Sitting of 26 March 2003

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

  TRANSAS GROUP BILL (BY ORDER)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time on Wednesday 2 April.

Oral Answers to Questions
  INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

    Heavily Indebted Poor Countries
    Mr. Paul Burstow: How far UK aid and support for heavily indebted poor countries are conditional upon (a) human rights, (b) corruption and (c) governance. [104775]
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): The heavily indebted poor countries initiative is designed to lift the debt burden of the poorest countries to enable them to reform, grow their economies and provide basic services to their people. Debt relief is conditional on agreement on a poverty reduction strategy that drives forward economic and social reform.
    Mr. Burstow: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that answer. Given that, in the six years of the scheme, only three of the 42 countries eligible have received debt stock reduction, is it not time to back the Jubilee Debt Campaign's call for full cancellation of HIPC debts and redouble efforts to assist those countries in meeting the conditions, so that they can finally break free of the shackles of debt?
    Clare Short: If the hon. Gentleman's facts were true, it might well be, but in fact 26 countries have received debt reduction, seven have completed the process and $62 billion of debt has been written off. Those are very poor countries, and that is a lot of money for them—two thirds of their debt. There has been a very big expansion in their spending on public services and significant reform. Another stock of countries are not there yet, mostly because they are in conflict—Burma, Sudan, Congo—and we are trying to use the availability of debt
    272
    relief to help to bring about a peace process. Of course the initiative could be better and more generous, but it is working well.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: Given my right hon. Friend's personal interest in not just debt but human rights in Rwanda, does she agree that it is still important to continue to support and provide resources for the Gacaca courts to ensure genuine reconciliation?
    Clare Short: I agree with my right hon. Friend. The world owes Rwanda support because we turned away, in breach of the genocide convention, when genocide was threatened and, to all our shame, the UN was pulled out and nearly 1 million people were slaughtered under orders.
    Rwanda has made enormous progress. In fact, it is becoming ready for a referendum on its new constitution and democratic elections. We are the biggest supporter of all that reform in Rwanda, but Rwanda will not be safe until there is peace in Congo and Burundi. That is in the interests of all the people of the region. We are working on all three and progress is possible, but it will require more attention.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: One understands that there are contentions on governance in Malawi, but will the Secretary of State express concern at the fact that hospitals in Malawi need help, which surely could be provided through non-governmental organisations?
    Clare Short: I agree. Malawi is a desperately poor country and, of course, it has been affected by drought and by problems with the governance of the country, selling off food stocks in the face of drought and the Government's focus on changing the constitution to get a third term, rather than looking after the needs of their people. We are trying to drive reform in Malawi's institutions, but we have shifted some of our resources into direct provision to people. However, one-off projects do not reform a country's institutions, which is the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, and we will get back to trying to help Malawi to have better institutions and better health care as soon as we can.

    British Overseas Territories
    Andrew Mackinlay: If she will make a statement on her Department's responsibilities for British overseas territories. [104776]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Ms Sally Keeble): We continue to provide appropriate support to the overseas territories that need it. We have refocused our support to encourage local leadership and lessen the sense of dependency. Our total programme is currently worth roughly £35 million a year, and it goes mainly to St. Helena and Montserrat. We provide lower levels of support elsewhere.
    Andrew Mackinlay: Will the Minister have discussions with her opposite number at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office about the fact that so many of our overseas territories are falling between the stools of

    273
    the two Departments? Will the Minister consider the parlous state in the Turks and Caicos Islands, where some of the people in the most abject poverty, with children being denied education and labour being unregulated are to found under the British Crown? It is about time that either her Department or the Foreign and Commonwealth Office got a grip on the situation, rather than allowing it to be out of sight and out of mind.
    Ms Keeble: It is not right to say that many of the overseas territories fall between two stools. We provide a huge amount of support for all of them, to suit their appropriate needs, but my hon. Friend is right to highlight the problems of the people in the Turks and Caicos Islands. We are working with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on a study of human rights issues in the overseas territories, and it will be discussed with the territories' Governments. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has also looked into the problem in respect of school placements, but I will ensure that it is raised again and that we talk about it.
    Mr. Henry Bellingham: The Secretary of State will be aware that, in the main, these territories do not want independence. They want to be treated like grown-ups. Has not the time come to look at the French solution, whereby we would integrate them into Britain and give them proper representation here and in Europe?
    Ms Keeble: I would argue that my Department, which looks at economic support in particular, treats them very much as grown-ups. We are trying to provide them with sustainable economies. In the case of St. Helena and Montserrat, for example, we are looking at access and air transport needs. The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of parliamentary representation, which, as he knows, has not been this Government's policy. At present, there are no prospects of looking at that. It is, however, a responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.

    Ethiopia
    Mr. Andy Reed: What representations she has received about the impact of the collapse of coffee prices on poverty reduction in Ethiopia. [104777]
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): Coffee is Ethiopia's largest export, grown mostly by small farmers. The fall in prices, which is very large, has cut their income and, of course, increased poverty. It has also reduced the capacity of Ethiopia to borrow abroad to finance essential investment: it is one of the poorest countries in the world with a GDP of $100 a head. That highlights the importance of Ethiopia diversifying exports. My Department has organised advice from UK retailers to help develop Ethiopia's horticultural sector. Prime Minister Meles is working to ensure that Ethiopia can learn from reform in this sector and then make progress in diversification in other sectors.
    Mr. Reed: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. She clearly agrees with me that Ethiopia, as one of the
    274
    poorest countries in the world, cannot survive these devastating reductions in coffee prices. Does she agree that we need to look at radical extra measures to ensure that we can raise those prices? First, we could use the €750 million available in the European Union. Secondly, we could help the International Coffee Organisation to drive up standards. Thirdly—this is a radical suggestion—we could assist in destroying some of the sub-standard stocks held around the world to help drive up prices.
    Clare Short: I agree that this is a serious problem. The old way of dealing with things, however, which was to compensate countries for a drop in prices, paralysed them into growing crops that were not taking them forward. That led many poor countries to be reliant on commodities that are constantly falling in price. We need changes in trade rules, so that countries can process their products, get more value added and diversify, making available aid to support them in the diversification process. I agree about the seriousness of the issue, but the way in which we deal with it must help these countries go forward, not paralyse them in declining sectors.
    Mr. Laurence Robertson: As the Secretary of State knows, I led an Inter-Parliamentary Union trip to Ethiopia in December, where I saw at first hand the problems created by the drought. Despite the understandable focus on Iraq, will she nevertheless assure the House that she will ensure that Ethiopia receives all the food aid that it has been promised as quickly as possible?
    Clare Short: Yes, indeed. The drought is very serious. Fifteen million people are affected. We must provide support, but not in a way that destroys local agriculture. Constant handouts destroy markets and destroy recovery, and there has been too much of that in Ethiopia. We are providing big support, and I have given an absolute undertaking, with which I am sure Members on both sides of the House would agree: we must stand by the people of Iraq but not at the cost of people in need in poorer parts of the world. We will not withdraw any support from crises in Africa or from our programmes for poor people anywhere. Our support for Iraq must be additional.

    Poppy Farming
    John Mann: What plans she has to provide alternative occupations to those involved in the fanning of the opium poppy. [104778]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Ms Sally Keeble): My Department is supporting rural development and other programmes in Afghanistan so that Afghans can develop livelihoods that do not depend on poppy growing. We are taking care not to provide perverse incentives by working only in poppy-growing areas.
    John Mann: Many of my constituents who are in the armed services are in Afghanistan, and far too many of my constituents are drug addicts because of heroin. Can we see the job through in Afghanistan? Will the Minister

    275
    give a commitment to quantify the success in providing alternative employment in Afghanistan over the next year?
    Ms Keeble: Yes. Of the £40 million a year that we are providing in support to Afghanistan, probably a third to half of it goes on diversification. Our programmes include a £3 million livelihood programme in Badakhstan, and a £2 million migrant labour scheme in the central highlands to stop some people migrating to the poppy-growing areas. We therefore do a lot of specific practical work, which will be continued in the coming years.
    Mr. Robert Key: Ninety per cent. of the heroin coming into the United Kingdom is supplied from Afghanistan. This year, Afghanistan will have a bumper crop of some 4,000 tonnes. What are the Government going to do, because the Minister has failed to stop the production of opium in Afghanistan? What will happen, and what will she and her ministerial colleagues do, when bumper crops come into the UK?
    Ms Keeble: The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the problem of the heroin that comes to the UK from Afghanistan. My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) has done a huge amount to highlight the problem and examine practical solutions, and I think that everyone applauds his work.
    The hon. Gentleman knows that we have worked to destroy poppy crops. There will not necessarily be a bumper crop this year but we recognise that there is still the problem of poppies being grown. The Afghan Government are working with the provincial governors to destroy the crops. We are trying to support that with a long-term solution of ensuring that if crops are destroyed, people will be able to find alternative livelihoods.
    Mr. Key: It is not working.
    Ms Keeble: The hon. Gentleman says it is not working, but clearly long-term support will be needed to change the livelihoods of disadvantaged people in rural areas. We are working with the Afghan Government to achieve that goal.
    Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Is the Minister aware of any examples of when action on drug-supplying nations has had any effect on the amount of drugs sold and provided in drug-taking nations?
    Ms Keeble: Work across government is co-ordinated among all Government Departments. A considerable amount of work is being done in Iran to tackle problems related to supply routes. Although the work in Afghanistan is in its early days, it is extremely important because it is focused on the area from which most of the drugs come.
    Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: Is the Minister aware that pyrethrum—a chrysanthemum—grows in the same conditions as the poppy plant? It is used for the manufacture of organic insecticides and pesticides—I see that the Secretary of State is familiar with it. It is used by companies such as Agropharm,
    276
    which is in my constituency. What is the Department doing to encourage farmers to grow pyrethrum instead of poppies?
    Ms Keeble: I was not aware of the particular problem raised by the hon. Lady. [HON. MEMBERS: "Solution."] Okay, the solution. I understand that she has received a letter from my right hon. Friend the Secretary the State about the issue. I shall examine and take up the matter again and ensure that we take advantage of the solution.
    Mr. Bill Tynan: The continuing growth of poppy fields is a major problem. What steps have been taken to provide finance for machinery and education so that we turn to alternative solutions to ensure that living standards in Afghanistan increase?
    Ms Keeble: My hon. Friend has pointed to the longer-term solution that we must find. We have invested substantial amounts and we shall continue to do so. We provided £15 million for the Afghan reconstruction trust fund this year. The fund covers a range of issues, including alternative livelihoods and people's educational needs. There are other specific projects, but the solution is to work with the Afghan Government to ensure that their country has a sustainable economy and sustainable social programmes.

    Iraq
    Mr. Andrew Turner: If she will make a statement on the proportion of reconstruction costs in Iraq that will be met by the use of Iraqi oil revenues. [104779]
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): The Iraqi economy is in very poor shape and most people are dependent on handouts provided through the oil-for-food programme. Some 16 million people are completely dependent on handouts and are not economically active. The programme spends $10 billion each year and is funded by the sale of Iraqi oil. The immediate challenge is to get the oil-for-food programme up and running again. Thereafter, a UN-mandated transitional Government will need to agree an economic reform programme, which will need to address the problems of debt, reparations, building a modern economy and modernising the oil industry.
    Mr. Turner: I thank the right hon. Lady for her reply, which I notice did not answer my question. Is she aware that the Foreign Secretary said last Tuesday:
    "we shall propose…that every single cent and penny of those oil revenues"
    —[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."]—of course I am, I am quoting—
    "are … used for the benefit of the Iraqi people … when that happens, the costs of reconstruction to the rest of the world will be remarkably insignificant"—[Official Report, 18 March 2003; Vol. 401, c. 899.]?

    277
    If the costs will be insignificant, why are we having such trouble agreeing with our European colleagues how much they will contribute?
    Clare Short: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not listen to my answer. Iraqi oil is sold under the oil-for-food programme and every scrap of money that comes from legitimate sales goes into a UN trust fund to purchase food and medical supplies and to patch up water supplies and so on to keep everyone fed. The basic programme for looking after the people of Iraq is funded by their oil. We need to keep that running and modernise their economy so that the oil industry is better and their economy can grow. The oil sector will make Iraq a wealthy country, but there will have to be reform. The first stage is to fund humanitarian aid. Once the reforms are in place, the economy will be strengthened and will grow. The money goes through a trust fund.
    Mr. Shaun Woodward: What progress is being made in the awarding of contracts for reconstruction in Iraq? Given the United States' policy of tying its aid, can the Secretary of State assure us that the awarding of the contracts will be fair and, as the money will come from the oil trust fund, in the long-term interests of the people of Iraq?
    Clare Short: I understand public concern about that, but people should not be too worried. So far, USAID has awarded contracts involving aid money to US companies to deal with the immediate humanitarian crises. That is bad practice. The UK is untied and we always fund the most efficient provider, which is usually better for the region. However, such provision of contracts has no implications for the future reconstruction of Iraq. That will require a UN mandate to put an interim Iraqi Government in place, followed by work carried out by the International Monetary Fund and World Bank. Reform will be transparent and any contracts will be properly awarded.
    Dr. Jenny Tonge: Donald Rumsfeld said that American dollars will not be used for the reconstruction of Iraq. If $400 billion is needed for the task, if the USA wants total control of the process and if donors such as France and Germany will not contribute unless there is a new UN resolution, does the right hon. Lady think that the Prime Minister will be successful this time in persuading George Bush to go down the UN route?
    Clare Short: The Prime Minister reached an agreement with President Bush in the Azores that there would be a UN mandate for reconstruction, which is also an absolute legal requirement. It is clear from the advice of our Attorney-General on 1441 and previous resolutions that our armed forces are in Iraq as an occupying power with humanitarian responsibilities and duties to keep order and the civil administration running. They do not, however, have the authority to reorganise institutions or establish a new Government. That requires a UN mandate. The UK is clear about that and I am hopeful that, as everything settles down, the international community will unite around that so
    278
    that everyone is involved, including the IMF and World Bank, in providing proper help for Iraq to reconstruct itself.
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a need to build international bridges following the Iraq conflict? Does she also agree that getting a UN resolution and using the UN to distribute contracts for post-war reconstruction is the best way to go about that?
    Clare Short: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. As I have said, I think that the way in which we approached the crisis, allowing international division to be so deep, was deeply unfortunate. But we are where we are, and we need to get the world back together, for the sake of Iraq and the middle east, to drive forward the peace process in Palestine, and for the sake of world order in these troubled times. That is a very urgent priority that everyone should attend to. A UN resolution on Iraq could be part of the healing process. First, we need a resolution to keep the oil-for-food programme running, as 16 million Iraqis are dependent on it. Work on that is going on, and much of it is led by Kofi Annan. We are hopeful that there will be a resolution within days. Thereafter, we need agreement on a UN resolution to bring into being a legitimate Iraqi transitional Government—we are working on that too. That is supremely important; I fundamentally agree with my hon. Friend.
    Mrs. Caroline Spelman: Yesterday, the Secretary of State restated the urgent need for a new UN resolution on the oil-for-food programme. Has her Department any idea how long it will be before the suspension of the programme results in serious food shortages in Iraq? When does she expect a new resolution to be tabled at the United Nations—are we talking about a matter of days or weeks?
    Clare Short: We are talking about a matter of days—it is looking more hopeful. It may have to be a two-stage resolution, and I agree with the hon. Lady that it is supremely important. As for needs in the meantime, under the oil-for-food programme, a couple of months' supplies were distributed across the country as the crisis developed, so in the short term food is not the problem—it is water and other supplies. As we know, at Basra, there has been damage to a cable. People cannot live without water—in a very short period they will get diarrhoea and cholera, and that is the danger in Basra. I am happy to say that the International Committee of the Red Cross is now in the power plant working on reconstruction, and it and UNICEF are tanking water to the people of Basra. There is danger in the short term, but I think that we will get that resolution very soon.
    Mrs. Spelman: On 18 March, the Secretary of State staled confidently in a letter that
    "the Prime Minister has persuaded President Bush that there must be a new UN resolution creating a UN mandate for the reconstruction of Iraq."

    279
    However, can she tell the House what success she has had in persuading the leaders of France, Germany and Russia of the need for a new UN resolution on reconstruction?
    Clare Short: The hon. Lady is right. There was agreement in the Azores on a UN resolution. The question now is about the detailed content of that resolution, which is of course crucial to legality and international co-operation, as I have previously explained. Talks are going on—I have been involved in some of them, but I will not give all the details here—to bring together France, Russia and Germany, and I am hopeful that we will make progress. However, the hon. Lady is absolutely right—there is a lot of hurt and division, and we have got to heal it to look after Iraq, the middle east and the world.

    Democratic Republic of the Congo
    Mr. Chris Mullin: What response she has made to the UN appeal on behalf of refugees from eastern Congo; and if she will make a statement. [104780]
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): We are working with others to try to relieve suffering in the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo, but there will not be substantial progress without political progress, which requires the installation of the now-agreed transitional Government in Kinshasa, Ugandan withdrawal from Ituri, and all parties ceasing to fund and supply their surrogate fighters, who are responsible for destabilising and terrorising the people of eastern Congo.
    Mr. Mullin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that UN appeals for the Congo, Somalia, Eritrea and elsewhere in Africa where unspeakable tragedies are occurring have been massively under-subscribed, in some cases attracting only a few per cent. of the amount requested? Is there not a danger that events in Iraq will overshadow the very real tragedies in Africa? What can we do to try to avoid that?
    Clare Short: I am following events in the Congo, Somalia and Eritrea in great detail, and the UK is highly involved. My hon. Friend said that appeals were massively under-subscribed, but it is not as bad as that. I shall give him further details. The whole of Africa is worried about the danger that the world will turn away from it, and there are serious crises in southern Africa, the Horn and Angola. I have given an absolute assurance that the UK will not turn away, and none of our funding will be removed—as I said earlier, I think that that has the support of the House. I can assure my hon. Friend that we will work to make sure that the international community does not turn away either.
    Ms Julia Drown: What efforts are being made to tackle the human rights abuses that are continuing in the Congo, which are of such concern to refugees in the area?
    Clare Short: Horrendous human rights abuse is taking place: killing, raping, even cannibalism, and, on
    280
    top of that, there is desperate poverty right across the country, which is as big as western Europe and massively rich in minerals. That is the tragedy of the history of the Congo. We are trying to provide humanitarian relief, but no one can secure human rights until we stop all the militias that are being armed and funded by the various contesting parties, get the new transitional Government into Kinshasa and get Uganda out of the Congo. Then we will be able to help people restore the country. We are prioritising and working on that. We need political progress to stop the abuse of people.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Simon Hughes: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 26 March.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I will have further such meetings later today.
    Following reports of further British casualties, I know that the whole House will join me in sending our deepest sympathy and condolences to the families and friends of those who have died, and to praise them for their courage in giving their lives in the service of their country.
    Simon Hughes: I associate myself with those remarks. Everyone hopes that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction are destroyed speedily and effectively. When the Prime Minister meets the President of the United States later today, what proposals will he make to avoid any further divisions of international opinion on such issues and to make sure that in future, on issues of justice and peace in the world, there is the widest possible support in the international and national community?
    The Prime Minister: The best way of ensuring that we keep the international community unified is that when we enter into understandings, as we did in resolution 1441, we keep to those understandings. It is also important to make sure that we are broad in the agenda that we present to the world, which is why I believe that issues such as the middle east peace process are especially important at this time, when we are taking military action in Iraq for reasons that we all know. Of course it is important to make sure that Iraq has its weapons of mass destruction removed. That is the objective of our campaign.
    Mr. Chris Bryant: The Prime Minister may have noticed over recent days that opinion polls in the United Kingdom suggest that Britain is very respectful of his own position in terms of the middle east peace process, but that people are rather more uncertain and sceptical, if not cynical, about the US position. In his meeting with President Bush later today, will he

    281
    underline how important it is that we get an unambiguous and definite date for the publication of the road map, that we see an unambiguous commitment from the United States to a United Nations resolution on the reconstruction of Iraq, and that we see a clear commitment to making sure that the illegal Israeli settlements start to be dismantled?
    The Prime Minister: Of course we believe that the middle east peace process is important. For that reason, we have made it clear that when the Palestinian Prime Minister has his Cabinet in place, the road map will be given to both the Israeli Government and the Palestinian Authority. From the conversations that I have had over many weeks with President Bush, and from the statement that we made in the Azores, together with the Spanish Prime Minister and the Portuguese Prime Minister, I believe that there is a commitment on the part of the United States to making sure that the road map is not merely published, but carried through. I point out that President Bush was the first US President to commit himself unequivocally to the two-state solution: Israel confident of its security, and a viable Palestinian state. That is what we must make sure is now done.
    Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: I take this opportunity to join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to our armed services for their bravery, commitment and sacrifice, and say to their families that they remain in our thoughts and prayers, as do the innocent civilians in Iraq.
    Does the Prime Minister agree that it is vital that we send a clear message to the Iraqi people that those who do rise up will receive our full military backing, and that their cause has become our cause? Given that, can the Prime Minister inform the House of the latest developments with respect to the reported uprising overnight in Basra?
    The Prime Minister: I agree entirely that it is important that we give support to those people in Iraq who are rising up to overthrow Saddam and his deeply repressive regime. I think, however, that the way in which we do that and the timing have to be left to the commanders on the ground. That is important because they will know the true facts of the situation. We must be careful that we know we have support in place able to help them before we encourage them to do things that may lead to their deaths.
    Having said that, however, of course all this is, as we have constantly said, about the liberation of Iraq, not its conquest. There is no doubt at all in our view that large numbers of people are waiting to see whether their greatest hopes can indeed be realised and the regime fall. When they know that that is clear, I believe that they will take action themselves, and we should be there ready to support them. That may be some way off.
    In relation to what happened in Basra overnight, truthfully, the reports are confused., but we believe that there was some limited form of uprising. What is
    282
    absolutely clear is that once people know that Saddam's grip on power is being weakened, there is no doubt that they will wish to opt for freedom rather than repression.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: Given the Prime Minister's answer about losing grip on power with regard to Saddam Hussein, he knows that television is a powerful medium and that it is never more so than during times of war when it is used by a ruthless dictator, like Saddam Hussein. Will the Prime Minister tell us what progress is being made to take Iraqi television off air permanently, how successful coalition attempts have been to jam Iraqi radio broadcasts in Iraq, and what methods are being used to pass information to the Iraqi people to let them know that, if and when they rise up, they will be supported?
    The Prime Minister: In relation to any military targets, we have to ensure that they have a military objective—that is the legal requirement as well as the stated political objective that we have set. There is no doubt that one of the issues is how we can best communicate with the Iraqi people. That is being urgently looked at. There are different ways in which we can communicate with them, including through people inside Iraq who can tell them exactly what is happening.
    A whole series of things are being looked at and planned at the moment. I will not go into the details, but one thing is very clear: at the present time, people in Iraq—I think that this is perfectly understandable—are simply watching and waiting to see what happens. They have had more than 20 years of a brutal, repressive regime and on two occasions, they rose up and, unfortunately, did not get the help that they needed. They are, therefore, naturally wary. We must work with them and, as I said, ensure that when they are in a position to rise up, we are in an absolutely secure and certain position to give them maximum help.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: Despite some reports in the media, the march to Baghdad has been both fast and successful. However, the House will have heard reports in the meantime that the United States is planning to send some reinforcements to the region. Will the Prime Minister confirm whether Britain is also planning to send any reinforcements?
    The Prime Minister: We believe that we have the troops in theatre that we need, but of course that is always kept under review. At the moment, the military advice that we receive is that we do have sufficient forces for the job. I believe that that is the advice also given by the US military to the President of the United States.
    As the right hon. Gentleman rightly says, there has been remarkable progress. We now have a situation in which, in the west of Iraq, we can protect those countries outside Iraq against any possibility of any external aggression; in the north of Iraq, for all the difficulties and problems, the situation is reasonably calm at the present time; and in the south of Iraq, as he knows, we have secured the oil installations and we now have Umm Qasr, which will very shortly be functioning properly as a port where we can get humanitarian aid through. Indeed, I believe that the first seven trucks of humanitarian aid have entered the port now. We have a situation in which troops are now 60 miles south of

    283
    Baghdad. I think that the progress has been quite remarkable. The resistance is coming from exactly the quarter that we would expect—those security forces and people around Saddam who know that they have got everything to lose by the removal of his regime. That is what we would expect, but the military plans are in place to deal with them.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: The House will have seen pictures confirming that Iraqi troops have been issued with chemical weapons protection equipment and will have read reports that they have access to chemical and biological weapons. Is it not essential that we make it clear to every Iraqi commander that the use of such weapons is a war crime, that obeying orders is no defence and that anyone guilty of such crimes will be prosecuted after the war?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, that is important. We are making it clear to Iraqi commanders in the field that if they use chemical or biological weapons, they will be deservedly prosecuted with the utmost severity. There are increasing reports about the distribution of equipment to Iraqi forces. It is difficult to be sure of their accuracy, but we have obviously been prepared for such an eventuality from the outset.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: On the work that will be required to rebuild Iraq after the war, does the Prime Minister believe that it is necessary to secure a UN resolution on the reconstruction of Iraq?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I do. It is important to ensure that that is the case. There are two stages to the process. The first is to get a UN resolution on the humanitarian oil-for-food programme. I hope that that can be achieved in the next few days; it is the essential first requirement. It is also important that any post-conflict Iraqi Administration will have the broadest possible support. That is why the UN's role is important.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: In that answer, the Prime Minister made it clear that he wants to persuade the US Administration that pressing for such a resolution on Iraq is an objective. He, like everyone else, knows that the US Administration are deeply sceptical about the UN's future role in reconstruction. If there is no UN resolution, does the Prime Minister have an alternative?
    The Prime Minister: First, I keep reading about US scepticism, but it is clear from my conversations with President Bush that we should ensure that any post-conflict Iraqi Administration will have the UN's full endorsement. That is important for the process because it releases funds and allows the international financial institutions to operate better and more effectively. It is better for everybody. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that that is the position of both the British Government and the US Administration. It is clearly set out in the statement that we jointly issued in the Azores.
    Ms Joan Walley: May I ask the Prime Minister and the House to join my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) and me in paying tribute to Corporal Stephen Allbutt and Trooper
    284
    David Clarke of the Queen's Royal Lancers who lost their lives so tragically in so-called friendly fire in Basra yesterday? Will the Prime Minister ensure that there is a full and immediate inquiry into the identification systems of Challenger 2 tanks so that any faults can be put right straight away?
    The Prime Minister: I know that the House wants to express its condolences and sympathy to the families of my hon. Friends' constituents. They were immensely brave people who died in the service of their country. I assure my hon. Friend that there will be the fullest possible inquiry into what went wrong to ensure that any lessons can be learned.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: Obviously, the House endorses what has been said about the service personnel who have been lost.
    I want to follow up the Prime Minister's earlier comments, given his forthcoming discussions today with the President of the United States. Will the Prime Minister try to persuade the President that we want a United Nations-led rather than a United States-led Administration in any post-military conflict Iraq?
    The Prime Minister: Again, let me say that I do not believe that there is a need to persuade the President about UN involvement. We made it clear in the statement that we issued that any post-conflict Iraqi Administration must be specifically accepted and endorsed by the UN.
    Perhaps some of the issues arise from the fact that American and British soldiers have put their lives on the line—and, in some cases, given their lives—for the liberation of Iraq and the disarmament of Saddam Hussein. Obviously, we will have to discuss the details of the way in which we make any hand-over to civil administration in Iraq, because it is important to protect our troops and ensure that they did not give their lives in vain. Some of the confusion in the press stories probably derives from that. However, there is no difference between us on the basic principle.
    There will be two stages to the process. Let me repeat that the first part is ascertaining how to get the oil-for-food programme back up and running. I need to discuss that with Kofi Annan as a matter of urgency. It is essential for the people of Iraq. The specific nature of a further UN resolution on post-conflict Iraq is for later discussion, which can take place over a longer period.
    Mr. Kennedy: I thank the Prime Minister for that detailed reply. As he has been quite correct in stressing his commitment to the territorial integrity of Iraq, will he give the House an update on the number of Turkish troops who have crossed the border into northern Iraq, and on what exactly they are doing?
    The Prime Minister: There always have been Turkish troops in that position and there are obviously large numbers of Turkish troops there now. They say—as they have said consistently—that hat is to provide against the possibility of large numbers of people coming over the border from northern Iraq. We and the United States have done everything that we possibly can, however, to make it very clear to the Turkish

    285
    authorities, the Turkish military and the Turkish Government that any attempt to break the territorial integrity of Iraq in any way would be utterly unacceptable. I do not believe that that is their intention, but obviously we are watching the situation carefully.

