bill refer to the provisions in Part II of the 1989 Act as, "in the main, spent". They state that,
  "In the main, Part 2 has served its purpose and the provisions no longer apply or are now irrelevant".
  From my opposition to the whole of Clause 2, Members of the Committee will be aware that I disagree that Part II of the Electricity Act 1989 has become redundant or irrelevant. However, the Government clearly concede that parts of the basic electricity legislation may have a limited shelf life. But, how much more is that so for the present Bill? It is legislation designed to cope with an emergency—we trust a temporary emergency—which will eventually be resolved, making the provisions of this Bill no less inapplicable or irrelevant or spent—to use the Government's own words.
  One could suppose that that happy state of affairs does not happen sooner rather than later. I propose an initial five-year term, but that the Bill be extended for successive two year periods for as long as may he necessary. I beg to move.
  Lord Sainsbury of Turville: As I have made clear, this Bill allows the Government to be prepared for every eventuality. The provisions made within the Bill ensure that the Government have effective contingency planning in place to deal with BE should the restructuring deal fail and the company goes into administration.
  The proposed amendment aims to limit the effect of the provisions of the Bill to five years from the date of Royal Assent. After that date, the Act would cease to have effect.
  The effect of the amendment is difficult to gauge. It would affect the clauses of the Bill differently. For example, the effect that it would have on the amendments made by Clause 3 is not clear. We want to amend Schedule 12 to remove the existing limit, so that we can make our financial commitment, but if the Act were to cease to apply, it could cause legal uncertainty as to the effect on Schedule 12. A similar point applies to Clause 4. That clause already has a carefully drafted sunset provision, such that the tax disregard would apply only to undertakings made in the next five years. The effect of a complete repeal of the clause would be less clear.
  GC 36
  In that context, any sunset clause must be drafted more carefully. Such a clause might not be totally unacceptable, but it would have to be drafted to take account of its relationship to different clauses. If the noble Baroness produced such a clause, we would examine it on its merits. The current amendment would introduce a great deal of legal uncertainty.
  6.15 p.m.
  Lord Jenkin of Roding: The noble Lord seems to have omitted to mention the fact that my noble friend's amendment does not just end the operation of the Bill after five years; it gives Parliament the power to extend it,
  "from time to time for periods not exceeding two years".
  It is unlikely beyond possibility that Parliament would not vote for the order extending the Act, if it were necessary to do so. The amendment is not a cut-off; it would simply allow for renewal subject to parliamentary control. The noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury of Turville, did not address himself to that part of the amendment.
  Lord Sainsbury of Turville: The noble Lord has cast some doubts on what my successors might do, but he cannot speak for what Parliament might do, in a situation in which the undertaking in Schedule 12 could last for decades. There is a need for certainty as to how the law will operate, and we cannot simply rely on the hope that Parliament would extend the Act.
  As I said, the problem is that any sunset clause must be worked through to cover its effect on different clauses, if it is not to introduce a great deal of undesirable uncertainty.
  Baroness Miller of Hendon: I thank my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding for making the point that we are not imposing a cut-off; Parliament could extend the Act regularly.
  I shall read carefully what the Minister has said about the effect that the amendment might have on different clauses. I must confess that I did not take that into account, and I want to think carefully about it. Re-drafting the amendment to take the different clauses into account might mean getting a little more expert help, rather more, perhaps, than was necessary with the current amendment. That is why I liked the comment made by my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding that it should not have been necessary. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 5 agreed to.
  Bill reported without amendment.
  The Committee adjourned at eighteen minutes past six o'clock.

  The Lord Chancellor: Remuneration
  The Lord Chancellor: Remuneration
  Northern Ireland: Sexual Offences Bill
  Northern Ireland: Sexual Offences Bill
  House of Lords: Peers' Expenses
  House of Lords: Peers' Expenses
  Iraq: Legality of Armed Force
  Iraq: Legality of Armed Force
  Human Rights Conventions
  Human Rights Conventions
  Information Provided to Daily Mail on Cases Decided by Lord Justice Collins
  Information Provided to Daily Mail on Cases Decided by Lord Justice Collins
  Electronic Security and Computer Viruses
  Electronic Security and Computer Viruses
  Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act: Independent Visits to Persons Held without Trial
  Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act: Independent Visits to Persons Held without Trial
  Identity Checking Online
  Identity Checking Online
  Asylum Appeals: Home Office Representation
  Asylum Appeals: Home Office Representation
  E-conveyancing Consultation
  E-conveyancing Consultation
  Adoption: European Court of Human Rights Judgment
  Adoption: European Court of Human Rights Judgment
  Museums and Galleries: Performance Indicator Data
  Museums and Galleries: Performance Indicator Data
  Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill
  Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill
  School Nurses
  School Nurses
  NHS in Wales: VAT
  NHS in Wales: VAT
  Haemophilia
  Haemophilia
  Deafblind People: Social Care
  Deafblind People: Social Care
  Department of Health: QWAs
  Department of Health: QWAs
  Human Cloning
  Human Cloning
  Food Supplements: Nutrients
  Food Supplements: Nutrients
  NHS Quarterly Review
  NHS Quarterly Review
  North Staffordshire NHS Trust: Report of Review of Research Framework
  North Staffordshire NHS Trust: Report of Review of Research Framework
  Halon Fire Extinguishers
  Halon Fire Extinguishers