    Iran
    Mr. Win Griffiths: What plans he has to visit Iran.
    The Prime Minister: I have no plans to visit Iran.
    Mr. Griffiths: I am not surprised at that response. Given the Iranian Government's well-known support for terrorists, their appalling human rights record, their recently exposed nuclear weapons programme, and America's view of the country as an evil power, will my right hon. Friend visit Iran as soon as the conflict is over and use our new relationship with it to bring to an end the human rights abuses, the nuclear weapons programme and Iran's appalling support for terrorists, so that a democratic and tolerant state can be established without an American invasion?
    The Prime Minister: I cannot give any commitment to visit Iran, but I would say to my hon. Friend that the UK remains committed to a policy of constructive and, where necessary, critical engagement that allows us to support the reform process there, while maintaining what is described in diplomatic terms as a robust dialogue on issues of concern. Those issues include Iranian support to terrorist groups in the context of the Israel-Palestine conflict, Iran's reported development of weapons of mass destruction, and aspects of its human rights record. I believe that there are genuine reforming elements inside Iran with which we can work, but it is important that we do so with our eyes open.
    Mr. Andrew Mackay: With Iranians massing across the Shatt-al-Arab waterway, and with reports that British troops are being fired on in the al-Faw peninsula, possibly by Iranian irregular militia men who have infiltrated Iraq, will the Prime Minister tell the House what orders have been given to the Royal Marines in this very dangerous situation?
    The Prime Minister: The Defence Secretary has just said to me that there appears to be no substance in those reports. I think that that is the simplest answer that I can give to the right hon. Gentleman. Of course, we are watching the situation very carefully indeed, but Iran knows what the consequences of any such action against British troops would be. The messages that we have sent to the Iranian authorities have been very clear, and I believe that they will be heeded.

    Engagements
    Mike Gapes: After the liberation of Iraq and of the Kurds, Turkomans, Shi'as and Sunnis from Ba'ath fascism, when will the Iraqi people be able to have representative government? Will my right hon. Friend emphasise to President Bush that,
    286
    as well as the endorsement of the United Nations, we also need a representative interim Government in Iraq as soon as possible?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend, not for the first time, has put his finger on the real issue, which is not whether we get the UN endorsement—although I think that that is important and that there is agreement on it. What we should really be asking is, "What type of Government do we want to see?" He is right to say that the Government must be broadly representative, take account of the diversity of the country, respect human rights, and move Iraq along a path towards democracy. It is interesting that, when we look at the northern part of Iraq—which is protected, as I was saying on Monday, by British and American pilots policing the no-fly zone—we can see how the Iraqi people, given the chance, can opt for, and want, a better future. I have no doubt that a major part of our justification for military conflict is that we are now in the process of ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction to ensure that the Iraqi people are given better government for the future.
    Norman Baker: On 29 January, the Prime Minister told the House:
    "After we deal with Iraq … We have to confront North Korea about its weapons programme".—[Official Report, 29 January 2003;Vol. 398, c. 880.]
    Does that remain his position? What form will that confrontation take, and is military action an option?
    The Prime Minister: No, we are not contemplating military action against North Korea, but that remains my position. I would simply point out two things to the hon. Gentleman. First, it is important that we deal with the nuclear weapons programme of North Korea, because that is a threat to the outside world. There is no doubt about that, and it is interesting that some of the strongest statements of support for the coalition military action in Iraq came from Japan and South Korea, which know very well the dangers of living next door to an unstable and repressive regime with weapons of mass destruction.
    The second point is this: we are far better able to resolve that issue diplomatically if we have made it quite clear that our determination and resolve in relation to Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction are absolute.
    Ms Oona King: For people who are not aware of the Prime Minister's personal commitment to securing justice for Palestinians—that includes Muslims in my constituency, in Britain and around the world—will he confirm that, following action in Iraq, the Government's foreign policy priority will be securing a viable Palestinian state and justice for Palestinians?
    The Prime Minister: I can certainly confirm to my hon. Friend that that will be a central priority of British foreign policy. I believe that we have contributed to it through the conference that we held on Palestinian political reform. I know that there is a great deal of cynicism and scepticism in the Muslim and Arab world about whether statements made recently on the publication of the road map and the desire to take the process forward are simply statements made in the

    287
    context of military action in Iraq that will then be forgotten. I can give my hon. Friend my assurance that they will not be forgotten. They will be taken forward, and they will be done.
    From all my conversations with the American President, I say that he believes, like me, that this is a vital issue to resolve, because it is, probably more than anything else, the issue that keeps apart the Arab and Muslim world on the one hand and the western world on the other. I also think that people, whether they take any view on that issue, want to see, as a simple matter of justice, a situation in which Israeli citizens are protected from the appalling ravages of terrorism and Palestinians are able to live in their own viable state and make a decent living for themselves.
    Mr. Michael Weir: One problem of 24-hour news coverage of the war is the anxiety caused to many families of troops when they hear reports of deaths and injuries among our forces long before they receive information, even on which units are involved. Will the Prime Minister ensure that communication between the Ministry of Defence and families is improved so that reassurance and information can be delivered to all families Quickly?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is right in identifying the nature of the problem. This is a war that is being reported in the most extraordinary and open way, 24 hours a day. That is the difficulty, but I can assure him that the first priority of the Ministry of Defence is to get in touch with the next of kin of those who are casualties in this conflict. We will try to do our level best to improve the system of communication, but it is difficult for the reason that he gives.
    David Taylor: When the Prime Minister flies to the United States of America later today, will he tell President Bush that his Administration's neglect of his old European allies, their scorn for multinational diplomacy and their cavalier disregard for the UN's role in global politics are not the best foundations for the transatlantic bridge that our Government are trying to build to secure an enduring peace in a post-Saddam Hussein middle east?
    The Prime Minister: I do not think that I will be saying quite that, no. However, I will say to my hon. Friend that the United States went through the UN, which is why we got resolution 1441. Without going back over all the arguments that are wearisome and familiar to people, the fact is that we agreed that if Saddam did not take his last chance, action would follow. He did not take his last chance, and people did not agree to action. So there is a difficulty there; but I have no doubt that it is important for us to ensure that Europe and America come back together at the end of the conflict.
    Let me add that the whole of Europe is not in the same position. Many European countries—indeed, if we were talking at this time next year, they would constitute a majority of EU members—support the coalition action.
    288
    It is important that we try to heal the differences, but I think that that must be on the basis of some fairly honest and straightforward talking between us.
    Mr. Tim Boswell: Will the Prime Minister confirm that the contingency reserve is adequate to cover the costs of military operations in and around Iraq?
    The Prime Minister: We will meet all the costs that are necessary, yes.
    Mrs. Betty Williams: Will my right hon. Friend join me and all other Members in sending sympathies and deepest condolences to Gordon Evans and Theresa Evans, the parents of Llywelyn Karl Evans, who sadly lost his life in the helicopter accident last week? Will he assure us that that family, and indeed other families, will receive professional advice, counselling and support for as long as is necessary?
    The Prime Minister: Again, let me express my condolences and those of the whole House, and indeed the country, to the family of my hon. Friend's constituent who lost his life in that tragic helicopter accident. I assure my hon. Friend that we will ensure that the counselling and advice that are necessary will be there for that family, as they will be for the families of others who have lost their lives in the conflict.
    Mr. Graham Brady: The protection of the British public from terrorism is as important as the successful prosecution of the war in Iraq. Is it not unacceptable that the Government have still not issued detailed guidance to schools on protecting children in the event of a terrorist attack? This morning the Government's Teachernet website promises that such guidance will be issued soon. When will it be available?
    The Prime Minister: I cannot answer that question directly, but I will certainly find out when the guidance will be issued and write to the hon. Gentleman. I would point out, however. that we are spending hundreds of millions of pounds on the most detailed preparations to try to protect the country against a terrorist attack. I think that the security services are doing a remarkable job—an extremely good job. That, frankly, is the best way in which we can protect ourselves, but as I have said, I shall have to get back to the hon. Gentleman with the exact time when the guidance will be issued.
    Mr. John Lyons: The Prime Minister will soon meet President Bush. Will he tell the President that the whole House deplores the degrading and demeaning treatment of US prisoners, servicemen and servicewomen? Will he also tell him that we expect the terms of the Geneva convention to extend to every prisoner, irrespective of nationality or location?
    The Prime Minister: We will obviously ensure that any Iraqi prisoners are treated by us in accordance with the Geneva convention. If my hon. Friend is referring to Guantanamo bay—if that is the purpose of his question—I must tell him that those people are not the combat troops of a Government. As I have said before, however, it is important for them to be treated with dignity and for their human rights to be respected.
    We have visited the British nationals in Guantanamo bay many times, and have investigated each allegation of abuse of their human rights, but let me say this to my hon. Friend. There is still information that is checked with people in Guantanamo bay that is of vital significance to protecting people in Europe. I am afraid that that is simply the reality of the situation, although, as I have said before, it cannot continue indefinitely: I agree that, at some point, it will have to come to an end.
    As for what my hon. Friend said about the Iraqi treatment of American prisoners of war, I will certainly convey that message.
    Tom Brake: This is not a question about Iraq.
    Does The Prime Minister believe that local justice should be delivered locally by local magistrates? If so, can he explain the decision of the Greater London
    290
    Magistrates Court Authority to shut Sutton magistrates court, particularly at a time when the local police station has been massively expanded?
    The Prime Minister: I regret to say that the honest answer is that I cannot explain that, since I am not fully aware of the circumstances. I can certainly look into what those circumstances are, but I assume that the decision has been taken by the magistrates authority. There it is; it is a local decision, but obviously it is one with which some will disagree strongly. Anyway, I will have to write to the hon. Gentleman about it.
    Barbara Follett: Can my right hon. Friend add the issue of adequate United Nations resources to the ever-lengthening list of things that he has to discuss with President Bush this afternoon? I am concerned that the United Nations, which has insufficient cash to do the job that it needs to do at the moment, will not have enough to do the work of reconstructing post-conflict Iraq.
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise that point, and there are two issues. In relation to the oil-for-food programme, of course, there is money in that account, which is why it is important that we get the UN resolution. Of course, the potential oil wealth of Iraq is going to be essential for future investment in the country. On the second point that my hon. Friend makes, the UN will launch an appeal soon, and that is an appeal to which I am sure we and many others will contribute.

Iraq (Military Operations)
12.31 pm
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a further statement about military action in Iraq.
Coalition forces have made significant progress since my statement to the House last Friday. Saddam Hussein's calculation in this conflict is that western democracies are weak—that they have no stomach for a fight, and that they will not stand up, and go on standing up, for the things in which they believe. Tyrants misunderstand and miscalculate the values that are at the heart of our democracies: we are here in this House only because people are able freely to elect us, and we uphold and observe the rule of law. They also forget that members of our armed forces volunteer to serve their country. Our armed forces comprise free men and women with their own, often strongly held individual views and ideas. They serve together and they risk their lives together because they choose to—not because some thug stands behind them or their family with threats of torture or execution.
Those free men and women choose to risk their lives in the defence of the values that we share, and when those lives are lost, we pay proper tribute to them and to their families because they stand in our place, and we must, in turn, resolutely stand up for them. That is why, on behalf of the Government, I extend our condolences to the families and friends of those servicemen who have died: 20 individuals with 20 grieving families. Whether they died in tragic accidents, or from enemy fire, these men gave their lives in the service of their country, and in defence of the highest ideals. We owe them and their families a profound debt of gratitude for their sacrifice. They will not be forgotten.
We have all seen the reporting from the 24-hour media over the past few days. Inevitably, such reporting reflects the immediate situation around specific journalists. It does not always give an overall picture or strategic perspective. I would like, therefore, to set out the context by reporting progress against the tasks identified in the Government's military campaign objectives, published on 20 March.
After six days of conflict, the coalition has made steady progress, following the main outline of our military plan, towards the objective of overcoming resistance from the Iraqi security forces. The al-Faw peninsula, Umm Qasr and the southern oilfields have been secured, and Iraqi resistance in those areas defeated; 3 Commando Brigade is in control, and the US 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit has been released to return to the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force, which is now heading towards Baghdad; 16 Air Assault Brigade is deployed in the southern oilfields, and the 7th Armoured Brigade dominates the Basra area. Resistance in nearby Az Zubayr has been defeated, and British forces are in place in much of the area around the city of Basra.
US forces are spearheading an advance northwards with lead elements at Karbala, 60 miles south of Baghdad. US Marine combat units have also crossed the Euphrates and are proceeding northwards. Hon. Members will have seen accounts of the serious engagement near Najaf last night, in which US forces from the 5th Corps repelled an attack by Iraqi forces.
292
Over 5,000 sorties have now been flown in the air campaign, and we have achieved significant degradation of Iraqi regime and command and control facilities. The focus of our effort will now shift towards close air support of coalition ground forces advancing on Baghdad.
On our most important campaign objective—to deny Iraq use of its weapons of mass destruction—our efforts have centred on disabling the command and control facilities through which the Iraqi regime would order the use of such weapons. Our experts have already begun to investigate potential weapons sites in coalition-controlled areas. To date, we have no evidence of Iraqi use of weapons of mass destruction during this campaign, but it is impossible to know whether this is the result of successful military operations or a deliberate tactical judgment of the Iraqi regime. Indeed, we do know from prisoners of war that protective equipment was issued to southern Iraqi divisions.
As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made clear, it will be the removal of Saddam Hussein's appalling regime which will ultimately lead to Iraqi disarmament. To achieve this, we have been seeking to isolate the regime at all levels in every part of Iraq—in Baghdad, in Tikrit, in Mosul and in Basra—primarily by the use of precision attacks against regime and military targets. Although the regime has not yet collapsed—Saddam Hussein's thugs continue to resist in some areas—the regime has effectively lost control of southern Iraq. The regime must know that its days are now numbered.
British forces have made a key contribution towards the objective of ensuring that essential economic infrastructure is secure. The southern oilfields and associated infrastructure have been secured, with very little damage. Umm Qasr, the country's one significant port, is under coalition control and is in working condition. A mine-countermeasures task force, under Royal Navy command and including US and Australian elements, is making steady progress in clearing the Khawr Abd Allah waterway of any mines. This is necessarily a slow and painstaking process.
In the areas now under our control, British commanders are making contacts in the local communities, in order to begin the process of restoring normality.
We seek to deter wider conflict both inside and outside Iraq. The situation in coalition-controlled Iraq is generally stable, although we are keeping a close watch on events in Basra. I can assure the House that the welfare of the people of Basra is at the forefront of the concerns of coalition commanders. Coalition forces are engaging groups of enemy forces as they try to flee the city and we have successfully struck key regime targets within it, notably the Ba'ath party headquarters overnight.
Northern Iraq remains stable and we intend to preserve that position. The situation remains calm along Iraq's other borders. Much of coalition-controlled Iraq bordering Iran is under British command, but the suggestion that the Royal Marines were sent to guard against Iranian forces is simply not true. We are seeking close contacts with the Iranian authorities to reduce the scope for any potential misunderstanding.

293
Overall, our campaign looks to secure a better future for the people of Iraq. Our fight is not with the people of Iraq. There can be no greater demonstration of that than the efforts that we are making to provide immediate humanitarian support and assistance where we can. Let us be clear: there has long been a humanitarian crisis in Iraq—caused by Saddam Hussein's misrule and the plundering of that country's resources for military spending, including his programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction. Many Iraqis have long been dependent on aid from the UN oil-for-food programme, and more than half of Iraqis living in rural areas have no access to safe water.
The first stage in providing that help to Iraq must be defeating Saddam Hussein's forces and establishing a secure environment. This is necessary before we can begin to conduct humanitarian operations.
The royal fleet auxiliary vessel Sir Galahad is loaded with water, medical supplies, food and equipment for providing shelter. It is waiting to enter Umm Qasr as soon as the sea lanes have been cleared of mines.
At the same time, in a co-operative effort with Kuwait and the United States, Royal Engineers are constructing a water pipe from Kuwait into Iraq to provide drinking water.
Humanitarian effort will build up over the coming weeks. It is impossible to know for certain the full extent of the resources that will be required but, in conjunction with the Department for International Development, we have plans to address what we know are likely to be the most immediate and pressing needs. This must be part of a wider international effort, and the International Committee of the Red Cross is already providing support to the Iraqi people in Basra and elsewhere.
After six days of military operations against the Iraqi regime, the coalition has made steady progress. Our servicemen and women have played a pivotal role in what has been achieved and we can be proud of their courage, their resilience and their determination. But there is much more to achieve, and much more that we can offer the people of Iraq. The Government's position is clear. We will remain resolute until our objectives have been met.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: The whole House will join the Secretary of State in his tribute to our armed forces and, in particular, his expression of sympathy for the casualties that have recently been suffered, as well as the casualties among the Iraqi people. Friendly fire casualties are particularly painful to bear. However, our armed forces know the risks, which does no more than underline their courage and bravery: we owe them an immense debt.
Moreover, it is a terrible time for all the families of our servicemen. There has been a notable change in the treatment of news of casualties by the media. Will the Secretary of State join me in recognising how very welcome that is in terms of enabling his Department to inform relatives of casualties before they are reported in the media? Will he clarify what support there is for families of reservists, who are not attached to home bases and therefore do not have the family welfare support that our other servicemen enjoy?
294
I welcome the Secretary of State's overview of the military operations, which puts all the hour-by-hour and minute-by-minute reporting that we see on our television screens into a full and proper context. Will he join me in congratulating all coalition forces, particularly UK forces, on the dramatic progress that has been made? Does he agree that we can have every confidence in the military strategy; that, whatever may be reported in the media, there have been no surprises that were not anticipated at the outset of the campaign; and that our armed forces remain fully trained, fully prepared and fully equipped for any eventuality that we anticipate may arise?
On the question of Basra, does the Secretary of State agree that the flexibility of the tactics of 7 Armoured Brigade underlines how we are maintaining the humanitarian objective as one of the highest priorities, and that while there may be an ebb and flow in hourly events, we can look forward to the full occupation of Basra as and when 7 Brigade are ready to take full occupation?
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the mine-clearing operations in the waterways approaching Umm Qasr are an arduous and dangerous exercise, and that those undertaking the mine clearance are hitherto unsung heroes of this campaign who undertake operations that are every bit as dirty and dangerous as elsewhere on the front line and deserve our unfailing support and gratitude?
Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm what role 16 Air Assault Brigade is now playing in addition to securing the oilfields in southern Iraq? Is it true that it is now actively pursuing remnants of Iraqi forces that are seeking to disrupt the extensive and exposed supply lines for the American operations much further forward to Baghdad? He has already clarified somewhat the role of the Royal Marines along the Iranian border, but can he confirm that they are doing nothing more than occupying and holding that territory, and that there is no perceived threat from the other side of the Iranian border?
There may be dark days ahead—indeed, the Americans are saying that we may still be nearer to the beginning of the campaign than to its end—but we must maintain our resolve to disarm Saddam Hussein, to liberate the people of Iraq, and to give our armed forces the backing that they so richly deserve.
Mr. Hoon: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his observations, particularly concerning those who have died and their families. As the Prime Minister said a few moments ago, our absolute priority is to inform relatives as quickly as possible, but I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will understand that it is necessary to get that right. Greater pain could be caused by making mistakes in that difficult and sensitive task, and we go to a great deal of trouble to ensure that it is handled properly and appropriately.
I assure the House that welfare arrangements are in place to support the families of reservists. For ex-regular reservists in the Army, the regional brigades in the UK provide welfare officers, helplines and the same sort of structure that is available to our regular forces. The Royal Navy and Royal Air Force regional arrangements are in place. If right hon. and hon.

295
Members have concerns about the position of reservists in that respect, I would certainly be delighted to hear from them, and I would hope to be able to put their minds at rest.
The hon. Gentleman is right that we need to deal flexibly with the situation in Basra in accordance with circumstances on the ground, which is why it is so important that commanders on the ground who have up-to-date and detailed information about what is happening in the city should be left to decide how best to occupy that city, which certainly ultimately will be necessary.
I am also grateful to the hon. Gentleman for mentioning those engaged in mine clearance. The waters around Umm Qasr are filled with silt and are dirty and very dangerous. So, it is right to pay tribute to a Royal Navy capability—a capability that is the envy of the world. We have the very best people engaged in that task.
Force protection of supply lines is being addressed by commanders on the ground, and it is something to which we must have proper regard.
I dealt in my statement with the issue of Royal Marines along the Iranian border. That is simply part of their normal area of operations.
Mr. Paul Keetch: May I thank the Secretary of State for advance notice of his statement and associate myself with the sympathies he expressed to members of the coalition forces who have been killed in action and their families? Can we also remember the families of Iraqi civilians who have been killed, because as the Secretary of State rightly said, our battle is not with them?
On the role of 16 Air Assault Brigade in securing oil installations in southern Iraq, have Iraqi troops been preparing to shell the oilfields as well as to mine them? The Secretary of State mentioned British troops on the outskirts of Basra. Will he clarify the aims of entering Basra? Is it to prevent the Iraqi army firing on its own people, or is the control of Basra now a military objective?
I pay tribute to the Royal Navy-led operation in demining the waters around Umm Qasr. We also welcome the news that humanitarian shipments are about to begin. When will Sir Galahad be docking, and will further ships follow? Is it still the British Government's objective to deliver humanitarian assistance alongside ongoing military operations?
On the situation on the Turkish border, are Kurdish forces now under coalition control? Is there coalition contact with Turkish troops entering the area? Without prejudicing the operations of any of our troops, will the Secretary of State outline the role of British forces in that area and any plans to improve arrangements for the British in the north?
Suggestions that this might be akin to a six-day war were always optimistic. As the conflict continues, our thoughts remain with our forces and with their families at home.
Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments. To pick up his concluding comment, I made it clear in my statement to the House last Thursday that
296
we should not believe commentators who suggest that this might be a short, simple conflict. I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members will not fall into that trap.
I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about Iraqi civilians, their deaths and their families. It is no part of the coalition effort to target those civilians, although necessarily in conflict there is clearly a risk to them.
I set out the current position of 16 Air Assault Brigade. We have long been concerned about the threat to the oil infrastructure from Saddam Hussein's regime, which is why the military plan targeted those areas at the outset in order that they could be preserved for the benefit of the Iraqi people subsequently.
Our aim is certainly to protect the population of Basra. There is clear evidence of Iraqi forces occupying Basra and firing on their own people in order to continue the process of intimidation that we have seen there and in other parts of Iraq for so very many years.
Humanitarian shipments are under way, although not necessarily at the moment by sea. They will begin by sea as soon as we can secure the waterways. As I said, that is a slow and painstaking process. Kurdish forces are in close co-operation with coalition forces in the north of Iraq. That is the case for Turkey as well. We are in close contact with Turkey and we understand its concern about the sensitive situation along the border. However, strong indications have been made to Turkey about our anxieties over any move into Iraq.
Jim Knight: I am confident that this campaign is making good progress and I support the targeting policy, which is designed to minimise civilian casualties. How does that policy affect the pace of the campaign? Will it increase the need to deploy further forces?
Mr. Hoon: It was anticipated that there would be a risk to civilians in the military operations; that risk has been built into military planning. As we move forward, the risk increases. The aerial campaign has demonstrated the risk to civilians. However, I do not believe that that has in any way slowed down the campaign—nor will we allow it to.
Mr. Roger Gale: The Secretary of State is right to state that the priority must be the welfare and maintenance of our armed services in the field. Part of that welfare is their knowledge that their families back home are being cared for. The armed services and organisations such as SSAFA—the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families Association—are no doubt doing a good job, but mail that MPs have received has shown that we must also consider families who live off-base and families of reservists and of those serving with the Territorial Army. They feel that they are outside the loop.
Through their homefront programme, the Americans have established an internet website and other means of ensuring personal contact with families. Will the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State take a further look at this issue, and consider how we may enhance the support and information that we offer to families, whose support for their men and women is so vital?
Mr. Hoon: That is a very helpful and sensible suggestion. We will certainly look into that as far as

297
reservists are concerned. I assure the hon. Gentleman that, as regards our regular forces, an enormous amount of work is being done to support families at this difficult time.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: As Napoleon and Hitler found with the snow at the gates of Moscow, President Bush and the Prime Minister might find that the biggest weapon of mass destruction before the gates of Baghdad is the April sun. As one who has had to work in a tank suit—admittedly in cooler conditions with the Rhine army—may I suggest that it might be wise to pull out the troops before they are cooked in the sands of the desert while laying siege? Or is it proposed that there be a war—in the view of the assistant legal adviser to the Foreign Office, an illegal war—in which we ask soldiers to fight in the alleyways of Baghdad at l35°? In order to avoid planet environmental catastrophe, and, frankly—
Mr. Speaker: Order. That was far too long a question.
Mr. Hoon: As the advice from the Attorney-General has set out for all right hon. and hon. Members to see, this is a perfectly lawful campaign. It will proceed resolutely to its conclusion—which is the removal of weapons of mass destruction from Iraq and the overthrow of the regime that has harboured them.
Brian Cotter: Lieutenant-Commander Tony King was killed in the crash between Royal Navy helicopters at the weekend. He and his wife grew up in Congresbury and went to the local Churchill school. His parents—Ann and Colin King—live in Congresbury, which is also my home village. Tony was very highly thought of in the services and in the village. Does the Secretary of State agree that, regardless of the circumstances, we should pay tribute to the work of Tony and others, and offer our condolences to the family? The Secretary of State will confirm that the helicopter operations that Tony King was involved in were very difficult.
We welcome the assurances that the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister have given about relatives being informed speedily. It is not for me to tread into the area of the free press, but—especially when there are accidents involving Sea King, Lynx or other helicopters—it is more urgent than ever that families be notified speedily, as such accidents immediately identify specific concerns.
Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for paying proper tribute to his constituent and his family. I have indicated to the media the need for restraint and sensitivity in the way in which they approach people at this very difficult time.
Mr. Ian Taylor: I was one of those who did not think that we should be going to war at this moment, but I now believe that we should prosecute the campaign as effectively as possible. I hope that, in the end, we get to Saddam Hussein and remove his evil regime. Does the Secretary of State agree that the nation will have to brace itself for far more casualties than we had been led to expect? What is going on away from the
298
gaze of journalists? For example, what is going on in the western part of Iraq, where we had feared that missiles could be sent towards Israel?
Mr. Hoon: There will certainly be more casualties on both sides. That is a necessary consequence of taking military action and why the Government strove so hard to avoid military action. However, as the hon. Gentleman has suggested, once military action is under way, it is necessary to see it through to its conclusion. Coalition operations in the western part of Iraq are continuing. I do not intend to comment on them in great detail, but they are proving successful.
Mr. Ben Chapman: I welcome the Secretary of State's statement that northern Iraq remains stable. Turkey has been a steadfast ally in NATO in the first Gulf war and in other circumstances. Those of us who believe that Turkey is of enormous geopolitical importance are greatly reassured by the statement from Turkey that no further incursion into northern Iraq is intended. Are the Government fully seized of the need to keep that predominantly Muslim but secular democracy fully engaged in dialogue in both the civil and the military context?
Mr. Hoon: I agree with my hon. Friend that Turkey is a close ally in NATO. We work closely with Turkey and we have been in regular contact throughout this crisis.
Mr. David Tredinnick: Will the Secretary of State tell the House about the status under international law of Iraqi soldiers who dress as civilians and are then caught? Do they have the same status as regular soldiers in uniform? Will he also tell the House whether he thinks it wise to talk of large groups of Iraqis as having no future in the new, post-Saddam Iraq? I am thinking in particular of elite soldiers, who may be soldiers first and followers of Saddam second. If they think that their only option is to die with a spear in the chest or a spear in the back, what reason is there for them to surrender?
Mr. Hoon: Coalition commanders have expressed considerable concern about the practice—which we have seen on more than one occasion—of Iraqi soldiers apparently surrendering but then attacking the forces to whom they appeared to be surrendering. That is clearly a serious breach of the Geneva convention and one that we will continue to highlight when appropriate.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we must distinguish those elements of Iraqi society that have a vested interest in the continuation of Saddam Hussein's appalling regime. Fortunately, they represent only a small proportion of that society when set against the regular forces and large elements of the republican guard—who are professional soldiers and who very often, in my judgment, only continue their military operations because many of Saddam Hussein's henchmen are embedded in their units and threatening the commanders with execution, or their families with torture, if they do not continue the battle.
Kali Mountford: Given the 24-hour media coverage of the conflict and the rapid progress made so far, are not the British public's hopes of a quick

299
end to the war being raised unrealistically? Is not it important that the military are mindful of and sensitive to the needs of local civilians, as well as dealing with the infrastructure and the water and electricity that are so vital to humanitarian aid post-war? Is not it important that people realise that this is a serious war with a serious end and that it is not a video game?
Mr. Hoon: I agree with my hon. Friend that we need to explain to people, as I sought to do in my statement earlier, that those images are snapshots of particular parts of the campaign, in particular parts of Iraq, as seen by particular correspondents. What we also need to do, as I tried to do in the House today, is to put that in context. That context includes our being successful not only in military operations but also in winning the peace by providing appropriate humanitarian help and assistance to the Iraqi people.
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: As is always the case in war, there are conflicting reports about what is going on. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he said about Basra, but may I respectfully remind him that the UN recently said that about 100,000 children are at imminent risk of disease due to the lack of clean water? I realise that the right hon. Gentleman has said as much as he can at this stage, but I urge him to keep the House informed about the humanitarian situation with regard to Basra.
Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he made his remarks.
For many years, Basra has not had a reliable supply of clean, safe water. For many years, it has not had a reliable electricity supply. Our ambition is to provide both those things so that the people of Basra will be much better off than they have ever been—certainly than they were under the regime of Saddam Hussein.
Ms Diane Abbott: Is the Secretary of State aware of the continuing concern about the Turkish incursions into northern Iraq? My colleagues in the adjoining constituencies of Haringey and Islington and I represent the largest Kurdish community in the UK, many of whom fled to this country from Turkish oppression. They will take some convincing that Turkish intentions in northern Iraq are benign.
Mr. Hoon: Many of those people also fled from the repression of Saddam Hussein's regime. It is important not to overlook that. As I indicated in my statement, we are working closely both with the authorities in the Kurdish-controlled areas of northern Iraq and with our Turkish ally to preserve stability in that otherwise difficult and sensitive part of the world.
Mr. John Wilkinson: In his statement, the Secretary of State emphasised the intensity of the air campaign, which is crucial to minimise allied casualties and to shorten as much as possible the length of the war. Can he assure the House that there are sufficient reserves on which he can draw if required, as ground crews are working around the
300
clock? As the battlefield moves on and the length of the supply line increases, the importance of close air support is greater.
Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman has taken a close interest in the Royal Air Force for many years. He always comments with great knowledge and understanding of the RAF's arrangements. We are paying attention to the need for sufficient reserves and we shall go on doing so.
Mrs. Ann Cryer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the World Service is reporting that cluster bombs are being used in the area around Basra? I am sure that he is aware, as I am, of the long-term consequences for the civilian population of post-war Iraq of unexploded bomblets. Will he make it clear to his American counterpart, when they discuss Iraq, that we strongly disapprove of the use of anti-personnel land mines?
Mr. Hoon: I have made it clear when dealing with such questions on previous occasions that it is necessary to allow our forces to use the most effective and appropriate weapons against the threats that they perceive. My hon. Friend may or may not be aware that 17 tanks sought to attack British forces yesterday. Every one of those tanks was destroyed, fortunately without allied losses. I would not be confident in saying to our forces that they could not use a particular weapon that protected them against those kinds of attack—I should not be doing my job properly. As I have indicated to my hon. Friend and others on previous occasions, we look carefully at the use of weapons, and use particular weapons only when it is absolutely appropriate to do so.
Mr. Edward Leigh: Does the Secretary of State recall that in July last year the Public Accounts Committee published a report on friendly fire. In that unanimous report, we reminded our readers that, as long ago as 1992,
"our predecessors concluded that the Department should redouble its efforts to secure an agreed approach",
yet,
"A decade later, the Department has only just approved a policy paper".
The Committee found that many of the systems were years away from implementation; for example, battlefield target identification will not come in until 2006. Our report concluded:
"It is unsatisfactory that the Department has made such slow progress in developing combat identification."
Will the Secretary of State assure the House that the recommendations of the PAC that the MOD accepts are being implemented at a vastly increased tempo? Although he may not be able to take up all the points made in the Committee's report, I should be grateful if he could write to me as there is, naturally, public concern about the issue.
Mr. Hoon: I understand and share that concern, but there is no single, simple technological solution to the problem of friendly fire. I am sure that the PAC report does not suggest that there is. Indeed, the Tornado aircraft involved in the tragic accident the other day was

301
equipped with the latest combat identification system, similar to the one provided in US aircraft. There was no technological reason why such an appalling accident should have occurred: but occur it did, and we need to investigate the reasons, which cannot just be solved by some technological fix. We have to ensure that our procedures work effectively in high-intensity warfare. That also appears to be the position in relation to the tragic incident involving two of our Challenger tanks. Although they were equipped with appropriate identification equipment, unfortunately, in the heat of battle that was not necessarily the first thought in the tank that considered it was under attack and which reacted with tragic consequences.
Mr. Stephen McCabe: What are the rules of engagement for British forces undertaking humanitarian relief operations if they are attacked by Iraqi units who have been previously waving a white flag, or if they are attacked or threatened by republican guards dressed as civilians?
Mr. Hoon: It is not the practice of successive Governments to comment in detail on rules of engagement, but I assure my hon. Friend that the rules of engagement available to British forces are robust. They are certainly more than adequate to deal with that kind of situation.
Mr. David Cameron: Will the Secretary of State join me in paying tribute to the many personnel based at Brize Norton in my constituency who are playing their part in terms of transport, air—to—air refuelling and tactical communications? Does he agree that some of them may have to stay on after the war fighting has finished to help deliver humanitarian aid? Although we all hope for a clear UN mandate, does he agree that we have to prepare for all eventualities, including that of the mandate not being agreed? In those circumstances, could he have a word with the Secretary of State for International Development and explain to her that she must choose her words carefully? To talk about the British Army being an occupying force under international law, as she did in the Chamber an hour ago, is not particularly helpful. We must choose our words carefully at this difficult time.
Mr. Hoon: I have been a regular visitor to Brize Norton and know of the excellent support provided there not only to Secretaries of State for Defence but also to all those who pass through that excellent RAF facility.
It is important that we are able to put humanitarian aid in place. Initially, that will be as the result of efforts made by members of the military, by coalition forces delivering aid to secure areas. As my statement indicated, that is what we are currently working on.
Glenda Jackson: Has the Iraqi regime been warned, as it was during the first Gulf war, that any use of chemical and biological weapons
302
would meet with a nuclear weapons response; and does such a response remain the policy of the British and American Governments?
Mr. Hoon: The Iraqi regime has certainly been warned that there would be very serious consequences in the event of its using weapons of mass destruction.
Mr. Jeffrey M. Donaldson: The Secretary of State will be aware of the contribution of hundreds of soldiers from Northern Ireland who are serving in the Gulf. We were all inspired by the remarks of Lt. Col. Tim Collins, the commanding officer of the 1st Battalion, the Royal Irish Regiment. Of course there are many other soldiers. I have a brother with the Royal Tank Regiment in southern Iraq, and it is an anxious time for families, as they await news of the conflict. Will the Secretary of State join me in praising the soldiers from the Territorial Army and the reserve forces—some of them from Northern Ireland—who are making a significant contribution to the efforts to liberate the people of Iraq?
Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for those remarks. During a number of visits to Northern Ireland, I have had occasion to see the Royal Irish Regiment in action, and it does a superb job on behalf of not only the people of Northern Ireland, but the whole of the United Kingdom. As someone who has visited the TA and reservists as they have come to Chilwell, close to my constituency, as part of their preparation for going to the Gulf and, indeed, elsewhere, I can testify personally to the enthusiasm and determination that they show in taking on sometimes very different tasks from those in their civilian lives.
Joan Ruddock: May I associate myself with the condolences that have been expressed to the families of service people who have lost their lives? Is my right hon. Friend able to comment on the news that, I gather, is coming in about a day-light bombing of a marketplace in which civilians have lost their lives?
Mr. Hoon: I cannot confirm the responsibility for that incident. Certainly, a marketplace has never been targeted by coalition forces—nor will it be—but we will certainly continue to look at the ways in which we minimise civilian casualties.
Sir Sydney Chapman: In his statement and in reply to an earlier question, the Secretary of State mentioned the 24-hour media reporting. Can he tell the House whether there are any restrictions of movement on reporters? Given that an ITN reporter was killed recently, ought there not to be such restrictions or, at least, very strong advice given to people following events?
Mr. Hoon: The main restriction placed on reporters relates to not identifying their location at times of military significance—not indicating how far their unit may have advanced—because that information is clearly of considerable value to the enemy. I have been very impressed by the way in which reporters have recognised that restriction and not sought in any way to abuse our confidence.

303
As far as the tragic death of Terry Lloyd and perhaps his crew is concerned, it has led news organisations to reflect on the dangers faced by new correspondents in such fast-moving conflicts. It is important that we do not further complicate the battlefield by having to have regard to reporters—however determined they may be to bring the story home—the precise location of whom we do not know.
Caroline Flint: I have no doubt that men and women in our forces are doing their utmost to prevent civilian casualties, but we are receiving reports that Saddam Hussein's forces are using civilians to confound us, putting their lives in severe danger. One report indicated that women and children were left in a Ba'ath party headquarters that had been used by Saddam's forces when the fighters had abandoned them. Will my right hon. Friend comment on those reports and that totally scandalous use of civilians in this conflict and assure me that any such report is recorded and guaranteed so that we can take account of it when the war is over?
Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is not a new tactic by Saddam Hussein's regime. It has long used civilians to prosecute its aims and, indeed, deliberately to invite coalition attacks on civilians to be able to publicise them subsequently, and we are well aware of schools, day-care facilities and hospitals constructed next to important military facilities for precisely that reason.
Richard Younger-Ross: Returning to the situation in the north of Iraq, does the Secretary of State agree that Kurdish help in the liberation of places such as Kirkuk is endangered if Turkish forces are a distraction on their northern border? Will he make it clear that the Turks could make things a lot easier if they were to make it very clear that they will not go into northern Kurdistan? Can he confirm whether the Kurdish position has changed? A few years ago, I met the Kurdish leaders from the PUK and the KDP, who said that they wanted an autonomous region in Iraq, not independence.
Mr. Hoon: I emphasise that a main aim of the UK Government. which is shared by Kurdish forces in that area, is the preservation of the existing international borders of Iraq. That is why it is so important to preserve the stability in that sensitive northern area. We all know from our history how difficult is the combination of people in northern Iraq, and we necessarily have to handle that not only with sensitivity, but in full consultation with representatives of the Kurdish community, as well as our allies in Turkey.
Ms Joan Walley: I thank the Secretary of State for the tribute that he paid to those members of the armed forces who have lost their lives.
Further to the question that I asked the Prime Minister this afternoon, can he assure the House that there will be an immediate and urgent investigation into the friendly fire involving the Challenger 2 tanks? May I also ask him about the medical contingency plans because I am aware that others were injured in that incident last night? Can he perhaps give the House a
304
little more detail about medical contingency plans, including convalescence for people who may have to return to the UK to convalesce before they are fully fit again?
Mr. Hoon: Again, I can assure my hon. Friend that there will be an immediate and urgent investigation. The medical arrangements have been reviewed and are in place, and they are proving to work very successfully. Not only are we able to stabilise people where necessary on the battlefield, but we have the RFA Argus in position, providing state-of-the-art facilities that are the envy even of personnel from the United States.
Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: It is good to know that the International Committee of the Red Cross is now operating in Basra—we must commend it for the fantastic work that it does—but the Secretary of State will know also that the Red Cross has asked for permission to visit the prisoners of war to make sure that they are being treated humanely. I understand that, as of yesterday, it had not received a response. Can he confirm whether we have granted the Red Cross access to all Iraqi prisoners of war and whether Iraq has granted access to our coalition service men and women who are currently being held by the regime?
Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for those remarks. I made the point about the International Committee of the Red Cross and the excellence of the work that it continues to do in Basra. We will certainly seek to support its efforts. I am aware of an agreement with the committee on visits to Iraqi prisoners of war, and I anticipate no difficulty about that being achieved. I am certainly not aware that the Iraqi authorities have extended the same opportunity to visit coalition prisoners of war.
Mrs. Anne Campbell: Can my right hon. Friend give a little more detail about the reported uprising in Basra yesterday and whether that uprising was effectively quelled by the Iraqi regime? Can he describe any further steps that can be taken to support future uprisings? Can he say what happened to the civilians who were involved in that uprising?
Mr. Hoon: The position inside Basra is necessarily confused. Certainly, there appear to have been reports of, if not an uprising, certainly a protest against Saddam Hussein's regime. We are aware that the thuggish elements of that regime that lie behind Saddam Hussein turned their fire, including the use of mortars, on the civilian population—the civilian population of one of their own cities, I emphasise. We took immediate action to assist. A substantial bomb was dropped on the Ba'ath party headquarters—I am aware that not much is left of it, which certainly appears to have reduced some of the activities of those thuggish elements—but we will obviously continue to take every opportunity to support the people of Basra to achieve their liberation.
Mr. James Gray: Along with RAF Brize Norton, I am sure that the Secretary of State will want to join me in paying tribute to the airmen and women of RAF Lyneham, in my constituency, who

305
pride themselves on the fact that their Hercules aircraft are the first in and the last out of every conflict, and this conflict is no exception.
On the media coverage, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the unique feature of this war, as opposed to any previous one, is the fact that 600 journalists are, as the expression has it, embedded with our troops? Does he agree that they will need to show particular sensitivity during the forthcoming battle for Baghdad?
Mr. Hoon: One of the advantages of having been in my position for a number of years is that I have visited most of the armed forces facilities around the country. I have certainly been most impressed on the occasions that I have visited RAF Lyneham by the work that is carried on there, and by the excellence of the Hercules operation, for which I have good reason to be grateful—even if, sometimes, at the end of the journey, I did not feel quite as I did at the start. Certainly, the issue of embedded journalists is a difficult one, to which we must all face up as we watch the television screens hour by hour. Its real benefit, I believe, is in avoiding the kinds of problems that were mentioned earlier in relation to freelancing—independent journalists going off on their own into very dangerous circumstances in a fast—moving battlefield. The information being brought back by embedded journalists is of great assistance in explaining what is taking place, providing that, as I indicated earlier, it is put into a proper context in the overall campaign.
Angus Robertson: There is a tremendous appreciation in Moray for the often difficult but vital work being done by the welfare staff and support staff at RAF Lossiemouth and RAF Kinloss in informing relatives and friends of developments. I endorse fully the Secretary of State's comments earlier about greater restraint by certain parts of the press being welcome—I speak as a former journalist who has covered conflicts. Greater restraint is needed. More restraint might ensure that certain family members would not hear directly or indirectly about the death or injury of a loved one, which would be most welcome.
Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his observations. I entirely agree with his comments. I hope that that message is heard by all those involved.

Points of Order
1.21 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Do we have your assurance that it was the length of the question that I asked, rather than my discordant view that politicians, for their own ends, in Washington and London, are using brave service men, that caused you to curtail my question?
Mr. Speaker: I will be perfectly straight with the hon. Gentleman, as I always am. He asked about three questions, instead of one supplementary. I expect one supplementary question: it is as simple as that. I sometimes allow some elbow room, but when it gets to the fourth supplementary, it is time to stop.
Mr. Alex Salmond: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. A few seconds ago, the Secretary of State made a comment about embedded journalists, which seemed to go much further than previous comments by the Government about their policy on embedded journalists, in terms of the safety of the troops, in terms of the safety of journalists, and in terms of the credibility and independence, I think, of the reports. Will any Minister make a full statement on the whole concept of having journalists embedded with forces?
Mr. Speaker: That is a matter for the Minister concerned: it is not a matter for me.
Mr. Quentin Davies: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In a few minutes, we will consider the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill on Report. That Bill, taken with the Government's new clauses, schedules and amendments, bears little relation to the Bill that was dealt with Upstairs in Committee. There are six substantive new clauses, one 11-and-a-half page new schedule and 35 Government amendments. My questions are simple. First, are there any rules or limits in this regard? Would it be possible for the Government, if they were so minded—as we are moving in this direction—to introduce a one-clause Bill on Second Reading, have it debated in Committee, and then spring 99 new clauses on the House on Report? If there are limits, what are they? What is the point of our having a Committee stage as part of our legislative procedures, as we do in this House and in other legislatures worthy of the name around the world, if the Government can simply bypass the whole Committee stage with impunity and bring forward major, substantive new concepts and areas of policy on Report?
Mr. Speaker: I understand that we have been allocated six-and-a-half hours for debate on these amendments. Perhaps, during the course of those six and a half hours, the hon. Gentleman will ask the Government those questions, as they are really nothing to do with me. The amendments must have been in order, as I would not have selected them otherwise.
Mr. Peter Robinson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In the Northern Ireland Committee, which also considered this matter, the

307
Minister gave a firm undertaking that these proposals would not be introduced until certain circumstances came about which have not come about. Surely it is out of order for the Minister to do that in these circumstances.
Mr. Speaker: I repeat that this is a matter for debate. It is up to the hon. Gentleman to raise that during the debate.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I agree that we must debate the matter, but it seems strange that when my party tables an amendment, it is not selected. Therefore, we cannot debate what we want to debate in the House.
Mr. Speaker: Perhaps it is something to do with the quality of the amendment. The hon. Gentleman knows the rules of the House: whatever amendments are before me, if they are in order, I will select them. Perhaps the message to him would be, "Better luck next time."

POLICE (NORTHERN IRELAND) BILL [LORDS] (PROGRAMME) (NO. 4)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Orders [28 June 2001 and 29 October 2002],
That the programme order of 10th February 2003 in relation to the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill [Lords] be further varied as follows—

POLICE (NORTHERN IRELAND) BILL [LORDS] (PROGRAMME) (NO. 4)

  Consideration and Third Reading
  1. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the order shall be omitted.

  2. Proceedings on consideration and Third Reading shall be concluded in two days.

  3. Proceedings on consideration shall be taken on each of those days as shown in the first column of the following Table and shall be taken in the order so shown.

  4. Proceedings on the first day shall be brought to a conclusion six and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on that day or at the conclusion of the proceedings set down for that day, whichever is the earlier.

  5. The proceedings shown in the first column of the table shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the second column of the Table.

  TABLE

  Proceedings

  Time for conclusion of proceedings

  First day

  New Clauses relating to district policing partnerships, New Schedules relating to district policing partnerships and amendments relating to Clauses 13 to 15

  Six and a half hours after the commencement of the proceedings

  Second day

  Amendments relating to Clauses 23, 22, 18, 9, 10, 21, 11, 12, New Clauses relating to appointments to the Police Service of Northern Ireland, amendments relating to Clause 19, New Clauses relating to members of the Police Service of Northern Ireland engaged on other police service, amendments relating to Clauses 16, 20 and 24, amendments relating to Schedule 1, amendments relating to Clauses 4, 25 and 26, amendments relating to Schedule 2, amendments relating to Clauses 27 to 36 and 1, New Clauses relating to codes of practice, amendments relating to Clauses 2, 17, 3, 5 to 8, 37 to 39, amendments relating to

  6.00 p.m.

  Schedule 3, amendments relating to Clauses 40 and 41, remaining New Clauses, remaining New Schedules and remaining proceedings on consideration
  6. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 7.00 p.m. on the second of those da ys.—[Gillian Merron.]
  The House divided: Ayes 277, Noes 152.

  Division No. 137]

  [1:26 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

  Davidson, Ian

  Ainger, Nick

  Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

  Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

  Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Dismore, Andrew

  Bailey, Adrian

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Baird, Vera

  Doran, Frank

  Barnes, Harry

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Beckett, rh Margaret

  Drew, David (Stroud)

  Berry, Roger

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Blackman, Liz

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Edwards, Huw

  Borrow, David

  Efford, Clive

  Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Etherington, Bill

  Brennan, Kevin

  Farrelly, Paul

  Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

  Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Bryant, Chris

  Flint, Caroline

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Follett, Barbara

  Burden, Richard

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Burgon, Colin

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  Burnham, Andy

  Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

  Byers, rh Stephen

  Gardiner, Barry

  Caborn, rh Richard

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  Cairns, David

  Gilroy, Linda

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Goggins, Paul

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Casale, Roger

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Caton, Martin

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Challen, Colin

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Hanson, David

  Chaytor, David

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Clapham, Michael

  Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Healey, John

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

  Heppell, John

  Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Heyes, David

  Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hinchliffe, David

  Coleman, Iain

  Hodge, Margaret

  Connarty, Michael

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Cooper, Yvette

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

  Corston, Jean

  Cranston, Ross

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Hutton, rh John

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Dalyell, Tam

  Illsley, Eric

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  David, Wayne

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  309

  Jamieson, David

  O'Hara, Edward

  Jenkins, Brian

  Olner, Bill

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Organ, Diana

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Owen, Albert

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Perham, Linda

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Picking, Anne

  Kaufman, rh Gerald

  Pickthall, Colin

  Keen, Ann (Brentford)

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Kemp, Fraser

  Pollard, Kerry

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

  Kidney, David

  Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Pound, Stephen

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Prescott, rh John

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Purchase, Ken

  Lammy, David

  Purnell, James

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Lepper, David

  Raynsford, rh Nick

  Leslie, Christopher

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

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

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Linton, Martin

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

  Rooney, Terry

  Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Ruane, Chris

  McCabe, Stephen

  Ruddock, Joan

  McCafferty, Chris

  Salter, Martin

  McCartney, rh Ian

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Savidge, Malcolm

  MacDonald, Calum

  Sawford, Phil

  MacDougall, John

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McIsaac, Shona

  Shaw, Jonathan

  McKechin, Ann

  Sheerman, Barry

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Sheridan, Jim

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  McNulty, Tony

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  McWalter, Tony

  Singh, Marsha

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Mallaber, Judy

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Mallon, Seamus

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Mendelson, rh Peter

  Soley, Clive

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Southworth, Helen

  Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

  Stevenson, George

  Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Martlew, Eric

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Merron, Gillian

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  Michael, rh Alun

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Miliband, David

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Miller, Andrew

  Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Moffatt, Laura

  Touhig Don (Islwyn)

  Moonie, Dr. Lewis

  Trickett, Jon

  Morgan, Julie

  Truswell, Paul

  Morris, rh Estelle

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Mountford, Kali

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Mudie, George

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Mullin, Chris

  Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Vis, Dr. Rudi

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

  Ward, Claire

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

  Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Watts, David

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  White, Brian

  310

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Williams, Betty (Conwy)

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Winnick, David

  Wyatt, Derek

  Woodward, Shaun

  Woolas, Phil

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Wray, James (Glasgow Baillieston)

  Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe and

  Joan Ryan

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Keetch, Paul

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

  Bacon, Richard

  Baker, Norman

  Kirkwood Sir Archy

  Barker, Gregory

  Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Baron, John (Billericay)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

  Lamb, Norman

  Bellingham, Henry

  Lansley, Andrew

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Boswell, Tim

  Leigh, Edward

  Brady, Graham

  Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

  Brazier, Julian

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

  Lidington, David

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Loughton, Tim

  Burnett, John

  Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

  Burns, Simon

  McIntosh Miss Anne

  Burnside, David

  Maclean, rh David

  Cable, Dr. Vincent

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

  Cash, William

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Moore, Michael

  Moss, Malcolm

  Chidgey. David

  Murrison, Dr. Andrew

  Chope, Christopher

  Norman, Archie

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Collins, Tim

  Öpik, Lembit

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Cotter, Brian

  Page, Richard

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

  Paice, James

  Paisley, Rev. Ian

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Paterson, Owen

  Dodds, Nigel

  Pickles, Eric

  Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

  Portillo, rh Michael

  Doughty, Sue

  Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

  Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

  Duncan Smith, rh Iain

  Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

  Evans, Nigel

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  Ewing, Annabelle

  Rendel, David

  Fabricant, Michael

  Robathan, Andrew

  Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

  Flight, Howard

  Flook, Adrian

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Forth, rh Eric

  Robinson Mrs Iris (Strangford)

  Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

  Robinson Peter (Belfast E)

  Gillen, Mrs Cheryl

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Goodman, Paul

  Ruffley, David

  Gray, James (N Wilts)

  Salmond, Alex

  Grayling, Chris

  Sanders, Adrian

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Grieve, Dominic

  Selous, Andrew

  Hague, rh William

  Shepherd Richard

  Harvey, Nick

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

  Hawkins, Nick

  Heald, Oliver

  Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

  Heath, David

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Hendry, Charles

  Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

  Hermon, Lady

  Spring, Richard

  Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

  Steen, Anthony

  Holmes, Paul

  Stunell, Andrew

  Hunter, Andrew

  Swayne, Desmond

  Jack, rh Michael

  Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

  311

  Syms, Robert

  Webb, Steve (Northavon)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Weir, Michael

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Wiggin, Bill

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Wilkinson, John

  Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

  Willetts, David

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Thurso, John

  Willis, Phil

  Tonge, Dr. Jenny

  Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

  Tredinnick, David

  Wishart, Pete

  Trend, Michael

  Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

  Trimble, rh David

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Waterson, Nigel

  Mr. Mark Francois and

  Watkinson, Angela

  Mr. David Wilshire

  Question accordingly agreed to.

Orders of the Day

  Police (Northern Ireland) Bill [Lords]
  As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
  [Relevant documents: The Third Report of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, The Police (Northern Ireland) Bill, HC 233, and the Government's response thereto, Second Special Report, HC 555.]

  Police (Northern Ireland) Bill [Lords]
    New Clause 1

      INDEPENDENT MEMBERS: DECLARATION AGAINST TERRORISM
      '(1) Schedule 3 to the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 (c.32) (district policing partnerships) is amended as follows.
      (2) In paragraph 1 (interpretation) after subparagraph (3) insert—
      "(3A) In this Schedule a "declaration against terrorism" means a declaration in the form set out in Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Elected Authorities (Northern Ireland) Act 1989, with the substitution of the words "if appointed" for the words "if elected"."
      (3) In paragraph 5 (council's nominations of independent members) in subparagraph (4) after "if" insert "(a)" and after "the DPP" insert—
      ", or
      (b) he has not made a declaration against terrorism".
      (4) In paragraph 7 (removal of members from office) in subparagraph (1) after paragraph (a) insert—
      "(aa) in the case of an independent member, he has acted in breach of the terms of a declaration against terrorism;".
      (5) In paragraph 7 after subparagraph (2) insert—
      "(3) Section 6 of the Elected Authorities (Northern Ireland) Act 1989 applies to determine whether an independent member has acted in breach of the terms of a declaration against terrorism as it applies to determine whether a person who has made a declaration required for the purpose of section 3, 4 or 5 of that Act has acted in breach of the terms of the declaration.
      (4) As applied by subparagraph (3), section 6 of the Elected Authorities (Northern Ireland) Act 1989 applies with the following modifications—

      (a) in subsection (1), for the words from "after" to "the Assembly" substitute "when he is an independent member of a district policing partnership";

      (b) omit subsection (4);

      (c) in subsection (5), in the definition of "public meeting" after paragraph (c) insert—

      "(d) any meeting of a district policing partnership or a committee of a district policing partnership (whether or not a meeting which the public is permitted to attend), and

      (e) any meeting of a subgroup established under section 21 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 or a committee of such a subgroup (whether or not a meeting which the public is permitted to attend), and".

      (6) Subsections (1) to (5) come into force in accordance with provision made by the Secretary of State by order.'.—[Mr. Paul Murphy.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Paul Murphy): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
      Government new clause 2—Independent members: disqualification—and amendments (a) and (b) thereto.
      New clause 9—Independent members of district policing partnerships—
      '(1) Paragraph 4 of Schedule 3 to the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 (c. 32) (independent members) is amended as set out in subsections (2) and (3).
      (2) After subparagraph (1) insert—
      "(1A) No person may be appointed an independent member pursuant to subparagraph (1) above unless the Board make a declaration that the Board is satisfied that the person is not involved in any paramilitary organisation or in organised crime."
      (3) After subparagraph (1A) insert—
      "(1B) Before making a declaration under subparagraph (1A) above the Board must consult the district commander for the local policing district.".'.
      New clause 10—Political members of district policing partnerships—
      '(1) Paragraph 3 of Schedule 3 to the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 (c. 32) (political members) is amended as set out in subsections (2) and (3).
      (2) After subparagraph (1) insert—
      "(1A) No person may be appointed a political member pursuant to subparagraph (1) above unless the Board make a declaration that the Board is satisfied that the person is not involved in any paramilitary organisation or in organised crime."
      (3) After subparagraph (1A) insert—
      "(1B) Before making a declaration under subparagraph (1A) above the Board must consult the district commander for the local policing district.".'.
      New clause 11—Removal from office of members of district police partnerships—
      '(1) Paragraph 7 of Schedule 3 to the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 (c. 32) (removal of members from office) is amended as set out in subsection (2).
      (2) After subparagraph (1) insert—
      "(1A) The Board must remove a person from office as an independent member of a DPP if at any time after their appointment the Board is no longer satisfied that the person is not involved in any paramilitary organisation or in organised crime and would not make a declaration pursuant to paragraph 4(1A) in respect of that person.
      (1B) The council must remove a person from office as a political member of a DPP if at any time after their appointment the Board recommend to the council that it is no longer satisfied that the person is not involved in any paramilitary organisation or in organised crime and would not make a declaration pursuant to paragraph 3(1A) in respect of that person.".'.
      New clause 13—Disqualification of independent members of district policing partnerships—
      '(1) Paragraph 8 of Schedule 3 to the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 (c. 32) shall be amended as follows.
      (2) In subparagraph (2) the words after "offence" shall be omitted.
      (3) After subparagraph (2) there shall be inserted—
      "(3) The Secretary of State may exempt a person from disqualification under the provisions of subparagraph (2) if, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, the offence of which the person was convicted was not such as to render the person unsuitable for membership.".'.
      New clause 18—Disqualification from independent membership of a DPP—
      'In paragraph 8 to Schedule 3 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 (c. 32) (disqualification) for subparagraph (2) substitute—
      "(2) A person is disqualified from being an independent member of a DPP if he has at any time been convicted in Northern Ireland or elsewhere of any offence and has had passed on him a sentence of imprisonment (whether suspended or not) of more than twelve months.
      (2A) A person is disqualified from being an independent member of a DPP if, in the opinion of a police officer of superintendent rank or above, he is connected with a paramilitary organisation listed in Schedule 2 of the Terrorism Act 2000.
      (2B) A person is disqualified from being an independent member of a DPP if, in the opinion of a police officer of superintendent rank or above, he is connected with a paramilitary organisation specified under section 3(8) of the Northern Ireland Sentences Act 1998.".'
      New clause 19—Police consultation over eligibility of independent members of a DPP—
      'In paragraph 4 of Schedule 3 to the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 (c. 32) (independent members) after subparagraph (1) insert—
      "(1A) Before approving the appointment of an independent member of a DPP from among persons nominated by the council in accordance with paragraph 5 the Board shall consult a police office of superintendent rank or above as to the eligibility for membership of any individual so nominated.
      (1B) If a police officer makes a determination as set out in paragraph 8(2A) or (2B) to Schedule 3 the Board must not approve the nomination.".'
      New clause 23—Disqualification—
      'In paragraph 8 of Schedule 3 to the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 (c. 32) (disqualification for membership of a district policing partnership), after subparagraph (1) insert—
      "(1A) A person removed from office under paragraph 7(1) is disqualified for membership of a DPP for five years following his removal.".'.
      Amendment No.77, in page 10, line 19, leave out Clause 14.
      Government amendments Nos. 34 and 35.
      1.39 pm
      Mr. Murphy: We had a flavour of what the debate may be like in points of order—all of us will have become aware of that flavour over the past few months. What we are considering in this batch of new clauses and amendments is nothing new. We talked in the autumn about—ugly phrase—"texts for consideration", and referred to discussions held in August 2001 which resulted in the publication of the implementation plan for the Patten report. If aficionados turn to page 11 of the plan, which deals with recommendations 27 and 28 of the report, they will see that the district policing partnerships and the sub-groups in Belfast have to be considered in detail, as the House is going to do this afternoon.The plan was followed by a review of policing, which was introduced by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office. Again, reference has been made to those issues. On 25 November 2002, the texts for consideration were published alongside the draft Bill. I know that when the House discussed clause 14, such issues were debated. The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) referred in his point of order to the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs, which has also discussed and debated those issues.

      315
      Why, on 25 November 2002, was it decided to separate texts for consideration from the Bill itself? It was not simply because it happened to be my birthday—
      Mr. Quentin Davies: The right hon. Gentleman may be under an illusion. He said that clause 14 had been discussed. I was not in Committee any more than he was, but if he reads the record of Committee proceedings, he will see that clause 14 was clearly not discussed—it was one of the victims of the Government's pernicious timetabling system, which prevents important clauses from being discussed. We shall come to clause 14, a foolish and obnoxious provision, later, but it was not discussed. It is revealing that the right hon. Gentleman assumes that it has been, when it has not.
      Mr. Murphy: We are debating new clauses, as opposed clause 14. However pernicious, the programming system works, and the hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have two days for Report and Third Reading on the Floor of the House which, bearing in mind the current situation, is particularly generous. Clause 14, which deals with disqualification, was discussed at length in the other place. The hon. Gentleman will have the opportunity—doubtless he will take it—to debate at length in the Commons too the relevant issues.
      1.45 pm
      Mr. Peter Robinson: The Secretary of State is right that the Select Committee considered the Bill, but chose not to deal with additional clauses because of an undertaking given to it by the Minister of State. The Chairman of the Committee said:
      "I am not trying to put words into your mouth but you would not be introducing these draft clauses into the Bill as it goes through Parliament in the next two or three months, whatever it is, without the situation having arisen here which would allow for the resumption of the Assembly."
      The Minister of State replied: "That is right." That is a clear indication that those clauses would not be introduced, so the Committee did not consider them.
      Mr. Murphy: I shall go on to explain to the House in detail why we are considering the clauses today, and what changes have been made to them.
      I repeat however that the issues behind the provision on disqualification for membership of district policing partnerships and the provision on the Belfast subgroups are not new. There was a deliberate procedure and policy on my part to ensure that we are as transparent as possible and give political parties in Northern Ireland, which have now had five months—four months—to discuss those matters, along with Members in the Commons and another place, the opportunity to debate the issues. It is not as if they have come out of the blue—the issues that we are debating today have long been in the public domain, because I made a decision to put them there. I also made a decision to separate them and, when we look at the provisions in detail, I shall explain what that means.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: Surely, as the Minister of State suggested in the Select Committee that those matters would not be dealt with until the
      316
      Assembly was up and running again, people would be left thinking that the matters would not be dealt with until that happened? The Secretary of State said that we have had months to consider them, but we had an assurance from his colleague that those matters would not be dealt with until the Assembly was restored.
      Mr. Murphy: As I shall explain in a few moments, there was a need to review the way in which we would present those matters to the House of Commons.
      The House will be aware that, some weeks ago in Hillsborough, the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach, together with the pro-agreement parties, met to consider a variety of issues relating to the current state of the peace process and the political situation in Northern Ireland. We met for about 30 hours and came to conclusions which will be published in a few weeks. We also knew that the timetable for the Bill was rapidly progressing. I faced a situation in which the Bill would have to be delayed so that we would have time to reach a position in which we could publish the declaration and, hopefully, have acts of completion made public. At the same time, I realised that delaying the Bill would cause difficulties. Similarly, I realised that if we implemented the relevant provisions later, we would have to introduce a third police Bill, and I was not content with that.
      Mr. David Trimble: The Secretary of State may feel that his last phrase anticipates my point, but I shall make it nonetheless. If circumstances change and he feels that he can bring the new clauses into operation, they will not take effect for several years because they can only be implemented in relation to the next set of district policing partnerships, which will only be formed after the next local government elections. He could therefore have waited for the next police Bill, because we have had three police Bills in the past six years, and at that rate, we can confidently expect another police Bill long before there is a need to implement the provisions. There is therefore not the urgency that the Secretary of State suggested.
      Mr. Murphy: I do not know whether any police Bills will be introduced in the next couple of years, but I think that the right hon. Gentleman knows that I hope that there will not be. However, we faced a clash of timing, so with that particular dilemma in mind, we introduced the new clauses. I want to explain to the House that we have added further safeguards to those provisions.
      Hon. Members will know, in respect of the disqualification of members of district policing partnerships, that that matter is already dealt with in respect of members of local authorities, who can indeed become members of district policing partnerships even if they have, in the past, served custodial sentences. I shall deal with it in more detail in a few moments, but there is nothing new about the concept in respect of members of local authorities. That refers to independent members.
      The important point is that when we began our consideration of these matters last November, hon. Members who were interested in these matters were made aware that a number of safeguards were built into the clauses, the most: important of which is the fact that the clauses cannot come into effect unless I lay an order in the House of Commons and unless the House and the

      317
      House of Lords consider, by way of affirmative resolution, that these clauses should come into operation. The clause to which I just referred has a commencement order.
      Additionally—this was not the case originally—I have decided to place a similar safeguard in the Belfast sub-groups clauses, which will be considered by the House later. They, too, will have a commencement order, so they will not come into operation and will not be implemented unless I decide to lay the order, and unless the House and the other place vote affirmatively for them.
      Mr. Alistair Carmichael: I welcome what the Secretary of State is saying, but there remains in many quarters a deep feeling of unease that the Bill still leaves the Government as the sole judge of when it is appropriate to bring in the commencement order. Undertakings given in the House are all very well, but Governments sometimes change their minds and sometimes even change their Secretaries of State. As the Bill stands, it would be possible to introduce these provisions without acts of completion. It would be necessary only to insert the term "acts of completion" into the subsections that refer to the introduction of commencement orders. It would then be clear that it is for the House to decide that appropriate conditions had been met. Will the Secretary of State consider that?
      Mr. Murphy: It would not be particularly helpful to insert "acts of completion" in the Bill, but I will provide more detail about what might be appropriate as we proceed this afternoon. More significantly, it is not just for the Government to decide whether the clauses are implemented: the House of Commons and the House of Lords will decide that, because the order will be subject to affirmative resolution. That means that both this place and the other place will have a say in determining whether the orders are commenced
      Lady Hermon: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way a second time, but I must press him further to make it absolutely clear that neither commencement order will be introduced by the Secretary of State until after acts of completion—not in the context of, or during, such acts of completion, but after acts of completion. We need a very clear statement to that effect from the Secretary of State.
      Mr. Murphy: Indeed, as the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) said a few moments ago, changing the composition of DPPs to include other parties cannot happen until the next local government elections in Northern Ireland. So there is, inevitably, by the very nature of the process, a time gap. We have made it clear that the commencement orders will not come into effect until after the acts of completion.
      It is also important for the House to understand what we mean when we say that these clauses, together with other matters that will be debated in Northern Ireland in the next couple of weeks, are all conditional—this will become clear as we move along—on acts of completion, as the Prime Minister called them, by the Provisional IRA. That is why we made it absolutely clear that the
      318
      two clauses have commencement orders built into them. There are two further safeguards. One is the pledge that people must take—I shall refer to it again later—and the other is the five-year period that must elapse between the completion of a sentence and the taking up of office.
      Lembit Öpik: The Secretary of State will understand that we are dwelling on the matter because it is one of the key issues that we shall debate today and tomorrow. He has just given a clear indication that he assumes that the provisions of the Bill would not be implemented unless there were acts of completion. I hear him agreeing with that. To provide the confidence that we all seek, what is the obstacle to including some definition of an act of completion in the very context that he described—the context of the Bill?
      Mr. Murphy: We get into tremendous difficulties if we try to define in the Bill what is essentially a political decision as to whether acts of completion have taken place. I shall define that in a moment, and hon. Gentlemen who have objected may find my reasoning to their liking. If we write into the Bill every single thing that we think is an act of completion or is the cessation of paramilitary activity, difficulties can arise if, in the months ahead, something else occurs that is considered by the Government to be a violation, but it is not in the Bill. We can tie ourselves up into legal knots, knowing full well that everyone understands that there are all sorts of factors that define paramilitary activity. I shall speak about these matters as we go through the afternoon, and they will appear on the record.
      Lembit Öpik: The Secretary of State said something very important. He implies that he wants to maintain a degree of political latitude in the interpretation of acts of completion. That may well be the Government's position; I suspect it always has been, but for the record, can he clarify that that is the strategy that he wants to maintain?
      Mr. Murphy: Yes, but I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware that we must not mix that up with legal definitions of ceasefires, which do exist in legislation. We must all be careful that we do not tie ourselves down. Something might occur that is not in the Bill but is clearly a measure of paramilitary activity that we have not defined. It can lead to difficulties later, by way of judicial review and so on.
      Mr. Quentin Davies: I take it that the Secretary of State is advancing the matter of definition as a genuine difficulty that he envisages, rather than as an excuse. There is a simple way of resolving the difficulty, if it is only a difficulty—that is, to make acts of completion a necessary but not a sufficient condition for bringing the clauses into effect. The Secretary of State would then have the power to bring them into effect by statutory instrument if there are acts of completion, as specified, and if, in addition, his general judgment is that the clauses should be brought into effect. That would be a simple way of resolving the difficulty that he has described.
      Mr. Murphy: Nothing is ever simple. One thing that we must always bear in mind is how the implications of

      319
      acts of completion not being completed, or examples of paramilitary activity, impinge on an Assembly that is up and running, as I hope it will be. The hon. Gentleman knows that in the weeks ahead—not too far ahead, I hope—there will he a vigorous debate on how we view the issues discussed at Hillsborough, in the context of the joint declaration. That has implications for the Assembly. In the Prime Minister's remarks in Belfast before Christmas, he went some way towards defining what he meant by paramilitary activity. He referred to targeting, procurement, punishment beatings, surveillance and training. Anybody who is involved or interested in Northern Ireland politics is aware that those are the matters that we must consider.
      Mr. Peter Robinson: Surely the right hon. Gentleman must realise that the sort of fuzzy assurance that he is attempting to give the House today will not add up to a row of beans to the Unionist community when people recognise that whether anything occurs before, during or after acts of completion makes no difference, when the Government have not defined what an act of completion is, and when they can manipulate all their arrangements in order to facilitate the IRA. They had no intention of bringing these provisions before the House until after acts of completion. Now they are doing so, and we are left to rely on the judgment of a Government who are prepared to allow the IRA to manipulate legislation in the House.
      Mr. Murphy: Of course we are not allowing the IRA to manipulate legislation. We are introducing legislation that we hope will ensure that we restore the institutions in Northern Ireland. I know that the hon. Gentleman is supportive of those institutions as a Minister in the Executive and a Member of the Assembly. The purpose of what we are doing today is to try to help us move towards restoring trust between the parties and restoring the institutions, as well as an election in Northern Ireland and proper devolution, which I believe is what most people there want. That is the purpose of what we are doing today; it is not about dealing with the IRA in the way that he suggests.
      2 pm
      Mr. Seamus Mallon: I thank the Secretary of State for giving way. I have a lot of sympathy with what he is saying about the difficulty of defining acts of completion, as some are quantifiable immediately and others will not be quantifiable for some considerable time. However, is there not one act of completion that must surely take place before an election or the reinstitution of the devolved Administration—participation by Sinn Fein in the Policing Board? Will that act of completion be conditional on what follows later, or will the issue proceed in such a way as to allow the political process to be re-established and the other acts of completion insisted upon? Which is the sequence? Is not the participation in the Policing Board the first act of completion that will be necessary in relation to the Bill?
      Mr. Murphy: I think that both issues are important. The definition of paramilitary activity particularly exercises people in Northern Ireland—and rightly so. The continuing nature of such activity is a matter of
      320
      great concern, and our first priority must be to ensure that it stops, including in the political context. I am by no means unsympathetic to the point that my hon. Friend made with regard to the Policing Board—another important matter that is front of us. What the Prime Minister said back in November last year was directed in the first place towards the situation regarding activity by paramilitaries. In the same speech, however, he also referred to the significance of everybody in Northern Ireland accepting a new policing regime that serves everybody, whatever parts of the community or traditions they come from.
      Mr. Mallon: I thank the Secretary of State for his comments. Can he conceive of a situation, given the type of negotiations that have taken place, in which an election is held, as I want it to be, and devolution is reestablished, as I very much want, without an act of completion being made in relation to the Policing Board? Will that hang over until after the two events the election and reinstitution of devolution—or it is an act of completion that will facilitate those events?
      Mr. Murphy: I think that we will have to see how the next two or three weeks unfold, but I say to my hon. Friend that I believe that the issue of police is a central one and that acceptance of the police by every part of the community, just as his party has accepted policing in the new context, is vital. If it had not been for the SDLP and colleagues in the nationalist community and the Church, the change that we have seen in that regard would not have occurred. This is a vital issue in which I think that he played an important role. I repeat that acceptance of the police by everyone is hugely important.
      I do not want to go into the details of what will be available to people in Northern Ireland to consider in a matter of weeks. I simply say to the House that it is important to understand that we have introduced a new safeguard on commencement—a procedure that allows both the House of Commons and the House of Lords to decide the matter when the order is tabled.
      Mr. Trimble: I thank the Secretary of State for his generosity to me and other hon. Members in enabling us to probe the issue. May I take him back to the question of acts of completion in relation to the new clauses? Of course, I understand that there are a number of different acts of completion and that, as the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) said, some are quantifiable and some are not. However, is it not the case that from the point of view of the new clauses, the relevant act of completion would be the acceptance by the republican movement of the police and its support for policing, as demonstrated by inclusion on the Policing Board? The new clauses relate to district policing partnerships and are designed to facilitate participation in them by Sinn Fein. It would therefore be wrong to bring the provisions into operation simply because some other act of completion, such as decommissioning, had occurred, when the republican movement had not yet accepted and supported policing.
      Mr. Murphy: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister also referred in his speech to the fact that he could not envisage Sinn Fein joining the Policing Board

      321
      without a cessation of paramilitary activity—I think that he used the word "absurd" to describe the suggestion that that would happen. The one thing would follow the other.
      I shall deal with the Government new clauses in detail and I hope also to refer to the new clauses tabled by other hon. Members—
      Rev. Ian Paisley: I should like to intervene before the Secretary of State leaves that point, which concerns a matter that I have put before him previously. He is aware that I asked the Prime Minister in this House what the definition was for such acts of completion. I asked him whether they would consist merely of a statement or declaration, and he said that he would tell me. On 27 November 2002 at column 309 of Hansard, he said:
      "It is not merely a statement, a declaration or words. It means giving up violence completely in a way that satisfies everyone"—
      not only the Secretary of State, who will sign the order and bring it into operation—
      "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.]
      Will the Secretary of State give us his assurance that that is the divine statement and that there will be no change in it? Can he assure the House that that word will be kept to the people? I can tell him that I will not be satisfied when he signs the order, and he jolly well knows that.
      Mr. Murphy: I am afraid that I can give no assurances as to the Prime Minister's divinity, but I agree with what he said to the hon. Gentleman back in November last year. Indeed, all of us have referred to the cessation of activities being total, real and permanent. That is not simply a question of words; it must also be one of actions.
      I should like now to deal in more detail with the new clauses themselves. Government new clause 2 amends the disqualification provisions set out in paragraph 8 of schedule 3 to the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000. At present, the legislation provides that no one who has ever received a custodial sentence should be allowed to serve as an independent member of a district policing partnership, no matter how long ago they were convicted, what offence they were convicted for, or whether the sentence was suspended. The new provisions would change that and instead provide that a period of five years must elapse following a person's discharge in respect of an offence before he or she may be considered for an appointment to a DPP.
      As I explained earlier, those provisions bring the rules for independent members into line with the arrangements that already apply to the political members of DPPs, who are drawn from the local authority. Under the terms of the Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 1972, as amended, candidates wishing to stand for election as local councillors are ineligible to do so for a period of five years following their discharge in respect of an offence that attracted a custodial sentence.
      322
      The new clause mirrors those arrangements for independent members, putting them on an equal footing with their fellow DPP members. Similar arrangements apply to appointments to police authorities in England and Wales, where people are disqualified from being appointed as a member of a police authority if, within five years of the date of appointment, they have received a prison sentence of not less than three months.
      Amendment (a), which the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) tabled, would increase the period from five to 10 years. That would mean that the arrangements for independent members were significantly out of line with those for their political local authority counterparts.
      Mr. Jeffrey M. Donaldson: Did not the Government accept an amendment in another place to the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 to make a clear distinction between independent members and elected representatives of district policing partnerships? It disqualified independent members who had a conviction for a terrorist offence. The Government introduced that disqualification in the 2000 Act, yet the Secretary of State now seeks to remove it.
      Mr. Murphy: I am unaware of the hon. Gentleman's point and I shall revert to it later. Amendment (a) would put the position between political and independent members seriously out of kilter.
      The only change to the wording of new clause 2 since it was published as a "text for consideration" last November is to clarify the status of suspended sentences. I specifically draw hon. Members' attention to the change. In line with the equivalent electoral legislation, suspended sentences will not count for the purposes of the disqualification rules unless they are ordered to take effect.
      Amendment (b) proposes to overturn that change. There are two reasons why I regard that as inappropriate. First, I do not understand why it is right for the arrangements to be out of line with those that apply to political members. Secondly, we have made it clear that the reference is only to sentences that remain suspended: that is, when the sentencing judge has seen fit to suspend the sentence unless specific subsequent events trigger its enforcement. The judge will reach that conclusion by taking into account all the relevant factors in a specific case. I do not consider it appropriate for us to second-guess that in framing the statute.
      Suspending the sentence will be subject to specific conditions that the judge sets. Obviously, if the individual breaks one of the conditions, the sentence ceases to be suspended and the disqualification provisions would come into play. That is more appropriate.
      Mr. Nigel Dodds: Will the Secretary of State comment on the remarks of the chairman of the Police Federation for Northern Ireland on the proposals? He said:
      "An independent appointee who has terrorist baggage is by definition far from independent. Appointing such people devalues the meaning of the word.
      More importantly such appointees will deter ordinary decent people, who know what their communities' law and order priorities are, from coming forward."
      Mr. Murphy: First, as I said earlier, there is a similarity between political members who serve on local

      323
      authorities and those who will serve on DPPs. Later, I shall speak at some length about the opportunity for people to change, to be reconciled and make a contribution to society in Northern Ireland. That possibility is inherent in the legislation on membership of a local authority. What is the difference between that and membership of a DPP? We are not considering sentences for only terrorist offences; the ordinance refers to general custodial sentences. The possibility for reform for which local authority legislation provides should surely apply to independent members of DPPs. The changes will apply throughout the United Kingdom, not only to Northern Ireland.
      Mr. Dodds: How many times have the relevant provisions in the local government legislation been used? Even in the case of glaring examples such as the lord mayor of Belfast appearing in an IRA calendar with Armalites, Kalashnikovs and attacks on police, they have not been used.
      Mr. Murphy: I understand that specific complaints have to be made. We are making law today; we made law when we devised the relevant provision for members of local authorities. There should not be a distinction between the two sorts of legislation. If people are entitled to serve on local authorities after five years' purdah, why cannot they serve on a DPP? Local authorities probably undertake more proper decision making than a DPP ever will.
      2.15 pm
      Mr. Trimble: The Government are extending the provisions of the Elected Authorities (Northern Ireland) Act 1989, which covered councillors, to independent members of DPPs. Surely it would have been reasonable to take account of the clear fact that the enforcement provisions in the 14-year-old Act have proved wholly inadequate. If the Government intend to extend those provisions to independent members of DPPs, they must want them to be effective. Would not it therefore be appropriate to ensure that the enforcement provisions work? They do not currently work.
      Mr. Murphy: There are other methods, including the oath, which I shall consider later. As I said earlier, the crucial point is that the provisions will not be implemented until the acts of completion to which the Prime Minister referred have been effected. I hope that circumstances will be wholly different in Northern Ireland when the Bill is implemented. If that does not happen, the provisions will not be effected.
      All hon. Members who support the agreement must allow people in Northern Ireland the opportunity in the next few weeks to consider what is on offer. That includes the proposals that we discussed at Hillsborough some weeks ago and those that I hope will emerge from the IRA in the weeks ahead. People must judge accordingly. It would be inappropriate and untimely to scupper the chances of progress at such an early stage, before we know what is on offer.
      The hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) and his colleagues tabled new clause 13, which would extend the existing disqualification provision to cover all offences, irrespective of whether they have
      324
      attracted a custodial sentence, and provide that I may waive the disqualification if I believe that the offence was not sufficiently serious to render a person unsuitable for membership of a DPP. It implies that I would waive the disqualification in the case of minor offences but retain it in that of more serious offences.
      New clause 13 unnecessarily complicates the system. By extending the disqualification to include offences that attract non-custodial sentences, the clause would have to include a range of minor offences. In every instance, the cases of individuals with convictions for minor offences would have to be referred to the Secretary of State so that he could take a view on whether the offence was sufficiently serious to warrant disqualification.
      Mr. John Taylor: The Secretary of State has been generous in giving way. Will he comment not on custodial or non-custodial sentences but on suspended sentences?
      Mr. Murphy: I believed that I had made detailed reference to suspended sentences earlier. I shall revert to that in my winding-up speech if we need to take other points on it into account. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members will make speeches during the afternoon.
      On a practical level, new clause 13 would create an enormous administrative burden on both the Department and the relevant local council. Under schedule 3(5)(4) of the 2000 Act, the council is not allowed to nominate an individual for membership of a DPP if he is disqualified from membership. To comply with that, the council would be required to refer every case in which an individual had declared an offence to the Secretary of State for review. The amount of time and effort that that would add to the process seems disproportionate, since the majority of minor offences—for which one might expect the Secretary of State to exercise a waiver—attract non-custodial sentences. The outcome of all that extra work could be expected to be much the same as the present situation, yet a vast amount of additional effort would have been expended in achieving it. To my mind, that is a powerful argument against the new clause, but there is another reason why the House should reject it.
      Under the terms of new clause 13, the discretion would rest exclusively with me. That is not consistent with other legislation dealing with the rehabilitation of offenders, in which there are set time limits, specified in law, after which time certain offences become "spent". Secretaries of State are often accused of taking too much power unto themselves. In this case, that would be a justifiable criticism of the new clause. I believe that it is better for the rules governing what is, and what is not, a disqualifiable offence to be set out in the statute, so that all those involved in enforcing them—the local council, the Policing Board and, ultimately, the courts—are clear about whether someone is disqualified. Governments should not have a role in that. For this reason, the Government will not support new clause 13.
      New clauses 18 and 19 also deal with disqualification. They suggest that anyone with a custodial sentence of 12 months or more—or who the police believe to have links with a paramilitary organisation—should be

      325
      permanently debarred from independent membership of a DPP. For the same reasons that I am suggesting that we might, in due course, change the existing blanket disqualification rules, I do not think it appropriate to replace them with another blanket ban. In the circumstances in which such a pro vision might come into force—namely, in the context of acts of completion—it would be wrong to refuse to recognise that some individuals might be, and, indeed, are, capable of reform and change. To ban them for life from membership of a DPP, taking no account of the willingness of individuals to eschew violence and to follow an exclusively peaceful path, would be wrong.
      That is not to say that all ex-prisoners would be suitable for appointments. During the passage of the 2000 Act through the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), then a Minister at the Northern Ireland Office, set out a number of important safeguards that would apply to appointments to DPPs. Appointments will be made in accordance with a code of practice issued by the Secretary of State, on merit, and by the cross-community Policing Board. The code of practice makes it clear that the board will write to the Chief Constable to ask for confirmation of the criminal records declared by applicants.
      New clause 1, tabled in my name, is another part of the changes that the Government propose might be appropriate in the context of changed political circumstances. It would bring the arrangements for independent members into line with those that already apply for political members. Under this new provision, prospective independent members would be required, before their application could be considered by the Policing Board, to make a declaration against terrorism. That declaration would be in the same terms as the declaration that prospective local councillors are required to make.
      New clauses 9 and 10, tabled in the name of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann, also deal with declarations. However, instead of proposing that prospective candidates make a declaration against terrorism, the new clauses propose that the board should make a declaration that it is satisfied that the individual is
      "not involved in any paramilitary organisation or in organised crime",
      having first consulted the local district commander. New clauses 18 and 19 would have a similar effect. The Government believe that the new clauses are inappropriate for a number of reasons. First, it seems unnecessary for the board to make a declaration in respect of independent members, since it is the board's own responsibility to select and appoint those members in accordance with paragraph 4 of schedule 3 of the 2000 Act, and with the terms of the code of practice issued under paragraph 6 of that schedule. Clear guidelines for the board are already set out in the code, which sets out a "person-specification" —as they call it these days—with both essential and desirable criteria or competences. Those include a demonstrable interest in the local community, community safety or policing issues, and the ability to exercise sound judgment.
      326
      I believe that those guidelines are sufficient to allow the board to exercise its own discretion—which, as Members on both sides of the House have noted, has been sound in all the decisions that the board has been faced with to date—as to which are the most suitable candidates for appointment. This acts both as a safeguard against some of the fears that have been expressed in relation to the changes proposed by my own amendment—new clause 2—and as a reason why the proposals in new clauses 9, 18 and 19 are unnecessary. In the case of political members, which new clause 10 deals with, I believe that the same arguments apply. However, there is an additional dimension when we are dealing with elected representatives. These individuals have been elected through a democratic process. As part of that process, they have been required to make a declaration against terrorism, and, if they breach it, they can be removed from office. As elected representatives, they are members of a council, and it should be for that council—not the board—to appoint them to sit on the DPP, as its representatives. I believe that that continues to be right, in the interests of local democracy.
      However, that does not mean that political members—or, indeed, independent members—are immune from subsequent sanctions. My own amendment, new clause 1, entails an important sanction. If an independent member appears to have acted in breach of his or her declaration against terrorism, it will be within the board's power—or the power of the council with the approval of the board—to remove that person from membership of the DPP. In that respect, there is a slight difference from the rules applying to local councillors. In the case of a councillor, the case must go to the courts before he or she can be removed for dishonouring their declaration. We are proposing in new clause 1 that the board—or the council with the approval of the board—should be able to take the decision whether an independent member should be removed from the DPP, without recourse to the courts.
      It is true, of course, that it would be possible for an aggrieved individual to seek a judicial review of the board's—or the council's—decision to remove someone, on that or any other ground. It would then be for the court to take a view on the reasonableness of the decision—that is, to ask whether a reasonable organisation, faced with the same circumstances, could have come to the same conclusion. There is still scope, however, for the board to take action in respect of political members. Paragraph 7(1)(e) of schedule 3 of the 2000 Act allows the board to remove someone because
      "he is … unable or unfit to discharge his functions as a member of the DPP."
      There is sufficient scope in this provision, without us needing to pursue the proposal in new clause 11, tabled in the name of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann. Because of the serious nature of a proposal to remove an elected member from office, I believe that it is only right that such a decision should ultimately lie with the courts, rather than with the Policing Board and the police themselves.
      Mr. Michael Connarty: Watching this from the outside, I believe that there is a contradiction in the logic. If the boards can decide to remove an independent member, and that member can then go to

      327
      judicial review, does the Secretary of State see some merit—as I do—in the proposal in new clause 9 that the board should make a base statement at the outset that the person that it is appointing is guaranteed—or at least agreed by the board—not to be involved in paramilitary activities? If such issues can be challenged at the end of the process, they should be able to he challenged at the beginning.
      Mr. Murphy: We think that the safeguards in the Bill are sufficient, and I hope that my hon. Friend will be persuaded by the points that I have made. I certainly believe that it is important to ensure that there are safeguards, and we have built in extra safeguards during consideration of this legislation.
      I appreciate that new clause 11 deals with removal from a DPP, and not with removal from a council, but there is read-across. If the board genuinely has reason to suspect that a councillor has dishonoured the declaration against terrorism that he or she made when standing for appointment, it is open to the board—one might argue that it is incumbent on it, as a public body with primary responsibility for ensuring that the police are able to maintain law and order in Northern Ireland—to draw this to the attention of the local council, which may then take the case to the High Court to seek a determination that the person has acted in breach of the terms of his or her declaration against terrorism. When the court makes a declaration in those terms, the person will he disqualified from being a member of the local council and would commit an offence if he or she remained a member. Once the person has ceased to be a member of the local council, under the terms of paragraph 3(5)(c) of schedule 3 to the 2000 Act, he or she would automatically cease to be a member of the DPP.
      2.30 pm
      I want to comment briefly on new clause 23 and amendment No. 77, which would replace or remove clause 14. That clause would bring the arrangements for DPP members in line with those that apply to members of the Policing Board by providing that anyone removed from a DPP would be disqualified from reappointment until after the next local council election.
      At present, if someone is removed from DPP membership under paragraph 7 of schedule 3 to the 2000 Act, there is nothing to prevent them from applying and being considered for immediate reappointment. By contrast, if anyone is removed in similar circumstances from the Policing Board, they are disqualified from consideration for reappointment until after the next Assembly elections.
      The measure is a practical way to ensure that an individual who has been removed is not able to come forward again immediately thereafter. I do not think it appropriate for such people to be out of line with those who apply to the Policing Board, so I do not support new clause 23 or amendment No. 77.
      Mr. Quentin Davies: I have some difficulty understanding this particular measure, particularly the phrase "next local general election". To me, a local general election is an oxymoron. Which is it-local elections or general in the sense of Assembly elections?
      328
      The Secretary of State has given the answer, which is local elections or, in other words, district council elections. Can we be clear about that? Why he does not say so in the Bill I do not know.
      Mr. Murphy: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I will say more about that in my winding-up speech.
      Lembit Öpik: On the same question, it may be that I have misunderstood the Secretary of State. Surely the fundamental principle here is that elections have randomness about their timing, which does not stand comparison with simply saying that there will be a five-year ban. Will he either correct my understanding of what he has just said or explain why we cannot in principle provide that there will always be a five-year sanction? I apologise if I have misunderstood him.
      Mr. Murphy: I thought that that was what I said, but I shall come back with more detail when I have clarified the technicalities.
      Last week, my hon. Friend the Minister of State was at one of two meetings in Belfast to launch DPPs across Northern Ireland. There were more than 300 people in the room. DPPs have an immense contribution to make, and I pay tribute to the Policing Board for the leadership role that it has exercised in Northern Ireland, not just on these issues, but across the board, and the excellent cross-community job that it has done.
      I want DPPs to reflect all parts of the community in Northern Ireland and to engage all the people in Northern Ireland in bringing the Police Service closer to everyone, irrespective of their background. These measures will help them to do that, but I repeat that it will happen only in the context of what the Prime Minister has called acts of completion and when we genuinely live in a peaceful, tolerant and democratic Northern Ireland.
      Mr. Quentin Davies: We can already conclude from our proceedings that the Government are in some confusion. It seems to me that, within that confusion, they are trying to do the wrong thing. We know that there is confusion because the Secretary of State himself seemed to be under the illusion that clause 14, which is important, had been discussed upstairs in Committee, whereas it is clear, as I suggested in an intervention, that it has not.
      The Minister of State appears to have given to the Select Committee an undertaking that is inconsistent with introducing these measures at this time. I am not a member of that Committee, but no doubt it will want to respond to that serious issue. The Secretary of State has made various objections to doing sensible things, and when reasonable suggestions are made as to how those difficulties can be resolved—I have already done that—the Government fall back and say, "Even if that is a way of resolving the difficulty, we're not interested in going down that road." So there is confusion and hastiness involved in introducing these substantial new proposals this afternoon.
      A lot of the Government's proposals are inherently obnoxious to any reasonable, law-abiding person, and I should have thought that any civilised society would regard as objectionable the idea of giving persons with

      329
      serious criminal convictions, including murder, the right under statute to sit on a body to which the police have regularly to make reports, even if they are not formally accountable to it, and the ability to exercise influence over local policing.
      I recognise the Secretary of State's point that in England we have a provision under which people with convictions cannot sit on police authorities for five years, although there is no continuance of that at the end of that period. I also accept what he says about the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. I am a great supporter of that Act; it is part of our Christian heritage to believe in forgiveness and rehabilitation. So, however serious the offence, there may be a respectable argument to be made along those lines, at least philosophically; but we must recognise—the Secretary of State would do so as a matter of practice—that conditions in Northern Ireland are different from those in England.
      In practice, it would be inconceivable in England, whatever the legislation might say, for someone with a serious criminal conviction for racketeering or murder to be invited to join a police authority five years and a month, or 10 years, after receiving that conviction. Indeed, that might be the case for any period, and such issues and dilemmas simply would not arise here. However, we know that the purpose of the legislation is to provide an opportunity for exactly such people to serve on, and play a major part in., DPPs in Northern Ireland. In practice, the situation that we confront is different, and we must be clear about that.
      We must accept that there may be strong arguments for having tighter, stiffer and more exclusive rules in Northern Ireland than in this country, although I hope that even the Secretary of State wall give me credit for being a reasonable man. Moreover, the Opposition are absolutely committed to the success of the Northern Ireland peace process and the implementation of the Belfast agreement.
      If the opportunity offers, as I pray God it will, we are prepared to accept exceptional measures to contribute to the successful implementation of that process, so I do not exclude a number of things in Northern Ireland, including the proposals made by the Government this afternoon, if indeed they are regarded as part and parcel of what I have often described from this Dispatch Box as a comprehensive and definitive—I emphasise those words—settlement of the problems of Northern Ireland that achieves normalisation there.
      The important issue here is of the essence, although, curiously, it does not involve the substance, however important that substance may be. I shall focus on the Government's tactics, and their tactical decision to introduce these new proposals at this time, giving us great cause for concern and, indeed, alarm. The Secretary of State may recall that as recently as Monday of last week, when speaking on the Northern Ireland Assembly Elections Act 2003, I rehearsed our critique of the Government's tactics over most of the last five years. I also repeated my mantra, which I hope the Secretary of State is now very familiar with, of the three fundamental failures of judgment and perception perpetrated by the Government admittedly before he had responsibility for these matters.
      330
      First, the Government made the great error of supposing that Northern Ireland issues can be considered separately, as well as the error of not recognising that everything is interlinked and that no party in Northern Ireland will make a move unless it knows what others will do in return.
      Secondly, the Government made the error of supposing that if concessions are made to one party, that will have no effect on others. I am afraid that I am referring in particular to the failure to recognise in advance the fact that making constant concessions to Sinn Fein-IRA would affect other parties in Northern Ireland, their morale, their commitment to the peace process and their electoral prospects. That goes for the Social Democratic and Labour party as well as the Unionist parties.
      The Government also made the fundamental mistake of supposing that republicans, or indeed anyone else with a background of violence in this world, can be effectively concealed and conciliated by unilateral concession.
      Mr. Mallon: This is remarkable. When we last debated policing, the hon. Gentleman made a huge point about concessions having been made to our party; now he is making a different point, from a different point of view.
      Will the hon. Gentleman consider this point? The Order Paper shows how much prominence this issue has been given, by contrast with important matters that will not be given a quarter of the time allotted to it. Is there not something perverse about allowing a whole day's debate for Members who are not even present to make their political points?
      Mr. Davies: If the hon. Gentleman is an aficionado of my speeches, as he appears to be, he will know that since I have been performing my present role I have been extremely, perhaps boringly, consistent. I am open to the charge of having said the same thing for a year and a half. I fear, however, that all too often events have proved my analysis correct. That is why I have continued to say the same thing.
      The hon. Gentleman mentioned concessions. I said that the SDLP was worthy of recognition for its decision to join the Policing Board and to recognise the new Police Service of Northern Ireland. In that context, I accepted a number of things, including the Patten report and the 50:50 system—opposed, for sound human rights reasons which the hon. Gentleman will understand, by predecessors of mine.
      The principle of my tactics in Northern Ireland is reciprocity. That means making a positive move when the other party does so, and rewarding virtue and good behaviour. What it does not mean—this is where I appear to disagree fundamentally with the Government—is making concessions to those who do not themselves make an effort, or rewarding bad behaviour or failure to implement obligations entered into under the ceasefire and the Belfast agreement. But that is what the Government have done, over and over again.
      Sinn Fein-IRA have not observed their obligations to decommission under the Belfast agreement. The Government, however, have not just made the

      331
      concessions that they were supposed to make anyway under the agreement, on the assumption that decommissioning would take place—such as the release of prisoners: I said at the time that it was a colossal error to make such a move unilaterally—but dreamt up completely new concessions, not foreseen or required in the agreement. Examples are the amnesties for on-the-run terrorists, which we were fortunately able to oppose successfully, and special status in the House. That is the great error of the Government's tactics, which they have committed consistently. The results have been disastrous, which is why we have gone backwards over the past five years.
      The hon. Gentleman has heard me say all that before, and he knows that I am absolutely right to have done so. I hoped that the Government had finally begun to listen. When I spoke on the Northern Ireland Assembly Elections Bill on Monday last week, I said that I would be only too delighted if any signs of recognition by the Government were welcomed. I said that I thought there had indeed been a change since the present Secretary of State had come on board—a decision, perhaps not made explicit for understandable reasons but never the less quite visible, to turn over a new leaf. The Government were now talking the language of multilateralism, of some degree of sanction in the case of non-performance, and of interlinkage—words that I had been using, and to which I seemed to have an exclusive right until the Secretary of State appeared on the scene. I went as far as to say that perhaps the gulf between Opposition and Government in regard to tactics was coming to an end.
      I would welcome that greatly if it were the case; but I am sorry to say that, contrary to the hopes I expressed so clearly last week, the Government have done the reverse. They have tabled their proposals in the absence of any move by Sinn Fein-IRA to justify the concessions made to them. The Government had said, "This is what you might get if you perform, guys", but Sinn Fein-IRA did not perform and they are getting it anyway.
      2.45 pm
      It is not good enough to say, "We still have the brake of a statutory instrument", because that is hopelessly inadequate. We know perfectly well that statutory instruments are a disgraceful form of legislation—there is no opportunity to modify them: we are not allowed to modify them. We in Parliament cannot make a sensible judgment on what moves are appropriate in such a delicate and difficult area of policing, and on the structure of supervision by the community, without seeing all the other elements of the package.
      We cannot sign a blank cheque and hand it to the Government. We cannot allow the Government to fill in the amount when they feel like it, and then send it off to Sinn Fein-IRA. We must look at the package as a whole. Parliament must use its judgment at the time: it must decide what moves are appropriate, and whether it should accept the new clauses as they are or modify them somewhat. We cannot modify statutory instruments, which provide no security and no reassurance. They are hopeless for our present purposes.
      Mr. Paul Murphy: The hon. Gentleman does a great injustice to both the House of Commons and the House of Lords by suggesting that a commencement order
      332
      dealt with by means of an affirmative resolution is worthless. The question of modification would not apply; it is a question of whether the measure should be passed or not. There is only one decision to be made about a commencement order. There is no question of tabling amendments. The only question is "Should this happen?" If the House of Commons and the other place have an opportunity to vote on whether it should happen by way of an affirmative resolution, what is wrong with that?
      Mr. Davies: What is wrong is precisely what the right hon. Gentleman has said. It is irresponsible and absurd to decide this matter on a yes-or-no, black-or-white basis. It may well be appropriate to make some move in response to acts of completion, but we need to decide what move should be made in the light of those acts. We need to be able to see and judge the whole package. The right hon. Gentleman has proved my point, which is that it is impossible to modify any statutory instrument. If we give the new Government their new clauses, we shall have given them a blank cheque: they need only fill in the date and send it off when they please.
      Rev. Ian Paisley:Is it not amazing that this of all days should have been chosen for the debate? At the weekend, a cache of arms was found in the Ormeau road area in Belfast. The police are adamant that they are Provisional IRA arms, not dissident arms, and they are not old but brand new. According to experts, they were brought in after the ceasefires rather than before. Now we are having this debate.
      As I said in our original debate, it is amazing that we should have a Government Bill on one hand and, on the other hand, the proposals of an armed organization that has caused mayhem and murder in a part of the United Kingdom. Is this timing not also amazing?
      Mr. Davies: It is indeed amazing—and I am glad that I gave way to the hon. Gentleman, for in doing so I gave him the chance to make a point that I was going to make myself. I agree with him 100 per cent. In fact, I was about to mention the arms cache.
      There has been no action whatever from Sinn Fein-IRA to justify the Government's proposals, which are very regrettable. They would have given the wrong signal even had the latest events not occurred. Over the last few days, however, we have seen not just an absence of necessary acts of completion, but prima facie evidence—I put it no more strongly than that, but the hon. Gentleman described it accurately, at least as far as we know from newspaper reports—of a serious breach of the ceasefire and the Belfast agreement. In my view, the Government should respond to such a situation not by offering concessions, half-concessions or conditional concessions—that is how the right hon. Gentleman wants us to understand the situation—but by introducing sanctions, or at least conditional sanctions.
      If I were Secretary of State, rather than shadow Secretary of State, I would simply suspend all these clauses, go ahead with the Bill and say that, given this latest arms cache, under no circumstances can we begin to discuss the possibility of including in DPPs people with convictions for serious crimes. Here, we have in mind former terrorists from perhaps both sides; however, given that the Government have introduced

      333
      this provision as a result of pressure from Sinn Fein-IRA, we are talking about the inclusion of former IRA terrorists in DPPs.
      Lady Hermon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way; in doing so, he proves that he is, as ever, a reasonable man. Does he agree that it is most regrettable that a Government who are so wedded to full implementation of the Patten report are moving away from its clear recommendation that independent members should bring with them an expertise in community safety? The report in no way recommends bringing in independent members who have criminal or terrorist convictions. Why are the Government now cherry-picking their way through the Patten report?
      Mr. Davies: I hope that the hon. Lady manages to ask that question directly of the Secretary of State, because it was really addressed to him. She makes a very good point. She knows the Patten report backwards—indeed, it seems that she must recite it in her bath—and she manages always to quote it pertinently and accurately. She is absolutely right, and I understand that she is introducing proposals along the lines of the Patten report. They involve including in DPPs people with community, trade union and other backgrounds, and they reflect the report in a way that the Government's proposals do not. Apparently, the Government are not interested in appeasing respectable law-abiding, hard-working and devoted community leaders, trade unions or anyone else in Northern Ireland. They are engaged, I am sorry to say, in the appeasement of Sinn Fein-IRA, and that is the only reason why these clauses have been introduced at the moment.
      This is appeasement—I do not resile from that word. Not to be prepared to make concessions in the context of an agreed package, and to introduce these proposals in advance, even though the other side is treating one with contempt, constitutes appeasement. What is required, in the light of the discovery in the past few days of an arms cache, is a signal of seriousness and severity—or potential severity—from the Government. Instead, the Government seem to be straining at the leash to offer new concessions, which is quite wrong. They should actually be leaning back at this point and saying to Sinn Fein "This is one more nail in the coffin of the peace process and you are responsible for it. What are you doing to redress the damage that you've done through this new apparent breach of the ceasefire? It is up to you to make a move." Instead, the Government are proposing to make a move.
      The process is the wrong way round. I do not know whether I can get this across to the Government, but this is a very serious matter. I thought that they had accepted the general point about the necessity of reciprocity in their tactics. I am sorry to say that this has been a very disappointing case of backsliding away from what I thought was a commitment to a more sensible path.
      On the new clauses and related amendments, I can give the right hon. Gentleman one piece of good news, which is that we have no objection to new clause 1 and we are happy for it to proceed. New clause 2, however, we will oppose for all the reasons that I have given. I should emphasise that there are very strong and
      334
      respectable reasons for opposing it on substance; however, the main issue is the foolishness of the tactic of making this offer now, and the way in which it has been done. We feel particularly strongly about that.
      The right hon. Gentleman says that he will implement this new clause and the other clauses to which we object only when he feels that sufficient progress has been made on the peace process, and only via statutory instrument. I am afraid to say that the signal that he sends in introducing the measures through primary legislation is at the moment completely wrong. I do not accept his excuse that there is no alternative because of the way in which the parliamentary calendar works. It is up to him to stand up to the Leader of the House—when we have one—and his Chief Whip, and to make it clear that other ways must be explored. What is at stake is so important that we cannot afford to make tactical errors, even given the excuse of pressure on parliamentary time. It is perfectly possible to put this Bill to one side and to bring it to its conclusion later in the Session, if we feel that it is sensible to do so. Alternatively, we could allow it to proceed as it emerged from Standing Committee, and if necessary introduce emergency legislation—we would support doing so in the circumstances that I have described—to deal with additional matters before the end of the Session. On the other hand, if the peace process takes longer to reach its consummation, I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman could persuade his colleagues to find room for a new police Bill in the forthcoming Queen's Speech.
      Lembit Öpik: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Davies: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, and perhaps he would like to say whether he is prepared to support such emergency legislation, if there is a genuine basis for it, later in the Session, so as to show how unnecessary and unconvincing the right hon. Gentleman's excuse is.
      Lembit Öpik: I do indeed want to intervene on that point. It is ironic that, having first intervened to ask a question, I am now answering the hon. Gentleman's question, but the answer is that I am agnostic about the process. Does he agree that, however fast something is done, it must be done right? The issue is one of substance: whether we should include a specific definition of an act of completion, perhaps according to the formulation that he suggested to the Secretary of State in an intervention. It seems to me that the Secretary of State wants to maintain political flexibility in terms of the definition. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if my understanding is correct, that is a cause for some concern to Members?
      Mr. Davies: I am genuinely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the issue of acts of completion. As I have told the House before, this phrase is unnecessary, gratuitous and therefore inherently suspect. Why are we talking about a symbol, rather than the thing itself? Why can we not mention the phrase that we really mean—I hope—which is decommissioning and disbandment? Why do we have to go through this intermediation? Why do we have to obfuscate, when there should be clarity? Why does the right hon. Gentleman not say that what is required of Sinn Fein-IRA—and, indeed, of

      335
      other paramilitary organisations in Northern Ireland—is completion of decommissioning and disbandment? Only once we have completion of decommissioning, on a set timetable, to the satisfaction of General de Chastelain—when decommissioning and disbandment are equally verified—can we contemplate making corresponding moves that form part of the essential package: the definitive and comprehensive settlement to which, I hope, all of us in this House aspire.
      The fault does not lie with the Secretary of State—he is under orders from the Prime Minister. It is the Prime Minister who invented this phrase, and the Secretary of State probably feels that he cannot possibly escape from a phrase that has been imposed on him from on high. Nevertheless, it makes his life a great deal more difficult. If he were prepared to say at the Dispatch Box that he will present a statutory instrument to give effect to these clauses only when there has been 100 per cent. decommissioning and disbandment, that, at least, would be clear, and it would really put us on the spot. However, the phrase that he uses is immediately suspect, and is an unnecessary and apparently voluntary obfuscation of the key issue. That is very much to be regretted.
      Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is strange for the Government to bring forward these proposals even before there has been a report on the Stormontgate fiasco? We discovered then that correspondence from the Northern Ireland Office and from the Prime Minister at Downing street had fallen into the hands of an organisation that was supposed to be on the road to peace.
      3 pm
      Mr. Davies: I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman. The Government must make it clear, by their deeds and words, that they take seriously breaches in the ceasefire and the agreement. They must show that they will respond to such breaches in specific and concrete ways; otherwise, we will never get implementation of the agreement or respect for the ceasefire. It is no use expressing horror and shock if nothing happens. As I have said over and over again—most recently last week—one of the Government's fundamental errors is that they have done absolutely nothing about even the most egregious breaches, such as Florida, Castlereagh, Colombia, Stormontgate, and now this arms cache. The Government's reaction has been the opposite of what it should have been: they have said, "Oh, my God, we'd better offer them something more. What new concession can we dream up to try to appease them and buy them off?"
      That is absolutely regrettable, and hopeless. When this phase of Northern Ireland history comes to be written, the Government will bear a terrible responsibility if, as a result of their disastrous tactics, the agreement—sadly—fails to achieve implementation and consummation. I therefore agree very much with the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth), and I am grateful for his intervention.
      I turn now to the specifics of the new clauses and amendments in this group. As I have explained, we will oppose with all the means in our power new clause 2 and new schedule 2, to which we will come later. We have
      336
      tabled two amendments to new clause 2. The Secretary of State has courteously responded already to amendment (a). That amendment would extend disqualification from five to 10 years. The right hon. Gentleman understands the reasoning behind the amendment, but it is not a matter of essence. I shall not ask the House to take time to vote on it, as we have so many other important issues to discuss this afternoon.
      Amendment (b) to new clause 2 would restore disqualification for those with suspended sentences. I listened to the Secretary of State with a genuinely open mind, to see whether he could dissuade me from my initial inclination to seek to put the matter to a vote. However, he has not persuaded me. He did not choose to mention the fact, but he knows that some very serious offences are followed by sentence suspension in Northern Ireland. think that the right hon. Gentleman and I agree that there may well be some more suspended sentences for serious crimes if the on-the-run problem can be resolved within the context of the complete and definitive settlement. That would be a judicial resolution, with people required to come before a court and enter a plea of guilty, and the court required to reach a determination and a verdict. I therefore do not believe that we should just set aside people with suspended sentences from eligibility for disqualification, if I may put it that way. I believe that that matter is sufficiently important to ask the House to vote on it.
      New clauses 9 to 11 are tabled in the names of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon). We strongly agree with them, and we look forward to supporting them in the Lobbies if it is decided to put those proposals to a vote. We feel especially strongly about new clause 11: however short the time, I hope that we have the opportunity to vote on that new clause.
      The hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) and his colleagues have tabled new clause 13. In some ways, I share the Secretary of State's confusion about it. I have read the new clause two or three times, and it seems at certain points to be restrictive, and at others to be rather a weakening proposal. It provides that people may be disqualified for any offence at all. We do not want people to be excluded from serving on DPPs because they have committed a traffic violation or parked in the wrong place. I am not sure that anyone would qualify for any position in public life if that sort of disqualification applied.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: The hon. Gentleman should compare the amendment with what it would amend. The idea is that people who may have received a sentence for something with no relation to terrorism or violence should not be barred from sitting on the board. Why should a person who has never been caught up in terrorism or violence be barred from helping in this manner because they have committed some other offence in the past? The amendment is very simple, and the hon. Gentleman should have read both it and the passage in the Bill that it amends.
      Mr. Davies: As I understood it, the first part of new clause 13 would provide for anybody with any offence to be disqualified, but that is relieved in the second part by a provision that the Secretary of State can exempt anyone from disqualification. I can see that the hon.

      337
      Member for North Antrim expects that people who did not pay Ken Livingstone a rather large amount of money to be able to drive into the capital would be disqualified, but that the Secretary of State would take an indulgent view of that offence and would remove the disqualification. That process seems slightly cumbersome, as I think the Secretary of State remarked.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: It is not that we want a Secretary of State with a large heart, but that we want him to do what is right. New clause 13 states that the Secretary of State may exempt a person from disqualification
      "if, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, the offence of which the person was convicted was not such as to render the person unsuitable for membership."
      That is a reasonable proposition, in the circumstances.
      Mr. Davies: Yes, I see what the hon. Gentleman wants to achieve with the new clause. He takes away something with one hand and provides, with the other, that the Secretary of State will give it back—that is the fair way to describe the proposal. My view accords closely with that of the Secretary of State: I do not like the arbitrary powers that the new clause would vest in the Secretary of State. I trust the Secretary of State immensely, as a human being and parliamentarian, but I am sorry to say that, given the pressures on the Government and the extraordinary weakness of the Prime Minister and previous Secretaries of State in the process, I cannot support Parliament giving the Secretary of State the right simply to lift disqualification, arbitrarily and at his will, without any other process. That is what new clause 13 would achieve.
      The hon. Member for North Antrim would probably agree that it would be terrifying if the Government were to have a discussion with Mr. Adams and Mr. McGuinness and, feeling the need to appease them, say, "Oh well, we'll lift the disqualification on some of your chaps. We can do that this afternoon, in five minutes, using the new clause kindly provided by the hon. Member for North Antrim." I would not feel at all happy about giving the Government that sort of power. I am sorry but, if the hon. Member for North Antrim wants the House to decide on new clause 13 later this afternoon, it will be very difficult for me to recommend to my colleagues that they should support it.
      Limbit Öpik: Thanks to the excellent offices and exemplary performance of the Northern Ireland Office staff, I have been reading for the first time the code of practice on the appointment of independent members to district policing partnerships, which they kindly provided. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman has had a chance to look at it, but I suggest that several of the issues raised by new clauses 9, 10 11 and 13 are covered in that document, which requires certain standards of integrity and so forth in applicants. I am not trying to trick the hon. Gentleman, but I invite him to comment on whether that does not already provide sufficient reassurance.
      Mr. Davies: It may; I have not seen the document. The new clauses to which we are both referring are not mine. I thought that as a matter of courtesy to the House it was
      338
      right for the Opposition spokesman to make a reasoned comment on new clauses tabled by Members of other parties—the UUP and the DUP in this case—but I take no responsibility for them. The hon. Gentleman's remarks will have been heard by the hon. Member for North Antrim and his colleagues, to whom they were properly directed.
      I want to move on to our new clauses 18 and 19. I hope that we will have an opportunity to vote on them, because we set some store by them. New clause 18 sets out two disqualifications that we consider very important. The first is a disqualification for anyone who has had a sentence of more than 12 months. The second, which relates to a concept drawn from the Terrorism Act 2000, disqualifies anyone who is, in the opinion of a senior police officer, connected with a paramilitary organisation. For the sake of completeness, we refer to two different definitions of paramilitary organisations that are taken from the Government's own legislation—namely, the Northern Ireland Sentences Act 1998 and the Terrorism Act 2000. To maintain equivalence between independent and councillor members of DPPs, to which the Secretary of State rightly attaches importance, new clause 19 proposes that the board must consult a senior police officer—we define that as chief superintendent or above, which is the normal definition in such cases—before approving independent members of DPPs. It does not make much sense to say that if someone has to be disqualified because he has been revealed to be in breach of his oath or found guilty of a serious criminal offence or of involvement in terrorism, the procedure has to involve going to the police to get an opinion, unless we allow the Policing Board to express a view in advance, ex ante, before its nomination of independent members. The new clause would be a logical and worthwhile change to the Bill.
      I have set out our views on the new clauses and amendments, with the exception of one that is purely a drafting amendment, and my comments on subsequent amendments will be informed by the same concern, which we should regard as the acid test. First, will anything that we do this afternoon contribute to, or detract from, the success of the peace process and the chances for normalisation in Northern Ireland? Secondly—as an essential ingredient of the answer to the first question—will anything that we do this afternoon give the Government greater credibility with those who have to perform their obligations under the agreement and the ceasefire? Will it make our seriousness clear, particularly to Sinn Fein-IRA? Will it make it absolutely plain to Sinn Fein-IRA that we require decisive action from it, or will it remove the pressure? Will it make Sinn Fein-IRA feel that all kinds of concessions are coming their way in any case, irrespective of what they do?
      The House should turn its attention to that essential second question. If hon. Members look at the matter in that way, they can reach only one conclusion: that we should withhold any concessions of a unilateral nature and make it absolutely plain to Sinn Fein-IRA that we have now reached—to use the Prime Minister's words, although, sadly, in introducing the Bill at this time he has not followed them up with action and decision—the fork in the road. There are only two possibilities, and we must make it absolutely plain that if Sinn Fein-IRA do not go down the road of complete implementation and

      339
      complete observance of their obligations under the agreement and the ceasefire, the other road will lead to increasing sanctions against them.
      3.15 pm
      Mr. Seamus Mallon: First, I want to make one or two points about matters that were raised earlier in the debate. I want to put on record my personal appreciation for the way in which the Secretary of State has very courageously shown transparency in relation to this part of the Bill. It would have been so easy for him to bury it, then to pull it out of the hat at a later stage, rather than to include it for consideration by the Standing Committee. That was the right thing for him to do. It is a great pleasure for me to able to state that the Secretary of State has behaved with great honesty and transparency in relation to policing legislation. As regards the Minister of State, reference was made to the non-consideration of these matters in Standing Committee. In fairness, it was very much the expressed wish of the Chairman that we should proceed in the way that the Secretary of State indicated.
      Having got that off my chest, I want briefly to make a few points. I shall not go into the detail of the Bill, because either one accepts the need for it, or one has to face a situation whereby no matter what type of safeguards are put in place, they may ultimately all be ineffective unless the central philosophy is correct. The central thesis of the Bill is the same as that on which the peace process itself was founded. The Secretary of State is right that it is necessary for people to make a declaration against terrorism, as do councillors in local government. Some may say, "So what?" and it is hard to blame them for that, but I know about the abuse that was hurled at my party colleagues on a district council when they appointed members of my party to a district policing partnership; I know about the threats that were made against those people, against their wives and families and against their homes. I want to be able to have a good, strong look straight into the eyes of some of the people who made those threats when they walk on to a district policing partnership themselves.
      We should not forget that if we let people off the hook on this or any other issue, we are doing them a service. I know, because of where I live and work, that there is nothing that many would like better than the removal of the chalice of having to make a decision about DPPs and sitting on the Policing Board. I sincerely hope and trust that we as legislators will not facilitate such people. If we are to move forward, it is essential that that nettle be grasped. That will not be easy for those in Sinn Fein who want to move forward, who seriously want an end to violence and who seriously want peace, any more than it was easy for us when we had to make fundamental decisions.
      Mr. Trimble: I heartily agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman is saying, particularly about the challenge that supporting policing and participating on DPPs provides for members of Sinn Fein. I understand the relish with which he would look them in the eye if and when certain events occurred, but new clause 1, which deals with independent members, is wholly separate from that matter. The matter to which the hon. Gentleman refers arises primarily with regard to the appointment of political members—the councillors—
      340
      which is of course already open to Sinn Fein. Although the challenge he identifies is entirely appropriate, it arises not under the new clause but under earlier legislation, which is not being amended.
      Mr. Mallon: I very much take the right hon. Gentleman's point. He is right, but there is one thing that I have never discovered while living in the north of Ireland: an independent person. I have never discovered a person who did not have an allegiance of some kind. If we were concerned only with the appointment of independents to DPPs, we would not be having this debate. All of us know that some of the independents who will be appointed to DPPs will be members of political organisations—paramilitary organisations, or whatever they may be. That is a fact of life in Northern Ireland. Whatever our degree of rectitude, that will remain a fact of life.
      In many ways, there is a remarkable selfishness about this debate. I do not criticise or imply criticism of the Speaker's selection of amendments, but I would love to be able to take an entire day to discuss amendments in my interest or in that of my party. Indeed, when one thinks of it, this issue, which is not the biggest in relation to policing and will not be, is receiving more time on the Floor of the House than was allocated to the entire Patten report. Who will be pleased about that? I could make a number of guesses—one, to be exact—about who will be entirely pleased that their requirements kept the House of Commons debating for six and a half hours one day and seven hours the next day. Tactics have been mentioned. Might we consider what tactics involve? I make the point, and leave it there.
      I emphasise the selfishness. We had to grapple with problems, but our priority was to try to ensure that the accountability of the policing structures was right for all the people of the north of Ireland, not just those in our party whom it might affect. The remarkable selfishness is that one key element of the requirement of the republican movement is in the interests of those who would be its members or supporters, and not in the interests of overall accountability or of good policing in the north of Ireland.
      The Secretary of State is right that there is nothing new. These proposals are no shock to me or to any hon. Member. At Weston Park, assurances were given. They were given on the record and they were given off the record. Again, that is a fact of life. I shall deal with what is on the record because it is conclusive enough. Page 11 of the updated implementation plan states:
      "the operation, and continued need for, the disqualification provision for independent membership … will be considered further as part of the planned review and the Government would be prepared to include any necessary amend (sic) in the subsequent legislation."
      That is what came from Weston Park, and for that reason the Secretary of State is absolutely correct that there is nothing new. There is nothing to shock any of us. The proposals are a conclusion to the assurances that were given.
      I accept those assurances. As I said, this issue was not a priority for our party. The issues our party prioritises include some of those which, if we are lucky, we will be able to debate for 10 seconds or five minutes tomorrow. However, I support the Government on this matter. I feel that I should say why. I believe that if we are

      341
      eventually—as we will—to change the face of the quality of life and the way in which we live in the north of Ireland, we must put paramilitarism to the test. In particular, we must put violent republicanism to the test. It is not the British Government or Unionism that should put it to the test, but I, who regard myself as a republican, and the nationalists who should do so. It is we, the members of the nationalist community who abhor violence, who have never had al opportunity to say, "Prove it to us; prove it to the electorate. You probably half conned them in the past and you might wish to con them in the future, so show us—prove you support Patten."
      There are two ways and only two ways of achieving the Patten aims. The first is to legislate for it properly and the second is to implement it. The legislation takes place here and. I hope and trust that we will implement Patten properly through legislation. 'The other way to implement it is through decisions that are made on the Policing Board. The more one reads the Patten report, the more one concludes that, in many ways, the real substance will be in the daily decisions that will be, and are, taken by the Policing Board to achieve Patten's objectives. To those in the republican movement who have had the luxury of not making decisions, I say this: "If you wish to have Patten, implement it. There is only one place in which you can implement it. You cannot shirk it. You cannot sit on the fence on this one. You cannot use this issue beyond the point we are at."
      3.30 pm
      That takes me back to a question that I posed to the Secretary of State earlier. I fully accept that the Secretary of State is under constraints: anybody dealing with negotiations to do with the peace process and the reinstitution of the institutions is tramping not just on eggshells but on burning cinders. I again make the point—without, I hope, labouring it—that there are different forms of completion. Because of his knowledge and ability in this area, I will leave the Secretary of State to make his definitions of completion. Completion was defined by the Prime Minister as being total, real and permanent. However, there is another completion, and it took place at Weston Park. It was a completion of the debate in the negotiations about policing. There was a clear understanding at Weston Park that that was the completion of negotiations—that that was the end of things being negotiated, got, wrung out, begged, borrowed or stolen by the two Governments. That was a completion that my party accepted—a party that represents a substantial number of people in the north of Ireland. We honoured that completion. We want that completion of Weston Park to be honoured by others. We want it to be honoured as it was supposed to be honoured—and as I fully expect it will be. I believe that both Governments must insist on that. It must be honoured in the political process here.
      Lady Hermon: Will the hon. Gentleman cast his mind back to the debates that led up to the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000, when the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson)—who I am sorry is not here, because he often is for such debates—was the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland? He made a
      342
      clear and important point on the distinction between the political members and the independent members of district policing partnerships. His key distinction was that the political members had an electoral mandate, because they were voted in as councillors. Why does that electoral mandate no longer count in making a distinction between independent and political members?
      Mr. Mallon: The distinction exists. However, there will be people who are deemed to be independent and who find themselves as members of DPPs who are anything but independent. That is a reality—whatever the right hon. Member for Hartlepool might imagine, think or decide for himself—and it goes to the heart of this issue. If it were not a reality, would we be having this debate at all? I doubt it, and I hope that I have answered the hon. Lady's point.
      I return to the issue of completion. We cannot have completion on unilateral terms. We cannot have completion for some and a lack of completion for others. I look forward in this debate, or very soon, to seeing whether completion will be a consequence of resolving the political problems now. I speak as someone who is not au fait with the details of the negotiations. I therefore have a certain freedom to pose questions that I may not have had previously. If there is to be a completion of the policing issue that involves Sinn Fein's participation in the Policing Board, will that precede the agreement between the political parties and the two Governments that will allow an election to be held and thereby facilitate the reinstitution and reinstatement of the devolutionary arrangements? That is a crucial question.
      I invite Members to consider an alternative point of view. Is it conceivable that there could be agreement, followed by an election, then the reinstitution of the administrative arrangements and only then completion of the Policing Board process—or any other permutation of the four? I realise that the Secretary of State is working under constraints but I await guidance on those crucial points.
      I have not gone into details because the issue is much wider and more fundamental than how people are chosen for DPPs. However, I want to take issue with the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) on his use of the word "appeasement". I do not often defend the Government, but it is wrong to accuse them of appeasement on this matter. It is wrong to use such an emotive term in that regard, especially at this time. Whatever one's criticism of the handling of some of the issues, there has been the underlying courage to go to the heart of the problems of policing and the political process, which is far removed from appeasement or anything like it.
      I support the Government both on new clause 1 and on the measure in general, which is a fairly unique situation for me. I do so mainly because I know that the measure is not appeasement but a genuine attempt to get to the heart of the problem, even though many of us may feel that it is not the right way. Something within us revolts against it, but when we think things out we know in our hearts that if we are to resolve the issues we must do so where it counts—on the ground. There, we shall find that those who make up the DPPs are those who will ultimately create peace in Northern Ireland.
      Mr. Carmichael: The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) used one especially telling phrase that has given me cause to ponder. He said that the Bill was about putting violent republicanism "to the test". The more I consider those words, the more appropriate they seem as a metaphor because I think that, regrettably, we are engaged in an exercise whereby we are telling people that they have passed the test before they sit the exam. We are telling them that they already have the grades.
      There is a subtext to our debate: the signals that we are sending to those engaged in violent republicanism and to members of the loyalist community. By introducing such provisions at this time and in this way, especially Government new clause 2, we are sending exceptionally poor signals. Those signals will cause significant alarm in the loyalist community and bring considerable optimism to those in the violent republican community who do not deserve to have that sort of optimism.
      In an intervention on the Secretary of State's speech, I pressed him about the mechanism by which the Government seek to introduce these new clauses, and I wish to spend some time on that. I apologise to the House for talking about a fairly technical matter, but it is of considerable substance.
      Of course undertakings given in the Chamber are exceptionally welcome and very valuable, but they are not binding on anyone. Governments can change their minds. This is the fourth Secretary of State in six years, so clearly they can change their personnel as well. It is perfectly easy for Government to turn round later and say, "That was then, and this is now. The Bill passed by the Commons is clear, and we shall proceed to act as we consider appropriate." That is why Liberal Democrat Members feel that it is so important to include in the Bill a definition of the phrase "acts of completion", or whatever the term of art may be. It is not enough simply to leave that to the Government's judgment in relation to the statutory instrument.
      I accept that defining any act of completion will not be easy—of course, that is a difficult exercise—but I am surprised that the Government see that as a reason not to do so. A great deal of the whole process is not easy, but somehow we manage to do it. It must surely be in the competence of the parliamentary draftsman, in consultation with the Government, to construct a definition the last element of which could include a much more general provision, perhaps giving proper discretion to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. An act of completion could be defined as "such other act that shall seem in the view of the Secretary of State to be appropriate", or something of that sort.
      Lady Hermon: I greatly welcome the hon. Gentleman's comments, but can he confirm whether his colleagues in another place will follow an identical line on that point when the Bill returns to the other place?
      Mr. Carmichael: I would be foolish if I were to be beguiled into going down the road that the hon. Lady tempts me to take. My noble Friends in the other place will, no doubt, speak for themselves. I have little reason to believe that they will take a different approach. Modesty forbids me to say that my approach seems so
      344
      sensible that I cannot envisage any circumstance in which they would not do so. Of course the hon. Lady has her own colleagues in the other place, and she will know as well as I do that it is a foolish Member who tries to bind those in the other place or to give any cast-iron undertaking about the way in which they will conduct themselves.
      Limbit Öpik: Does my hon. Friend agree that, of course, the Government have the opportunity to listen, to take note of what happens in the Chamber and to use the intervening time to seek to satisfy the concerns raised here, which are, no doubt, shared by many right hon. and hon. Members of the other place?
      Mr. Carmichael: Yes, that is a very valid point. We do not have a massive amount of time before the Bill returns to the other place, but I hope that the Secretary of State and his team will take on board the point that my hon. Friend makes. I am aware that some meetings involving my noble Friends will certainly take place during the next few days, and I hope that the Government will continue to look at this issue with an open mind. It pains me to say that we have reached the point where we feel that Government assurances are simply no longer enough. I would also say—I put this down as a marker, and I do so after careful consideration—that if the Government pursue this course of employing a statutory instrument, which they implement in circumstances that the Liberal Democrats do not consider to be appropriate, we would regard that to be a significant issue of disruption between ourselves and the Government. We have gone out of our way to support the Government throughout this process, and I want to impress on the Secretary of State the importance that we attach to this issue.
      3.45 pm
      The point may be made that the Secretary of State laid great emphasis on the need for an affirmative resolution of both Houses. I have no doubt that this House will give him that—the arithmetic makes that perfectly clear. It is not so clear, however, that he would get that in the other place. It is also the case, of course, that the other place will not hold out for ever, as it does not have our electoral mandate. Were the Government to insist on that, I have no doubt that the Government could eventually bully the other place into acting as they wish. On reflection, I do not feel that that safeguard is necessarily as effective as we might be encouraged to believe. For that reason, I find that I am unable to support the Government on new clause 2 today.
      I turn now to some of the other amendments before the House. Again, I must say that the manner in which they have been grouped, and their number, has made this a rather unwieldy debate. First, I shall deal with amendments (a) and (b) tabled by the Conservatives. Having considered amendment (a), which would substitute the period of 10 years for five years, I feel that the Government have probably got it right with five years—10 years is excessive. I would not therefore be minded to support that amendment.
      I am much better disposed towards amendment (b). The parallels with councils and with English policing authorities, which were drawn by the Secretary of State,

      345
      are interesting, but they only take us so far. I return to my opening point, which relates to the signals that we send. The removal of suspended sentences in this way sends a poor signal. We must remember that a suspended custodial sentence is still a custodial sentence: whether it crystallises should not be the issue. Clearly, in reaching the determination to suspend the sentence, some mitigating factor is in the judge's mind. To remove suspended sentences from the ambit of consideration in the way that the Bill would do, however, demeans the seriousness of the offence being considered.
      Turning to new clauses 9 to 11 tabled by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), I have some sympathy for the thinking behind them. I have some reservations in relation to new clause 10, which I will not develop at great length, but I feel that there is confusion in relation to the legitimacy of the appointments made by councils. I will listen with interest to what the right hon. Member for Upper Bann says about those new clauses.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) referred to the code or practice. Like him, I saw it for the first time only this afternoon. I am comforted by references to independent scrutiny because that is important, but notwithstanding the code of practice, there are remaining issues to resolve. The code of practice does not cover all the concerns raised by the Ulster Unionist party.
      I share several of the Secretary of State's concerns about new clause 13, tabled by the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) and his colleagues. It would be an unnecessary complication. I am also worried because if the whole idea behind district policing partnerships is a move toward normal policing, the new clause represents a way of thinking that puts great emphasis on terrorism as a specific species of crime. Although that is understandable, it is not especially helpful for that distinction to be the ultimate goal of the work of the DPPs.
      I have some sympathy with new clause 23 and amendment No. 77, which were tabled by the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) and his colleagues. Clearly, they would have to be accepted together for the Bill to make sense, and they seem to be fairly sensible.
      Mr. Quentin Davies: I am grateful for that and I am paying great attention to the hon. Gentleman's comments. We intend to press new clause 23 to a Division and if we win that vote, we will then press amendment No. 77 to a Division.
      Mr. Carmichael: I note what the hon. Gentleman says and we would be minded to support him on new clause 23. I would be absolutely astonished if we could thereafter vote on amendment No. 77, but it is a funny old world and one never knows.
      I know that time is precious and I have tried to highlight my concerns as succinctly as possible. It is regrettable that we have addressed these matters so late in the day for a Bill that started in the House of Lords,
      346
      which is why my hon. Friends and I voted against the programme motion. However, I shall continue to listen to the debate with considerable interest.
      Mr. Trimble: My opening comment about the debate is that it should not be taking place. It is quite unnecessary and that was best summed up by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) when he said that we are effectively sending a signal to the republican movement that the Government consider it to have passed the test before it has sat it. That phrase sums up how wrong it is for the Government to introduce the new clauses at this time. I shall not repeat my intervention on the Secretary of State when I pointed out that it is not necessary to rush forward on this time scale now because we will have years to introduce the measures. If the republican movement were to pass the test that it has been set in the next few weeks and months, I am sure that it would be content to rest on the Government's assurance that the measures would be introduced at an appropriate stage. However, it is wrong to introduce them now.
      I add, parenthetically, that the language used by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland was noteworthy. I gently point out to the Secretary of State that when the hon. Gentleman says that a point might be reached at which there would be disruption between him and the Government, he should be aware of the great weight that lies behind the word "disruption". However, that is another matter entirely.
      There has been reference to the origin of the provisions at Weston Park. It is important that we reiterate for those who misunderstand the situation, or do not understand it correctly, that at Weston Park the Government conducted a series of parallel negotiations with various parties, and may well have reached agreement with the republican movement. Indeed, it reached an agreement with the Social Democratic and Labour party—the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) has declared it a final agreement—on certain policing matters, but they were not discussed or negotiated with us, and were not agreed by us. We do not regard ourselves as bound in any way by those discussions.
      Mr. Mallon: But they were all published in the implementation plan.
      Mr. Trimble: Indeed, they were. We opposed them then and we continue to oppose them. and have done so in the House. On the other hand, when the time came to consider whether or not to join the Policing Board, we accepted our responsibilities. To that extent, and to that extent only, can we be regarded as having accepted these arrangements. When there is an opportunity to change them, we shall certainly want to take it.
      There has been discussion about what constitutes acts of completion—in other words, the test that the republican movement has been set. As was pointed out earlier, that test includes a number of different parts. The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) pointed out in blunt language what the test amounted to. However, in relation to the provisions that we are considering, which are designed to enable Sinn Fein, or some Sinn Fein members, to join district policing partnerships, the relevant aspect of the acts of

      347
      completion concerns a decision and declaration of support for policing. We should have regard to that above all.
      I should like to focus on the detail of the provisions, as that is important. The provisions modify a disqualification in the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000. The only reason for doing so is to make it easier for some members of the republican movement to join district policing partnerships. That may have been part of negotiations between the Government and the republican movement, but it does not have anything to do with Patten. That should be made clear from the outset—people who pray Patten in aid in this matter are quite simply wrong.
      Mr. John Taylor: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House: if the provisions are a departure from the 2000 Act, sometimes known as the Mandelson Act, are they going further towards Patten or further away from it?
      Mr. Trimble: They are going away from it—that is the point that I wish to make. Before I back up my assertion with argument, I wish to make another assertion—the Secretary of State's reasoning that there should be equality between the political and independent members is irrelevant and, again, contrary to Patten.
      4 pm
      Having made those assertions, it is appropriate to draw the attention of the House to what Patten said. There are only two sentences in the Patten report on independent members of district policing partnerships and who they should be. That reflects Patten as a whole, which does not discuss the matters properly but produces bold propositions without giving clear indications of the principles from which they were derived or the way in which they are intended to be worked out—indeed, they are not worked out in detail. The first sentence on independent members is preceded by the phrase,
      "As with the Policing Board".
      Patten's views on the independent members of district policing partnerships are therefore to be read together with his comments on the appointment of independent members to the Policing Board. We can therefore expand on the two sentences on independent members of DPPs by bringing in a couple of sentences on independent members of the Policing Board. The references to the independent members of the Policing Board are as follows:
      "The remaining nine members of the Policing Board"—
      that is, the independent members—
      "should reinforce the credentials and credibility of the Board by bringing solid expertise which would be relevant to the work of the Board."
      So the independent members are to reinforce the credentials and credibility and bring solid expertise. Bearing that in mind, we come to the sentence dealing with the independent members of the district policing partnerships, which states:
      "As with the Policing Board, the independent members should be selected to represent business and trade union interests and to provide expertise in matters pertaining to community safety."
      348
      So the independent members should have credentials, credibility, and solid expertise in business, trade union interests and community safety. Where do former convicted criminals fit into that?
      That is what Patten proposed. I am not a great fan of Patten, but on this point he was right, and the Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh and the republican movement collectively are wrong, because they are departing from Patten in a quite pernicious way. The councillors will represent the community as a whole, and it is right that the community as a whole will be represented, but those councillors will come from political parties and will carry with them their political background and political convictions. It is therefore right that they should be balanced by people with credentials, credibility and solid expertise in other areas, such as trade union matters and matters pertaining to community safety. That is sensible.
      It is from those propositions that the Government worked out in greater detail the principles that are stated in Patten. They did so in the amendments to the 2000 Act, which are now being watered down. That is a criticism of the general spirit underlying the matter. It is wrong as a matter of principle. That is why we tabled amendments. I could expand further on the basic point, but I think I have made it. The new clauses are wrong in principle and we will oppose them.
      I shall touch on new clause 13 tabled by the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley). I listened to his arguments and I understand the point that he is trying to make—he wanted to extend the disqualification to persons who had not received custodial sentences, but he did not want to cover all custodial sentences, so he proposed to give the Secretary of State a discretion. I am delighted to see that he reposes such faith in the Secretary of State. No matter; that is not the criticism that I am making.
      My criticism is that new clause 13 is drafted in such a way that the discretion of the Secretary of State would be applicable not just to persons who had non-custodial sentences, but to anybody who had been convicted of any offence, so that: a person who had been convicted and had received a custodial sentence and who, under the 2000 Act, would be disqualified would have the opportunity of applying to the Secretary of State in order to relieve his disqualification. No matter how heinous the offence that he had committed, he could apply to the Secretary of State, and if the Secretary of State thought he was the sort of person who ought to be on the Policing Board, the Secretary of State would use his discretion to remove the disqualification. The discretion that the hon. Gentleman would give the Secretary of State would apply not to the extension of the disqualification, but to the entire disqualification. His intention may have been worth while, but the drafting of the new clause is seriously defective. Consequently, we would not support it.
      We have our own amendments, which were mentioned earlier. I listened with great interest to what the Secretary of State said by way of criticism of them. I will take the opportunity to look further at his explanation of how they have, by the way in which new clause 1 is drafted, extended the enforcement provisions with regard to the declaration. That might be of minor interest, but we none the less prefer the

      349
      comprehensiveness of our own amendments, which deal with persons who are involved in any paramilitary organisation or in organised crime. It is appropriate in the present circumstances that we deal with such persons.
      The problem with regard to disqualifications that relate to persons who have been convicted of offences is that they do not bite on others who have not been convicted. Unfortunately, with regard to paramilitary organisations, that includes a substantial number of active members. The appropriate process would be one that focuses on those engaged in any paramilitary activity or organised crime.
      David Burnside: Will my right hon. Friend give some clarification on a reference in the Bill and the new clauses—I am making a non-party political point—and explain why we constantly refer in the House to paramilitary organisations and do not define such bodies by referring to them as terrorist organisations?
      Mr. Trimble: I suppose that we could refer to proscribed organisations, as almost all such organisations are proscribed under emergency legislation. Strictly speaking and in legal terms, that would be a more effective way of referring to them. We are in no doubt about what we mean by paramilitary organisations, although the meaning of the term "paramilitary" has changed over the years. I remember that 30 or 40 years ago—oh dear, it is as long as that—the term "paramilitary organisation" included the cadet and youth organisations of Her Majesty's forces. Indeed, I was a proud member of one of those organisations for many years. In those days, I would have been proud to call myself a member of a paramilitary organisation, but today, we would be very reluctant to use that phrase. That shows how the terminology has changed.
      Of the new clauses that we have tabled, the one that we regard as the most significant and appropriate in the present context is new clause 11. For that reason, we want to press that new clause when you, Madam Deputy Speaker, consider it appropriate for us to do so.
      I do not wish to take up too much of the time of the House. I have said that we consider the Government new clauses wrong in principle. We also endorse the argument that they are wrong in practice and from a tactical point of view. In that respect, we are happy to adopt almost in its entirety the mantra of the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford , although we will spare the House its repetition.
      Mr. Peter Robinson: I am sure that the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) will forgive me if I do not follow on from him directly on the issue that he raised, although in respect of his reference to the DUP new clause, he may find that my view is not too far from the one that he expressed—a point that I shall explain when I deal with that new clause.
      I say to the right hon. Gentleman, however, that he cannot, Pilate-like, attempt to wash his hands of the trend that is evident in policing legislation. It was started
      350
      by the Belfast agreement. He gave the Patten commission its remit and his party spokesman welcomed the appointment of Chris Patten and said that it represented progress, that Patten was a suitable person to carry out the task, and that a better commission could not have been appointed. After his giving the remit and welcoming the personnel involved, I think that the result was always going to be fairly clear. It would be rather synthetic for anyone to suggest that the outcome in the shape of Patten or what has directly flowed from the report could have been anything of a surprise to him.
      Lady Hermon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Robinson: It is dangerous, but I will do so.
      Lady Hermon: I am quite prepared to take on the danger, and I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's giving way. He will know very well that approximately 75 or 80 per cent. of the Patten recommendations were taken from the internal fundamental review of the RUC, which was agreed unanimously by the RUC, as it was then, the Police Authority for Northern Ireland, the Police Federation for Northern Ireland and the other representative bodies. It is therefore mischievous to say that the Patten proposals somehow came out of the blue, as the vast majority of them had the blessing of the RUC's internal fundamental review.
      Mr. Robinson: I need hardly specify how facile that argument is. Ninety-nine per cent. of the Patten report could have been perfectly acceptable yet 1 per cent. could corrupt the lot. As it happens, the figure is much greater than 1 per cent. A new training college and better IT for the police does not mean that we should welcome the Patten report. When one considers it "in the round", to use a favourite expression of a previous Secretary of State, it is abundantly clear that its thrust and burden were destructive to the police and ended by destroying the RUC.
      If I can feel sorry for a political party, I feel sorry for the SDLP. The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) has, as always, put a brave face on matters. He spoke eloquently from the SDLP position. However, let us consider the dilemma that the Government's intention has created for the SDLP. It took a political risk in deciding that, for the good of its community and the community as a whole, its members would take up places on the Policing Board and support the police in Northern Ireland. It was clear that its members would get it in the neck from Sinn Fein-IRA.
      I was not privy to the SDLP's discussions with the Government. However, having been in negotiations with the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh, I would be surprised if he did not look a Secretary of State in the eye and say, "Look chap, if we sign up for this, you're not going to sell us out further down the road and make more concessions to the IRA and Sinn Fein, who are holding back. Wouldn't we look silly if, having given our agreement now, you make further concessions to Sinn Fein and show we were wrong to agree to a lesser package?" I should be surprised if the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh and his colleagues had not uttered words to that effect to the Secretary of State or Government representatives.

      351
      The SDLP gave its approval and its members performed their role on the Policing Board. Sinn Fein members went around the country, lambasting the SDLP in all the nationalist areas and suggesting that it had betrayed the cause. The SDLP took a stand in its areas for the position that it had adopted. What did the Government do?
      Mr. Mallon: The hon. Gentleman misses a central point. We did not make our decision until after Weston Park. I have put statements about the Bill on record in terms of the agreement at Weston Park. The information is in the public domain on page 11 of the implementation plan. We were fully aware of the Bill and the provisions in the next batch of Government amendments and new clauses when we made our decision. That is the fault line in the hon. Gentleman's argument.
      Mr. Robinson: It is difficult to get the hon. Gentleman's statement to add up. Given what the Secretary of State describes as his openness and candour with the people of Northern Ireland and hon. Members, he would be in a difficult position if he had agreed the package at Weston Park but waited all this time before apprising them of the Government's intentions.
      The package makes concessions to the IRA; nobody in Northern Ireland has any doubt about that. The sensitivity of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh derives from it. Sinn Fein will undoubtedly gloat, not only because we are focusing on such matters. It is right that hon. Members focus on them, because they clearly show that the Government are prepared to make concessions to the IRA beyond those that they said publicly—in many different contexts, which I shall mention later—that they would make in advance of acts of completion. The Government, however, are prepared to introduce this Bill now, in a headlong rush to facilitate the IRA; they appear to be putty in the hands of the provisional movement.
      4.15 pm
      My hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) mentioned that the Government would undoubtedly be embarrassed by the timing of the Bill, because it comes at a time when the Provisional IRA has once again been smoked out. The significant arms find on the Ormeau road shows that it had weapons that were neither hidden deep in its bunkers nor ready to be decommissioned; these were new weapons that it had brought into an area in which it was intending to use them, since its so-called ceasefire. Those guns were not being stored away in a stockpile; they were ready to use. At the same time as this embarrassing revelation has come to light, the Secretary of State is tabling proposals to bring the representatives of that organisation into a role in which they would have authority in policing the community of Northern Ireland. That scenario is so preposterous that even Alice in Wonderland would have had great difficulty in coming to terms with it.
      David Burnside: Will the hon. Gentleman further inform the House that the location of the finding of those weapons and explosives in the Lower Ormeau road is one of the most dangerous interfaces in Northern
      352
      Ireland, during what is now called—I do not like the term—the marching season? Does he agree that, in recent years, there has been deliberate planning by the republican movement to provoke sectarian confrontation, especially when parades by the loyal institutions are coming down that road? It is very worrying to imagine what was being planned for this summer.
      Mr. Robinson: I have no doubt that the Secretary of State will understand the message that the hon. Member for South Antrim (David Burnside) is giving the House. The Ormeau road has been a significant area, in which the Provisional IRA has attempted to exert a grip on the local community. There are dangerous interface areas in that vicinity, and I believe that the Secretary of State will know what the Provisional IRA's intentions were, so far as those weapons are concerned.
      We also have to remember the backcloth against which the Secretary of State is introducing the Bill. He is doing so in a post-suspension period. We are told that the suspension was brought about by the bad behaviour of the IRA. We do not need to catalogue the breaches of its ceasefire, but the culmination was the discovery of a spy ring, right inside the office of the Secretary of State. That had such an impact that the institutions were suspended. The natural conclusion that every one of us drew from the suspension was that the momentum to remove the cause of the problem would place a burden on the IRA and Sinn Fein to make some concessions. What we have found out from the Secretary of State, however, is that the onus appears to be on the Government to make concessions to Sinn Fein and the IRA. Will he at least understand that the community that I represent feels a total sense of injustice that, when it is the IRA that should be divvying up, it is the Government who are once again jumping first?
      In the new clauses, the Secretary of State is dealing with issues that the Government had clearly said were to be brought to the House only in exceptional circumstances. That is not only my understanding; the Secretary of State also knows it to be true. He knows that it was never the Government's intention to introduce these additional clauses unless there had been acts of completion by the Provisional IRA, after which he would then introduce them. No one in the House was in any doubt that that was to be the sequence of events. Indeed, if anybody was in doubt about that, it must have been the Minister of State, who is sitting beside the Secretary of State. She came to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and made the Government's position abundantly clear.
      I shall quote the Select Committee minutes of evidence from 12 December 2002, when the Chairman very properly introduced the issue. The Minister said:
      "Before I finish I ought to say something about what is not in the Bill, namely, the text for consideration that we have published separately … When we published them separately it was because it was our express intention to say, 'This is what we might do if the time is right, but we do not believe that the time is right yet'."
      Following the Chairman's intervention, she said:
      "The ball is now quite clearly in the court of those who we are looking to to make a move, the Republicans, that is. We are serious about our intent. This is what we would do if they were to support policing and we wait to see their response. I think I have said enough."

      353
      Again, the sequence and what the Government are saying are clear: the Minister's action would come after the response of Sinn Fein, which, of course, we have not had.
      The Chairman then very properly asked this question:
      "What are the circumstances in which you think those additional four draft clauses would be added to the Bill during its passage through Parliament?"
      The Minister replied:
      "As we said in the debate that the DUP tabled last week, the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State have both made clear that we are looking to see acts of completion."
      So the draft clauses would be brought before the House after the Government had seen the acts of completion from the IRA, but again, we have not seen them.
      The Chairman, still pursuing the issue, said:
      "I am not trying to put words into your mouth but you would not be introducing these draft clauses into the Bill as it goes through Parliament in the next two or three months, whatever it is, without the situation having arisen here which would allow for the resumption of the Assembly."
      The Minister said, "That is right." Very clearly, she left the Committee with more than the impression—it was given the explicit understanding—that there was no intention to introduce these new clauses until there had been acts of completion.
      Why has that changed? Simply because the IRA has given the Secretary of State a hoop through which he has to jump. Once again, the Government are prepared, up front, to make concessions to the IRA before they see the colour of the IRA's money. The sleight of hand that the Secretary of State is using on this occasion is to say, "Yes, we are putting this in the legislation, but it will come into force only at the foot of an order, which will be placed before the House."
      I am sure that the people of Northern Ireland are really impressed by that safeguard, knowing full well that the Government have a significant majority—one so strong that they can pass measures that their own Back Benchers are not happy about. It is abundantly clear that if it is the Secretary of State's will that the House approve the order, the House will approve it. There will be no second-guessing the issue.
      I suggest, therefore, that the safeguard that the Secretary of State refers to is meaningless. Indeed, one should read the Prime Minister's statement in response to my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim. One sees that there is a definition of an act of completion, so why has not the Secretary of State., who must support what the Prime Minister said and who must believe that the Prime Minister's definition is worthy—although it could have gone an awful lot further—included even that in the legislation as the trigger for allowing such a move to take place, instead of the nod from those on the Government Benches for an order that will come before the House?
      On 27 November, the Prime Minister made it clear that there could be no additional clauses. We were dealing with acts of completion, which must be satisfactory not just to the Government here—with the majority they have—and to the other place, but to everyone. I do not know whether he intended to do so,
      354
      but when the Prime Minister said that on 27 November, he issued a veto to this and other parties in the House of Commons, and to the people of Northern Ireland. He said that violence must be given up
      "in a way that satisfies everyone and gives them confidence".—[Official Report, 27 November 2002; Vol. 395. c. 309.]
      I am sure that "everyone" included even the Democratic Unionist party. There was a requirement for all of us to be satisfied—not a majority, but everyone. The Secretary of State, however, is relying on a simple majority in a House in which he knows he can gain it.
      The Government say that they will activate their measures only in certain circumstances. They have not defined them, although they had an opportunity to do so in their new clauses and amendments. As for the other safeguard in new clause I, we have to wonder whether even the Secretary of State's definition of "safeguard" is the same as that of any other Member. To suggest that requiring members of a DPP to sign a declaration will safeguard the community in some way is to bury one's head in the sand, and to forget what has happened in local government in past years. We need only glance at the newspapers relating to those years to be aware of the breaches of the declaration by elected authorities in Northern Ireland. That safeguard has meant nothing in the case of the requirement for council members to commit themselves to non-violence, and it will mean nothing when applied to DPP members.
      I have to agree with the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh. I do not believe that DPPs have independent members: I think that in a situation such as that in Northern Ireland, independence does not exist.
      I have serious concerns about the composition of the DPPs. The Secretary of State heralded this as a big step, saying that things had gone very well and everyone should be applauded. He seems to have closed his ears to the complaints about composition. Some worthy people—not just in my community, but in the nationalist community—have been bypassed. In my community, it appears to be almost an offence to have been a member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary: certainly a former RUC member of significant standing is unlikely to get through the vetting procedure. Two obvious examples are Jimmy Spratt and Blair Wallace, both of whom would plainly have a contribution to make. When we look at the list of those who have been appointed, we should consider whether it is appropriate to appoint members on the basis of what is effectively a balancing exercise rather than on merit.
      David Burnside: Will the hon. Gentleman expand on his point about my constituent Blair Wallace, a former deputy Chief Constable of the RUC? He received 49 votes. He was offering his experience as a resident in the local community to that community: he had lived in an around Ballyclare for 15 years. Given that he was excluded from the process, is there not something seriously wrong with the process?
      Mr. Robinson: There is. I do not know where that scoring placed him in relation to the other candidates, but Jimmy Spratt topped the scoring system poll. That system was not simply carried out at the behest of local councillors; it was supervised by independent consultants, who were brought in at the behest of the

      355
      Policing Board. In the case of Castlereagh borough council and Jimmy Spratt, all the parties concerned—the Ulster Unionist party, the Democratic Unionist party, the Alliance party and the Social Democratic and Labour party—were agreed on what the composition of the membership should be. There was no difficulty as far as the elected representatives were concerned—from either section of the community. Yet the matter was referred to the Policing Board, whose decision was based not on the merits of any of the candidates, but simply on trying to achieve balances that nobody else quite understands, and which have left us with not the best DPP that could have been appointed.
      4.30 pm
      Perhaps the Government might undertake that they do not intend to make an arrangement that would allow the new provisions to be activated before the normal lifespan of the DPP has expired, because such an arrangement would rub salt into the wound. We want them to say simply that these provisions are now law, and they will apply when next we make appointments—in four years' time, say—rather than saying that some further legislative move will also be made to allow changes to be introduced more quickly. We want the Government to make their intentions clear, and to put it on the record that they are not contemplating such action.
      When the Secretary of State responds, it might be worth while if he said whether this provision is part of a package. It has been made clear that this matter was considered at Hillsborough, and that the Government are expecting acts of completion. Part of that is clearly the intention, or hope, on the Government's part that Sinn Fein will come on board not just in respect of the DPPs, but of the Policing Board. Again, the Policing Board has a pre-determined lifespan. Will the Government attempt to interrupt the life of the Policing Board, and to insert people for whom there are currently no places, if the Sinn Fein/IRA act of completion is such that it convinces the Secretary of State? The right hon. Member for Upper Bann has made it clear that he does not accept the necessity for the Government to introduce this legislation today. Leaving aside the timing, perhaps the Secretary of State could say whether the nature of the legislation forms part of what has been described by the Prime Minister as the "shared understanding" that exists between the various parties.
      On the DUP's new clause, we instructed the Public Bill Office that we wanted a provision that would not disadvantage someone who might have fallen within the scope of existing legislation by virtue of having committed an offence. However, if the offence was not related to terrorism—a traffic offence, for example—they should not be barred on that basis, and scope should be given to enable the Secretary of State to enable such appointments. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim said, that seems a reasonable proposition. However, I agree with the right hon. Member for Upper Bann to the extent that our requirement can be read into the existing wording, so we will not press our new clause to a vote. Nevertheless, we hope that colleagues will recognise that there is an issue that needs to be dealt with, and perhaps the other place can get the Public Bill Office to come up with more
      356
      effective wording. We want to ensure that those who commit traffic offences will not be debarred from taking a full role in a district policing partnership.
      Mr. Paul Murphy: I shall do my best to respond to the various points that have been made in what has been a long but interesting debate.
      The hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) spoke about suspended sentences. As I said earlier, we have made it clear that the reference in the new clause is only to those sentences that remain suspended—that is, where the sentencing judge has seen fit to suspend the sentence unless certain subsequent events trigger its coming into force. It is the judge who will have reached that conclusion, taking into account all the relevant factors. I do not think that it is for us to second-guess judges in the way proposed.
      Mr. John Taylor: I agree.
      Mr. Murphy: Excellent. I need say no more, then.
      The hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds) referred to the question of removal of members. We propose that the board would have the power to remove someone if it felt that that person was not fit to serve on a DPP. We believe that that sanction will be effective.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) spoke about dealing with people before they apply to the board, rather than afterwards. However, the board would not appoint someone that it believed to be incapable of fulfilling the role of a DPP member. That is why the additional step proposed seems to me to be unnecessary.
      The hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) spoke about community safety and membership of the DPPs. She is right that Patten referred, in paragraph 6, to independent members providing expertise in matters pertaining to community safety, but she is wrong to suggest that we are moving away from that. The current code on the appointment of independent members published by my predecessor last August specifically included, in the essential eligibility criteria, a
      "demonstrable interest in local community safety or policing issues."
      I have no plans to change the code's requirements. Each application for independent membership is considered on its merits, first by the district council interview panel, and then by the Policing Board panel as well.
      Lady Hermon: I appreciate the Secretary of State's clarification of the current code. I was not aware of that, and his clarification is very helpful.
      However, one point still concerns me, and it has to do with the declaration against terrorism in new clause 1. The Secretary of State will be familiar with the narrow definition of terrorism given in the Elected Authorities (Northern Ireland) Act 1989:
      "violence for political ends connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland."
      Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify whether the new and much more extensive definition of terrorism in the Terrorism Act 2000 is the one used in the declaration against terrorism?
      Mr. Murphy: I understand that it is not the same, but I shall write to the hon. Lady in more detail.

      357
      As always, I am grateful for the comments from my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon). I say again that I believe that the House and Northern Ireland owe the hon. Gentleman's party a great deal for the support that that party has expressed for the policing process over the past number of years. Without the courageous decisions taken by the hon. Gentleman and his party, I do not believe that we would have succeeded in ensuring that there is a genuine, cross-community Policing Board and police force in Northern Ireland.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh was right to say—and I am grateful that he mentioned it—that transparency was the reason I referred to the texts for co1nsideration. After all, the House and members of political parties in Northern Ireland have had more than four months to consider the contents of those clauses. I suppose that I could have introduced them a few days ago and surprised the House with their contents, but I did not do so. I am glad that my hon. Friend referred to the four months that the clauses have been open for consideration.
      Mr. Dodds: As the Secretary of State is extolling the virtues of having published the legislation in draft form and given hon. Members four months to consider it instead of surprising us, will he now publish draft legislation on on-the-run terrorists and on any other proposals that are floating about as a result of the Hillsborough talks? If he believes that that is right way to go, should it not apply to all the proposals, not just certain ones?
      Mr. Murphy: If the hon. Gentleman waits for a few weeks, he will indeed have an opportunity to see the outcome of those talks. The practice of draft legislation is, rightly, becoming much more common in the House of Commons, so he will have the opportunity to scrutinise the proposed legislation and to consider the issues that it addresses.
      The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) mentioned the role of the other place. Many Members of the other place, from all parties and from none, have enormous experience of Northern Ireland, and I hope that they will be able to ensure that they give the Bill proper scrutiny.
      Limbit Öpik: The Secretary of State may be coming to this, but I want to raise two issues that matter to Liberal Democrat Members of the other place. First, I should like him to confirm once and for all something that we already know by observation, but which has been skirted around by previous Secretaries of State—namely, that when it comes to acts of completion, what he really wants is to maintain some political latitude in terms of interpretation. That is understandable, but if he confirmed it we would at least be talking about these matters honestly, rather than pretending that it is not the case.
      Secondly, we are vexed by the idea that commencement might be implemented through a statutory instrument in some corner of the House. Will
      358
      he give an assurance that the whole House and the whole of the other place will have the opportunity to debate these matters before any commencement takes place?
      Mr. Murphy: The hon. Gentleman's second point is a good one; I shall come to it later. On his first point, he knows, as does everybody who has been involved in the creation and implementation of the Good Friday Belfast agreement, that it is a political agreement. Of course, it has legal implications because legislation has to be passed to implement it, but ultimately it is a political agreement, and political decisions and judgments have to be taken into account. That is why I said that if we were to tie ourselves down too tightly to legal definitions, we could not properly satisfy people across the political board in Northern Ireland with regard to the definition of paramilitary activity.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: Is the Secretary of State trying to say that the only legal standing that the agreement has is what has been put into legislation?
      Mr. Murphy: The agreement has international legal aspects, which have to be put into international law. Domestic legislation had to be passed in order to introduce various aspects of the agreement. I am saying that it was not an agreement produced by lawyers, although some very distinguished lawyers were involved in its creation; it was essentially a political agreement that had to be voted on by the people of Northern Ireland. I sometimes wonder whether in the years since 1998 people's collective memory has gone, and they have forgotten that people in north and the south voted on the agreement.
      David Burnside: I welcome the Secretary of State's statement that the Belfast agreement is a political agreement. Will he give a commitment to the House that from now on it will be referred to as a political process, not a peace process, which is completely different?
      Mr. Murphy: Hopefully, the effect is the same. Of course, the agreement referred to the creation of a peaceful society in Northern Ireland, but it also referred to political stability and to prosperity. Politicians created the agreement on which the people of Northern Ireland, and the whole of Ireland, voted. In that context, it is political, with legal implications.
      Limbit Öpik: I thank the Secretary of State for his forbearance. To resolve the issue once and for all, is he confirming what we already know? Is he saying, at long last, that the Government want to maintain political latitude in terms of defining acts of completion? I know that it is an uncomfortable admission, but it will make it easier for everyone to take their decisions about where they stand as regards the Bill if we understand that the Secretary of State has made that decision. We can then decide whether to agree with it, but at least we will not be pretending that he is questioning the political content of his own definitions of acts of completion.
      Mr. Murphy: I am not trying in any sense to go against the law on the definition of ceasefires. That is specifically in legislation which the House of Commons decided to pass some time ago, and it would not be right for me to

      359
      say that that was wrong, because it was not. At the same time, it is right to say that we must look at all these issues politically, but it is also important that we do not tie ourselves down. The issues before us relating to paramilitary activity must be defined so that we we know that there is a cessation of activity. That is what produces the trust and confidence.
      4.45 pm
      Mr. Mallon: Does the Secretary of State agree that the surest signal of the cessation of violence and terrorist activity would be the participation on the Policing Board and the fullest support for policing in the north of Ireland from organisations that had previously used violence? Is that not the clearest barometer of movement on acts of completion?
      Mr. Murphy: Of course I think that that is an important issue. but it is not the only one. My hon. Friend represents a constituency that has been plagued by these problems over many decades, and he will know that we want an end to the activity—everybody here knows what it is all about in Northern Ireland. That must happen in order to go into a peaceful and democratic society.
      Mr. Quentin Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Murphy: I would like to respond to the comments made by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), and then I will by all means give way to the hon. Gentleman.
      I want to address the right hon. Gentleman's point on independent members. He rightly read out the definition of the type of people they might be. I would not disagree with any of that, but people who had served sentences more than five years previously could well be eligible to stand for the independent category, as opposed to the political category on DPPs.
      Mr. Trimble: As an exercise, the Secretary of State might like to look through the lists of the independent members who have been appointed to district policing partnerships throughout Northern Ireland, to take advice on the matter and to see how many or how few can fairly be regarded as persons who have expertise in community safety.
      Mr. Murphy: I will certainly take the opportunity in the next week or so to do that. I want later to refer to some of the points that the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) made with reference to membership.
      Mr. Davies: I wanted to intervene when the Secretary of State was referring to the legal obligations of the ceasefire. Will he confirm that the procurement of arms, explosives or timing devices and the movement of any of those would be inconsistent with the obligations on those who have accepted the ceasefire?
      Mr. Murphy: All those matters are hugely important in making the assessment, but the assessment in law at the end of the day, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is about looking at things "in the round".
      360
      The hon. Member for Belfast, East made a lot of comments. He knows that the composition of DPPs is a matter for the Policing Board—indeed, the Policing Board on which his party is represented. I am advised that applications were dealt with anonymously so that people would not know from whom they came. Were the hon. Gentleman to have any difficulty with the process, my advice to him would be to raise the matter with the Policing Board.
      Mr. Peter Robinson: I am aware that the applications were considered anonymously. Regrettably, they were also considered without seeing the council areas' scoring system. If that had been made available, very different judgments would have been made.
      Mr. Murphy: I will certainly look into that, and refer to the Policing Board myself. At the end of the day, it is a matter for the Policing Board.
      The hon. Member for Belfast, East made much of the timing of today's debate—and I suppose that the essence of this debate is timing. However, I rather fancy that, whenever this debate had taken place, the hon. Gentleman would have made more or less the same speech, because what he said is what he believes to be right. Whether the debate had been held now, or after acts of completion, or later in the year, or next year, I suspect that he would have made the same speech. He referred to what my hon. Friend the Minister of State said in Select Committee—that the ball was still in the republicans' court. Of course, the ball still is in the republicans' court. What is different is the fact that we are debating these issues today instead of rather later.
      Before explaining that point more fully, I want to clarify a small point with the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies). He said that the Bill referred to a "local general election". I can confirm that that means a local election. Why it is called a local general election, I have not a notion, but it means a local election.
      The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford raised two issues that related to the timing, rather than the substance, of the debate when he asked why it was being held now and not later. Earlier, I said—and I hope that the House accepted it—that I am not making an excuse for raising these issues today. Why should I want to do that? Everybody knows that, when the texts for consideration were brought in, back in November, I made it clear that those texts and those clauses were to be considered entirely in the context of acts of completion by the IRA. A cessation of activity on the part of the IRA would mean that this part of the Bill would be enacted. It has so happened that the Bill has gone through its stages in Parliament much more swiftly than I thought that it would; and, on the other side of the coin, that the process in Northern Ireland for the reestablishment and restoration of the institutions has gone more slowly than I had thought. The two processes have not coincided. I suppose that I could have decided, with the House authorities, to move this Report stage debate and the Third Reading much further down the parliamentary programme or down the parliamentary year. I would certainly have preferred the acts of completion to have taken place, and the consideration of what was discussed at Hillsborough to have taken place, before we discussed these matters here, but that was not to be.

      361
      My hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh said that this Bill is not simply about the clauses that we are discussing today. The Bill has been debated at length in Committee, it has been debated here, and it has been debated in the other place. It is an important Bill in its own right. It is a very important Bill for the SDLP, because it encapsulates many of the points that the party has made. Other parties also have a considerable interest, as have the people of Northern Ireland, in the Bill as a whole and not just in these particular clauses. Why should we hold up the entire Bill, for weeks or possibly months, in order for these matters to be discussed? Another important point is that the nature of these clauses—and they have been strengthened in the past couple of weeks—is such that the overall effect will be the same. They will not come into effect unless there are acts of completion. They will not come into effect unless we have agreement that those acts of completion have been dealt with.
      The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford asked about what he regarded as the inadequacy of the secondary legislation procedure for dealing with these matters. He also said that there would not be an opportunity to modify the clauses; but the opportunity to modify the clauses and to introduce amendments is now, in this Chamber. This is where that is done, using the processes that we already have. Not only is that palpably obvious, but he and other hon. Members and right hon. Members have actually introduced amendments and new clauses, knowing full well that the opportunity for those to be considered was today—and whenever the other place will have the opportunity to consider them. For modifications and amendments to the clauses, this is the time and this is the place.
      Mr. Quentin Davies: The right hon. Gentleman is making an absurd argument. We are faced with the Government's proposed new clauses and we have to respond, so we think about them and try to improve them—as we are doing. That has nothing whatever to do with the argument that I and others have been making this afternoon: it is a fundamental error to introduce these new clauses at present. Indeed, the Secretary of State conceded as much when he said in November that he expected there to be acts of completion. Unfortunately, they have taken longer than he hoped but he decided to make the concessions anyway. That is the fatal element in his tactics. None of the arguments that he has been making even begin to address that.
      Mr. Murphy: I could not agree less. The hon. Gentleman is deeply wrong to suggest that. He and others have had the opportunity to consider the proposals and table amendments for the past four months if they really thought that their composition was fundamentally flawed. The hon. Gentleman has had the opportunity to think about them for four months. In addition, there has been an opportunity to table amendments since last week.
      362
      That is not the issue, however. The hon. Gentleman asks whether this is the right time to introduce the provisions. I have already explained that this is not the ideal time, but that is why we decided to add another commencement order to the provisions, which my hon. Friend the Minister of State will refer to later.
      The hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members are also wrong to say that our parliamentary safeguards are meaningless. They think that the procedures of the House are so inadequate that they could not cope with great issues such as those that we have been discussing. I do not agree. The commencement orders are so important that we should be dealing only with one issue: whether the clauses should be introduced—yes or no. They would be introduced on the basis of the acts of completion that we have discussed today.
      The provisions were discussed in the other place. I take the valid point made by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik). The issue is so important that it should not go upstairs to a Committee. The hon. Gentleman was right to say that the whole House should have the opportunity to debate and vote on that single issue—whether the matter before us should go through. Such a debate would be meaningful. Indeed, it would be no different in substance from this debate, although it might be in time. Every Member will have the opportunity to make their points in this place and debate whether it is right or wrong to ensure that particular matters are discussed and agreed to.
      Lembit Öpik: If the Secretary of State is expressly committing the Government to discussion of that matter in a Committee of the whole House both here and in the other place, that is a most welcome development.
      Mr. Murphy: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Members of this and the other place should be given the best possible opportunity to debate such matters. There may be disagreement about timing—I accept the points that have been made about that—but political peace processes are difficult and they take time. None the less, it is wrong to say that there is no opportunity for the discussion of commencement orders.
      Mr. Quentin Davies: Can the right hon. Gentleman not envisage the possibility that, depending on what acts of completion take place or on what package, if any, emerges, the answer might not be yes or no—all or nothing—but something but not everything? In other words, we should be able to reconsider the matter in the light of whatever agreements, or actions, he can obtain from Sinn Fein-IRA. My objection to dealing with the matter through the statutory instrument procedure is that we cannot modify or amend anything afterwards. The House can no longer return to matters dealt with in that way. We should be unable to reconsider the substance of the provision in the light of the situation as and when the right hon. Gentleman achieves his package.
      Mr. Murphy: I am not sure what could be modified, in the sense that the amendments before us today seem to take things as far as they can go. We can choose a disqualification period of either five or 10 years. We can choose either the amendments tabled by the on. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), which refer to me doing certain things, or those tabled by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann, which suggest that the board do such things.
      5 pm
      Of course the House will have the opportunity to discuss those matters today, but the central issue is whether they should be accepted, and I am saying that we will have the opportunity now not only on the Floor of the House—I give that undertaking—but in the House of Lords to do so, using the affirmative procedure. There will be further debate and, above all, it will give us as parliamentarians the possibility to consider this issue again. When we vote on these clauses in a few minutes, we will not be voting automatically to allow the proposals to go ahead. We are voting for them, but also to ensure that they are held in abeyance until such time as we are satisfied that acts of completion have, indeed, been completed.
      Mr. John Taylor: Does the Secretary of State accept that a statutory instrument is inherently unsatisfactory as a means of discussing these matters of great import, whether considered in Committee or on the Floor of the House? The virtue of the Bill and our debating process is that all the amendments can be tabled and, yes, hon. Members can choose between five and 10 years, or whatever the various options are. With a statutory instrument, we have to take it or leave it. For affairs of this importance, take it or leave it is not good enough.
      Mr. Murphy: I understand the point and, ideally, the hon. Gentleman is right, of course. I repeat that, ideally. I would have preferred the debate to be held on another occasion, but it so happens that the timing has not worked. We have included further safeguards, such as the Belfast sub-groups, and hon. Members now have the opportunity to vote on various amendments and the different methods that they think might have to be used. We shall see how the House votes, but at the end of the day the essential point is whether or not those methods should be accepted.
      Mr. Mallon: Will the Secretary of Secretary confirm that, when we finish today, more time will have been given to these parts of the Bill than was given to its entire Second Reading, or to the consideration of the full Patten report?
      Mr. Murphy: That is why I do not want another Bill, and why it is so important to ensure that we have the opportunity to deal with this issue now, rather than later, and that the Bill, to which my hon. Friend is so deeply committed, completes its stages and receives Royal Assent. That should happen.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: I have listened carefully and the fact that we will have that debate on the Floor of the House is very welcome. We will have time to make a decision, but will the right hon. Gentleman please tell me—as one
      364
      who suffered for the first 25 years of his life in the House, when the whole government of Northern Ireland was dealt with by such resolutions—whether it will be an hour and a half debate, with 15 minutes for the Government to have their say and 15 minutes for the Opposition to have their say and an hour for the rest of us to do the job? Will the debate be limited to that when the order comes before the House?
      Mr. Murphy: I understand that the debate will be longer than that because a number of articles will have to dealt with, but, having said that, I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh—it is a quite proper hint for me to shut up—that there is a limit to how far we can go in discussing these matters because we need to debate other issues. All Members, not just those in Committee, will have a chance to debate the matters. We have debated well for a long time. It is an important issue, and I commend the new clause to the House.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill:—
      The House divided: Ayes 364, Noes 10.

      Division No. 138]

      [5:04pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Cairns, David

      Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Ainger, Nick

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Alexander, Douglas

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Allan, Richard

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Allen, Graham

      Caplin, Ivor

      Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

      Caton, Martin

      Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

      Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

      Challen, Colin

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Chaytor, David

      Austin, John

      Chidgey, David

      Bailey, Adrian

      Clapham, Michael

      Baird, Vera

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      Baker, Norman

      Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Banks, Tony

      Barron, rh Kevin

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Battle, John

      Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

      Beckett, rh Margaret

      Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Beith, rh A. J.

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Berry, Roger

      Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

      Blackman, Liz

      Coaker, Vernon

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Blizzard, Bob

      Coleman, Iain

      Borrow, David

      Connarty, Michael

      Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Cooper, Yvette

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

      Corston, Jean

      Brennan, Kevin

      Cotter, Brian

      Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

      Cousins, Jim

      Cranston, Ross

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Cruddas, Jon

      Bryant, Chris

      Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

      Burden, Richard

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Burgon, Colin

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Burnham, Andy

      Dalyell, Tam

      Burstow, Paul

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Byers, rh Stephen

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Cable, Dr. Vincent

      David, Wayne

      Question accordingly agreed to.

    New Clause 2

      INDEPENDENT MEMBERS: DISQUALIFICATION
      '(1) In paragraph 8 of Schedule 3 to the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 (c.32) (disqualification for membership of district policing partnership) for subparagraph (2) substitute—
      "(2) A person is disqualified for being an independent member of a DPP if—

      (a) he has been convicted in Northern Ireland or elsewhere of any offence and has had passed on him a sentence of imprisonment or detention, and

      (b) the relevant period has not ended.

      (3) The relevant period is the period of five years beginning with the person's discharge in respect of the offence.
      (4) For the purposes of subparagraph (3) the following are to be treated as the discharge of a person (whether or not his release is subject to conditions) —

      (a) his release on licence;

      (b) his release in pursuance of a grant of remission.

      (5) Subparagraph (4) does not apply in relation to the release of a person in respect of an offence if he is required to return to prison or detention for a further period in respect of the offence.
      (6) Subject to subparagraph (7), the reference in subparagraph (2) to a sentence of imprisonment or detention does not include a suspended sentence.
      (7) Subparagraph (6) does not apply in relation to a suspended sentence that has been ordered to take effect.
      (8) In this paragraph "suspended sentence" means a sentence of imprisonment or detention that is ordered not to take effect unless the conditions specified in the order are met."
      (2) Subsection (1) comes into force in accordance with provision made by the Secretary of State by order.'.—[Jane Kennedy.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 312, Noes 189.

      Division No. 138]

      [5:04pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Cairns, David

      Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Ainger, Nick

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Alexander, Douglas

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Allan, Richard

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Allen, Graham

      Caplin, Ivor

      Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

      Caton, Martin

      Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

      Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

      Challen, Colin

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Chaytor, David

      Austin, John

      Chidgey, David

      Bailey, Adrian

      Clapham, Michael

      Baird, Vera

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      Baker, Norman

      Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Banks, Tony

      Barron, rh Kevin

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Battle, John

      Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

      Beckett, rh Margaret

      Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Beith, rh A. J.

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Berry, Roger

      Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

      Blackman, Liz

      Coaker, Vernon

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Blizzard, Bob

      Coleman, Iain

      Borrow, David

      Connarty, Michael

      Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Cooper, Yvette

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

      Corston, Jean

      Brennan, Kevin

      Cotter, Brian

      Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

      Cousins, Jim

      Cranston, Ross

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Cruddas, Jon

      Bryant, Chris

      Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

      Burden, Richard

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Burgon, Colin

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Burnham, Andy

      Dalyell, Tam

      Burstow, Paul

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Byers, rh Stephen

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Cable, Dr. Vincent

      David, Wayne

      Davidson, Ian

      Hurst Alan (Braintree)

      Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

      Hutton, rh John

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Iddon, Dr. Brian

      Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Illsley, Eric

      Dawson, Hilton

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Dismore, Andrew

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

      Jamieson, David

      Dobson, rh Frank

      Jenkins, Brian

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Doran, Frank

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Doughty, Sue

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Drew, David (Stroud)

      Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Kaufman, rh Gerald

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Edwards, Huw

      Keen, Alan (Feltham)

      Efford, Clive

      Keen, Ann (Brentford)

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Keetch, Paul

      Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

      Kemp, Fraser

      Etherington, Bill

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Ewing, Annabelle

      Kidney, David

      Fisher, Mark

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      King, Andy (Rugby)

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

      Flint Caroline

      Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

      Kirkwood, Sir Archy

      Follett, Barbara

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Foster, rh Derek

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Lamb, Norman

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

      Lammy, David

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Francis, Dr. Hywel

      Laws, David (Yeovil)

      Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Gardiner, Barry

      Lepper, David

      George, Andrew (St. Ives)

      Leslie, Christopher

      Gerrard, Neil

      Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

      Gibson, Dr. Ian

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Gidley, Sandra

      Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

      Gilroy, Linda

      Linton, Martin

      Godsiff, Roger

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Goggins, Paul

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      McCafferty, Chris

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      McCartney, rh Ian

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Hanson, David

      MacDonald, Calum

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      McDonnell, John

      Harvey, Nick

      MacDougall, John

      Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

      McIsaac, Shona

      McKechin, Ann

      Healey, John

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Hendrick, Mark

      McNulty, Tony

      Hepburn, Stephen

      MacShane, Denis

      Hesford, Stephen

      McWalter, Tony

      Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

      McWilliam, John

      Heyes, David

      Mallaber, Judy

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Mallon, Seamus

      Hinchliffe, David

      Mendelson, rh Peter

      Holmes, Paul

      Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

      Hope, Phil (Corby)

      Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

      Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Martlew, Eric

      366

      Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

      Singh, Marsha

      Michael, rh Alun

      Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

      Milburn, rh Alan

      Miliband, David

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Miller, Andrew

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Moffatt, Laura

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

      Moore, Michael

      Morgan, Julie

      Soley, Clive

      Morley, Elliot

      Southworth, Helen

      Morris, rh Estelle

      Spellar, rh John

      Mountford, Kali

      Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

      Mudie, George

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Mullin, Chris

      Stevenson, George

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Naysmith, Dr. Doug

      Stoate, Dr. Howard

      Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

      Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

      Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Stunell, Andrew

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      O'Hara, Edward

      Tami, Mark (Alyn)

      Olner, Bill

      Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Öpik, Lembit

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Organ, Diana

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

      Owen, Albert

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Palmer, Dr. Nick

      Thurso, John

      Perham, Linda

      Timms, Stephen

      Picking, Anne

      Tipping, Paddy

      Pickthall, Colin

      Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

      Pike, Peter (Burnley)

      Tonge, Dr. Jenny

      Plaskitt, James

      Trickett, Jon

      Pollard, Kerry

      Truswell, Paul

      Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

      Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

      Pound, Stephen

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

      Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

      Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

      Primarolo, rh Dawn

      Vis, Dr. Rudi

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Purchase, Ken

      Ward, Claire

      Purnell, James

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Quin, rh Joyce

      Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Watts, David

      Raynsford, rh Nick

      Webb, Steve (Northavon)

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Weir, Michael

      Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

      White, Brian

      Rendel, David

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Williams, Betty (Conwy)

      Rooney, Terry

      Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Ruane, Chris

      Winnick, David

      Ruddock, Joan

      Wishart, Pete

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Wood, Mike (Batley)

      Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

      Woodward Shaun

      Salmond, Alex

      Woolas, Phil

      Salter, Martin

      Wray, James (Glasgow Baillieston)

      Sanders, Adrian

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Sawford, Phil

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Wyatt, Derek

      Sheerman, Barry

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      Sheridan, Jim

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

      Mr. John Heppell and

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Gillian Merron

      367

      NOES

      Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Burnside, David

      Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

      Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

      Trimble, rh David

      Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

      Hermon, Lady

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Hunter, Andrew

      Mr. Nigel Dodds and

      Paisley, Rev. Ian

      Mrs. Iris Robinson

      Division No. 139]

      [5:18 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Barron, rh Kevin

      Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

      Battle, John

      Ainger, Nick

      Beckett, rh Margaret

      Alexander, Douglas

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Allen, Graham

      Berry, Roger

      Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

      Blackman, Liz

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Blizzard, Bob

      Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

      Borrow, David

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Austin, John

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Bailey, Adrian

      Brennan, Kevin

      Baird, Vera

      Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

      Banks, Tony

      368

      Bryant, Chris

      Foster, rh Derek

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Burden, Richard

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

      Burgon, Colin

      Burnham, Andy

      Francis, Dr. Hywel

      Byers, rh Stephen

      Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

      Cairns, David

      Gardiner, Barry

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Gerrard, Neil

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Gibson, Dr. Ian

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Gilroy, Linda

      Caplin, Ivor

      Godsiff, Roger

      Caton, Martin

      Goggins, Paul

      Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Challen, Colin

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Chaytor, David

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Clapham, Michael

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Hanson, David

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

      Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

      Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

      Healey, John

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

      Hendrick, Mark

      Coaker, Vernon

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Hesford, Stephen

      Coleman, Iain

      Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

      Connarty, Michael

      Heyes, David

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Cooper, Yvette

      Hinchliffe, David

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Hope, Phil (Corby)

      Corston, Jean

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Cousins, Jim

      Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

      Cranston, Ross

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

      Cruddas, Jon

      Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

      Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Dalyell, Tam

      Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Hutton, rh John

      David, Wayne

      Iddon, Dr. Brian

      Davidson, Ian

      Illsley, Eric

      Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Dawson, Hilton

      Jamieson, David

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Jenkins, Brian

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Dismore, Andrew

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Dobson, rh Frank

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

      Doran, Frank

      Kaufman, rh Gerald

      Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Drew, David (Stroud)

      Keen, Alan (Feltham)

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Keen, Ann (Brentford)

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garsron)

      Kemp, Fraser

      Edwards, Huw

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Efford, Clive

      Kidney, David

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

      King, Andy (Rugby)

      Etherington, Bill

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

      Fisher, Mark

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      Flint, Caroline

      Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

      Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

      Lammy, David

      Follett, Barbara

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Lepper, David

      Leslie, Christopher

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Linton, Martin

      369

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Quin, rh Joyce

      Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

      Raynsford, rh Nick

      Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

      McCabe, Stephen

      McCafferty, Chris

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      McCartney, rh Ian

      Rooney, Terry

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      MacDonald, Calum

      Ruane, Chris

      McDonnell, John

      Ruddock, Joan

      MacDougall, John

      Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

      McIsaac, Shona

      Salter, Martin

      McKechin, Ann

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Sawford, Phil

      McNamara, Kevin

      Sedgemore, Brian

      McNulty, Tony

      Shaw, Jonathan

      MacShane, Denis

      Sheerman, Barry

      McWalter, Tony

      Sheridan, Jim

      McWilliam, John

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Mallaber, Judy

      Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

      Mallon, Seamus

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Mandelson, rh Peter

      Singh, Marsha

      Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

      Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

      Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Soley, Clive

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Spellar, rh John

      Martlew, Eric

      Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

      Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Michael, rh Alun

      Stevenson, George

      Milburn, rh Alan

      Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

      Miliband, David

      Miller, Andrew

      Stinchcornbe, Paul

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Stoate, Dr. Howard

      Moffatt, Laura

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Morgan, Julie

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Morley, Elliot

      Tami, Mark (Alyn)

      Morris, rh Estelle

      Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

      Mountford, Kali

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Mudie, George

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Mullin, Chris

      Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Timms, Stephen

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Tipping, Paddy

      Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

      Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

      Naysmith, Dr. Doug

      Tricked, Jon

      Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

      Truswell, Paul

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

      O'Hara, Edward

      Olner, Bill

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Organ, Diana

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

      Owen, Albert

      Vis, Dr. Rudi

      Palmer, Dr. Nick

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Perham, Linda

      Ward, Claire

      Picking, Anne

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Pickthall, Colin

      Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

      Pike, Peter (Burnley)

      Watts, David

      Plaskitt, James

      White, Brian

      Pollard, Kerry

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

      Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

      Pound, Stephen

      Williams, Betty (Conwy)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Winnick, David

      Wood, Mike (Batley)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Woodward, Shaun

      Primarolo, rh Dawn

      Woolas, Phil

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Wray, James (Glasgow Baillieston)

      Purchase, Ken

      Purnell, James

      Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

      370

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Mr. John Heppell and

      Wyatt, Derek

      Gillian Merron

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Allan, Richard

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Ancram, rh Michael

      Greenway, John

      Arbuthnot, rh James

      Grieve, Dominic

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Gummer, rh John

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Hague, rh William

      Bacon, Richard

      Hawkins, Nick

      Baker, Norman

      Hayes, John (S Holland)

      Barker, Gregory

      Heath, David

      Baron, John (Billericay)

      Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

      Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

      Hendry, Charles

      Beith, rh A.J.

      Hermon, Lady

      Bellingham, Henry

      Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

      Bercow, John

      Holmes, Paul

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Horam, John (Orpington)

      Blunt, Crispin

      Howard, rh Michael

      Boswell, Tim

      Hunter, Andrew

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Jack, rh Michael

      Brady, Graham

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Brazier, Julian

      Johnson, Boris (Henley)

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Keetch, Paul

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Key, Robert (Salisbury)

      Burns, Simon

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Burnside, David

      Kirkwood, Sir Archy

      Burstow, Paul

      Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

      Cable, Dr. Vincent

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Lamb, Norman

      Cameron, David

      Lansley, Andrew

      Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

      Laws, David (Yeovil)

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Leigh, Edward

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Letwin, rh Oliver

      Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

      Chidgey, David

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Chope, Christopher

      Lidington, David

      Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Loughton, Tim

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

      Collins, Tim

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Conway, Derek

      Mackay, rh Andrew

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Maclean, rh David

      Cotter, Brian

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Curry, rh David

      Matins, Humfrey

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

      Mates, Michael

      Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

      Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

      Dodds, Nigel

      Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

      Moore, Michael

      Doughty, Sue

      Murrison, Dr. Andrew

      Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

      Norman, Archie

      Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

      Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

      Duncan Smith, rh Iain

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Evans, Nigel

      Öpik, Lembit

      Ewing, Annabelle

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Fabricant, Michael

      Ottaway, Richard

      Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

      Page, Richard

      Paice, James

      Flight, Howard

      Paisley, Rev. Ian

      Flook, Adrian

      Paterson, Owen

      Forth, rh Eric

      Pickles, Eric

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Portillo, rh Michael

      Fox, Dr. Liam

      Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

      George, Andrew (St. Ives)

      Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

      Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

      Gidley, Sandra

      Redwood, rh John

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

      Gray, James (N Wilts)

      Rendel, David

      Grayling, Chris

      Robathan, Andrew

      371

      Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Thomas, simon (Ceredigion)

      Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

      Thurso, John

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Tonge, Dr. Jenny

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Trend, Michael

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Trimble, rh David

      Ruffley, David

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Salmond, Alex

      Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

      Sanders, Adrian

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Waterson, Nigel

      Selous, Andrew

      Watkinson, Angela

      Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

      Webb, Steve (Northavon)

      Weir, Michal

      Shepherd, Richard

      Whittingdale, John

      Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

      Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

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

      Wiggin, Bill

      Wilkinson, John

      Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

      Willetts, David

      Soames, Nicholas

      Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

      Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

      Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Spring, Richard

      Steen, Anthony

      Wishart, Pete

      Stunell, Andrew

      Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

      Swayne, Desmond

      Young, rh Sir George

      Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      Syms, Robert

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Mr. Mark Francois and

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Mr. David Wilshire

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time.
      Amendment proposed to the proposed new clause: (b) Leave out lines 20 to 27 —[Mr. Quentin Davies.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 187, Noes 321.

      Division No. 140]

      [5:30 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Allan, Richard

      Arbuthnot, rh James

      Chidgey, David

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Chope, Christopher

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Bacon, Richard

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Baker, Norman

      Collins, Tim

      Barker, Gregory

      Conway, Derek

      Baron, John (Billericay)

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

      Cotter, Brian

      Beith, rh A.J.

      Curry, rh David

      Bellingham, Henry

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Bercow, John

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Blunt, Crispin

      Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

      Boswell, Tim

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Brady, Graham

      Dodds, Nigel

      Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

      Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

      Brazier, Julian

      Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Duncan Smith, rh Iain

      Burnett, John

      Evans, Nigel

      Burns, Simon

      Fabricant, Michael

      Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

      Burnside, David

      Burstow, Paul

      Flight, Howard

      Cable, Dr. Vincent

      Flook, Adrian

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Forth, rh Eric

      Cameron, David

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

      Fox, Dr. Liam

      Carmichael, Alistair

      George, Andrew (St. Ives)

      372

      Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

      Paice, James

      Gidley, Sandra

      Paisley, Rev. Ian

      Gillen, Mrs Cheryl

      Paterson, Owen

      Gray, James (N Wilts)

      Pickles, Eric

      Grayling, Chris

      Portillo, rh Michael

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Redwood, rh John

      Greenway, John

      Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

      Grieve, Dominic

      Rendel, David

      Gummer, rh John

      Robathan, Andrew

      Hague, rh William

      Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

      Hammond, Philip

      Harvey, Nick

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Hawkins, Nick

      Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

      Hayes, John (S Holland)

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Heath, David

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Hendry, Charles

      Ruffley, David

      Hermon, Lady

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

      Sanders, Adrian

      Hogg, rh Douglas

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Holmes, Paul

      Selous, Andrew

      Horam, John (Orpington)

      Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

      Howard, rh Michael

      Shepherd, Richard

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

      Hunter, Andrew

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

      Jack, rh Michael

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Soames, Nicholas

      Johnson, Boris (Henley)

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Keetch, Paul

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

      Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

      Spring, Richard

      Key, Robert (Salisbury)

      Steen, Anthony

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Stunell, Andrew

      Kirkwood, Sir Archy

      Swayne, Desmond

      Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

      Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Syms, Robert

      Lamb, Norman

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Lansley, Andrew

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Laws, David (Yeovil)

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Leigh, Edward

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Letwin, rh Oliver

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

      Thurso, John

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Trend, Michael

      Lidington, David

      Trimble, rh David

      Loughton, Tim

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

      Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Mackay, rh Andrew

      Waterson, Nigel

      Maclean, rh David

      Watkinson, Angela

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Webb, Steve (Northavon)

      Malins, Humfrey

      Whittingdale, John

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

      Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

      Wiggin, Bill

      Mates, Michael

      Wilkinson, John

      Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

      Willetts, David

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

      Willis, Phil

      Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

      Moore, Michael

      Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Murrison, Dr. Andrew

      Norman, Archie

      Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

      Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

      Young, rh Sir George

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      Öpik, Lembit

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Ottaway, Richard

      Mr. Mark Francois and

      Page, Richard

      Mr. David Wilshire

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

      Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

      Ainger, Nick

      Alexander, Douglas

      Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

      Allen, Graham

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      373

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Austin, John

      Doran, Frank

      Bailey, Adrian

      Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

      Baird, Vera

      Drew, David (Stroud)

      Banks, Tony

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Barron, rh Kevin

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Battle, John

      Edwards, Huw

      Beckett, rh Margaret

      Efford, Clive

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Berry, Roger

      Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

      Blackman, Liz

      Etherington, Bill

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Ewing, Annabelle

      Blizzard, Bob

      Fisher, Mark

      Borrow, David

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Flint, Caroline

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

      Brennan, Kevin

      Follett, Barbara

      Brown, rh Gordon (Dunfermline E)

      Foster, rh Derek

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

      Bryant, Chris

      Francis, Dr. Hywel

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

      Burden, Richard

      Gardiner, Barry

      Burgon, Colin

      Gerrard, Neil

      Burnham, Andy

      Gibson, Dr. Ian

      Byers, rh Stephen

      Gilroy, Linda

      Cairns, David

      Godsiff, Roger

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Goggins, Paul

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Caplin, Ivor

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Caton, Martin

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Challen, Colin

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Hanson, David

      Chaytor, David

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Clapham, Michael

      Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Healey, John

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

      Hendrick, Mark

      Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Hesford, Stephen

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

      Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

      Heyes, David

      Coaker, Vernon

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Hinchliffe, David

      Coleman, Iain

      Hope, Phil (Corby)

      Connarty, Michael

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

      Cooper, Yvette

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Corston, Jean

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

      Cousins, Jim

      Cranston, Ross

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Cruddas, Jon

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

      Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

      Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

      Hutton, rh John

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Iddon, Dr. Brian

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Illsley, Eric

      Dalyell, Tam

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      David, Wayne

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Davidson, Ian

      Jamieson, David

      Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

      Jenkins, Brian

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Dawson, Hilton

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

      Dismore, Andrew

      Kaufman:, rh Gerald

      Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Dobson, rh Frank

      Keen, Alan (Feltham)

      374

      Keen, Ann (Brentford)

      Owen, Albert

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Palmer, Dr. Nick

      Kidney, David

      Perham, Linda

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Pickthall, Colin

      King, Andy (Rugby)

      Pike, Peter (Burnley)

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

      Plaskitt, James

      Pollard, Kerry

      Knight Jim (S Dorset)

      Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

      Laclyman, Dr. Stephen

      Pound, Stephen

      Larmmy, David

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Lepper, David

      Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

      Leslie, Christopher

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Primarolo, rh Dawn

      Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Linton, Martin

      Purchase, Ken

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Purnell, James

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Quin, rh Joyce

      Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

      Raynsford, rh Nick

      Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

      McCabe, Stephen

      McCafferty, Chris

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      McCartney, rh Ian

      Rooney, Terry

      Mc Donagh, Siobhain

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      MacDonald, Calum

      Ruane, Chrs

      McDonnell, John

      Ruddock, Joan

      MacDougall, John

      Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

      McFall, John

      Salmond, Alex

      Mc Isaac, Shona

      Salter, Martin

      Mc Kechin, Ann

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Sawford, Phil

      McNamara, Kevin

      Sedgemore, Brian

      McNulty, Tony

      Shaw, Jonathan

      MacShane, Denis

      Sheerman, Barry

      McWalter, Tony

      Sheridan, Jim

      McWilliam, John

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Mallaber, Judy

      Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

      Mallon, Seamus

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Mandelson, rh Peter

      Singh, Marsha

      Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

      Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

      Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Marshall, ,Jim (Leicester S)

      Soley, Clive

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Spellar, rh John

      Martlew, Eric

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Michael, rh Alun

      Stevenson, George

      Milburn, rh Alan

      Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

      Miliband, David

      Miller, Andrew

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Stoate, Dr. Howard

      Moffatt, Laura

      Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

      Morgan, Julie

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Morley, Elliot

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Morris, rh Estelle

      Tami, Mark (Alyn)

      Mountford, Kali

      Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

      Mudie, George

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Mullin, Chris

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

      Timms, Stephen

      Naysmith, Dr. Doug

      Tipping, Paddy

      Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

      Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Trickett, Jon

      O'Hara, Edward

      Truswell, Paul

      Olner, Bill

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

      Organ, Diana

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      375

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Winnick, David

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Wishart, Pete

      Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

      Wood, Mike (Batley)

      Vis, Dr. Rudi

      Woodward, Shaun

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Woolas, Phil

      Ward, Claire

      Wray, James (Glasgow Baillieston)

      Wreing, Robert N.

      Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

      Wright Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

      Watts, David

      Weir, Michael

      Wright, David (Telford)

      White, Brian

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      Wyatt, Derek

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Williams, Betty (Conwy)

      Mr. John Heppell and

      Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

      Gillian Merron

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Clause added to the Bill.

    New Clause 14

      BELFAST (No. 2)
      '(1) Schedule [Belfast (No. 2)] makes provision in relation to Belfast.
      (2) Subsection (1) comes into force in accordance with provision made by the Secretary of State by order.'.—[Jane Kennedy.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Jane Kennedy): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
      Government new schedule 2—' Belfast No. 2' —'and amendment (a) thereto.
      Government amendment No. 37.
      Jane Kennedy: New clause 14 and new schedule 2 deal with the arrangements for the sub-groups of the district policing partnerships in Belfast. They replace section 21 of the 2000 Act, and make a series of supplementary consequential amendments. Amendment No. 37 is consequential upon new schedule 2. Although these provisions look, on the face of it, very complex, they cover much familiar ground. I recognise that hon. Members will have some concerns about what is proposed—indeed, the Select Committee raised some of those concerns—but I hope to be able to deal with them in due course. It might be helpful, however, if I first outline what the various changes mean and what their effect will be.
      Hon. Members will be aware that there is a police district for every district council area in Northern Ireland except Belfast. The area covered by Belfast city council's jurisdiction is split into four police districts: north, south, east and west, for simplicity's sake. This reflects a Patten recommendation to take account of the significantly greater size of the population and therefore of the policing task—in Belfast. Each of the four police districts in the city covers a population that is very nearly the size of the next largest district outside Belfast. It is already a requirement, under section 21 of the 2000 Act, for Belfast city council to establish a subgroup of its DPP for each of the four police districts in Belfast. Amendment (a) seeks to change that, by making
      376
      it optional for the council to establish sub-groups. I shall not be supporting that amendment, and I shall give my reasons a little later when I explain the importance that we attach to the requirement to establish the sub-groups.
      At present, the sub-groups' only function is to provide views on any matter concerning the policing of a police district to the district commander of the relevant police district and to the DPP itself. That is in contrast to the functions of a full DPP as set out in section 16 of the 2000 Act.
      5.45 pm
      In the August 2001 revised implementation plan, we undertook to consider, in the context of a review of policing arrangements, whether those limited powers remained appropriate for the Belfast sub-groups. That we have done, but given the scale of the policing task in each Belfast police district and the size of population involved in those areas, we consider that there is merit in the sub-groups for the four Belfast police districts having extended functions covering the majority of functions enjoyed by full DPPs.
      The functions that we propose for the sub-groups mirror those in section 16(1)(a) to (d) of the Act. That should help to strengthen the relationship between the local community and the police service of its area in Belfast.
      Mr. Trimble: The Minister said a few moments ago that the functions of the sub-groups mirror the majority of functions for the group for Belfast as a whole, yet she has also referred to them being identical to those set out in section 16. Will she identify what functions will remain solely in the purview of the Belfast DPP rather than being devolved or transferred to the sub-groups?
      Jane Kennedy: The functions of the sub-groups will not be identical to those of the Belfast DPP, which will retain a particular role. I shall explain that in a few moments, if the right hon. Gentleman will allow me, and perhaps he will intervene again if I am not sufficiently clear.
      What I want to make clear—this perhaps responds in some way to that point—is that we do not propose to create four new DPPs, nor did the Patten report recommend that. It specifically referred to those being sub-groups or sub-committees. So, unlike the full DPPs, the sub-groups will not be accountable to the Policing Board or the local council. That function will remain a role of the Belfast DPP itself; the sub-groups will remain accountable to it.
      The Belfast DPP will retain an important city-wide role, so we have included in the new clause provisions requiring the sub-groups to provide annual reports to the DPP, which will enable it, in turn, to provide its own annual report to Belfast city council. The powers and duties of the Belfast DPP will change in only three respects. First, we will give it the power to require a subgroup to produce a report on any matter concerned with the exercise of that sub-group's functions. That may be for the DPP's own benefit or it may be to enable the DPP to respond to a request from the board for a report covering the whole of Belfast.

      377
      Secondly, the Belfast DPP will be given slightly longer than other DPPs to submit its annual report to the council or ad hoc reports to the board. That is to allow sufficient time for the Belfast DPP to commission and receive the relevant reports from its sub-groups before producing its own report.
      Finally, we wish to avoid unnecessary duplication between the DPP and its sub-groups. The DPP will retain the ultimate responsibility for ensuring that the functions of consultation with the local community are adequately fulfilled, but if the DPP is satisfied that a function is already being adequately carried out by a sub-group, the DPP is exempt from the obligation to duplicate the work in respect of that particular area of Belfast.
      Limbit Öpik: I have a more general point to make later, but I shall focus on the immediate point now. It sounds to me that there could be a danger of internecine rivalry between the sub-groups.
      Mr. John Taylor: In Northern Ireland?
      Lembit Öpik: Even in Northern Ireland. How will the structure that the Minister proposes adequately ensure that there is a complementary rather than an aggressive and factional approach among those various groups?
      Jane Kennedy: The sub-groups will be responsible for working with and through the district commanders of their areas. Their focus will be very much geographical. The Belfast DPP may wish to report on certain issues to the Policing Board, or submit proposals to it. Those issues may affect the whole of Belfast, or just parts of it. It may then commission work from one of the subgroups. I envisage a working relationship between the sub-groups and the DPP, rather than rivalry between the sub-groups. I am not sure what rivalry would arise, although no doubt it will always be possible.
      Lembit Öpik: I was really thinking of rivalry between sub-groups and the DPP. There might be differences between the two about the implementation of police policy in a certain area. I fear that the DPP could find itself at loggerheads with the sub-groups.
      Jane Kennedy: If that happened, the DPP would retain responsibility for determining the outcome.
      Apart from the flexibilities I have mentioned, the functions, powers and role of the Belfast DPP remain in line with those applying to other DPPs. Its membership remains the same size, and with the same political balance. However, to ensure an effective link with the sub-groups, four of the political seats on the DPP will be held by the chairs of the sub-groups. The offices will be rotated between the four largest political parties on the council, so there will be a slight change in DPP membership—although not in its representativeness—each year.
      Having concluded that the sub-groups should take on additional functions, the Government looked again at the arrangements for regulating sub-groups' procedures. At present, the Police (Northern Ireland)
      378
      Act 2000 says that each sub-group shall consist of at least six members of the partnership. There is no maximum size, there is no specified balance between political and independent members, and there is no arrangement for rotating the chairmanship between the four largest parties, as is the case with DPPs. I am well aware that at present, even with sub-groups of the minimum size, DPP members would have to sit on both the DPP and at least one sub-group. That is already a daunting workload, especially for councillors who have many other calls on their time.
      Given the additional functions that the sub-groups have taken on, we see benefit in both increasing the size of the sub-groups—because of the increasing workload—and being more specific about the arrangements applying to membership. Paragraph 13 of new schedule 2 inserts a new schedule 3A in the 2000 Act, which mirrors in almost every respect the provisions of schedule 3 in relation to DPPs. I shall concentrate on the respects in which the new schedule differs from the arrangements in schedule 3.
      We propose that each sub-group should consist of 11 members, six political members appointed from among the members of the council and five independent members appointed by the board. That is similar to the balance on DPPs, but the size is smaller to reflect the lesser role of the sub-groups. In appointing political members, the council is charged with seeking to ensure that the sum of the political members of all sub-groups reflects the balance of the parties in the council. In appointing independent members of a sub-group, the board is required to ensure that, taken together, they are representative of the community in the relevant policing district.
      Mr. Trimble: The Minister said that members should as a whole be representative. Does that mean that there is no requirement for representativeness in the case of individual sub-groups?
      Jane Kennedy: The groups will be representative of the area covered by that sub-group, but there will be political balance, in that there will be representatives of the political parties on the sub-group.
      Mr. Trimble: The Minister is going further than the provision that she is discussing, which says that the membership of the sub-groups, taken as a whole, is to be representative. Will she confirm that she is saying that the membership of the sub-group is to be representative of the area that it comes from?
      Jane Kennedy: The concepts are not difficult, but the detail can be. The members of the sub-group—singular—taken together, would be representative of the community in the relevant police district. Indeed, the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), who is not in his place, raised this issue in the Select Committee. In addition, the schedule provides that the council should also notify the board as to whether applicants are interested in being considered for appointments to only one sub-group, or whether there is a degree of flexibility.
      There is a slight difference in the rules for appointing and rotating sub-group chairmen and vice-chairmen. As with DPPs, those will be appointed by the council,

      379
      which will be required to ensure, so far as is practicable, that the offices of chairman and vice-chairman—or chairwoman and vice-chairwoman—in each sub-group are at all times held by members of different political parties, and that the office of chairman is held in turn by each of the four largest parties represented on Belfast city council.
      In addition to those provisions, which also apply to DPPs, the council will be required to ensure that no one party holds more than one sub-group chairmanship at any point in time. So it is clear that Belfast city council and the district policing partnership will need to do a good deal of work to ensure that the arrangements are right and representative.
      Lady Hermon: Will the Minister address the question of proposed new schedule 3A and political members of the sub-groups, which was raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble)? She will well remember the warning that Chris Patten gave against the balkanisation of policing, on the morning in September 1999 when he published his report. My concern relates to the provision's stating that
      "the political members of all the sub-groups, taken together"
      should reflect the balance of the parties in the council. What failsafe mechanism protects against west Belfast, for example, having only Sinn Fein councillors as political members of that sub-group?
      Mr. Trimble: There isn't one.
      Jane Kennedy: The right hon. Gentleman says that there is no such mechanism, but to respond to the hon. Lady's question, I should point out that there is indeed a safeguard, in that the chairmanship of the sub-group—
      Mr. Trimble: It is not in here.
      Jane Kennedy: Well, Belfast city council and the DPP will be required to make that work, and so far as is reasonably practical, and so long as councillors are willing to participate in DPPs, it should be within the bounds of possibility to make that happen. Although it is clear that that will be possible, it will not be the easiest chairmanship in the world. However, there should be representatives within each of the sub-groups of the main parties, and that should be guaranteed at least through the role that the chairman and vice-chairman will play.
      Mr. Gregory Campbell: The Minister will undoubtedly be aware that last night., a Social Democratic and Labour party councillor who is a member of a district policing partnership in Strabane, County Tyrone, suffered an attack on the property of her daughter. Given that the likelihood of such incidents will increase in the immediate future, what plans do the Government have to give redress if SDLP members unfortunately pull out as a result of such intimidation?
      6 pm
      Jane Kennedy: Clearly, such intimidation is anathema to people involved in democratic politics. I do not accept that there will necessarily be an increase in intimidation. That it is happening at all is deplorable, but I expect that the people who participate in the DPPs and in the subgroups will no longer fear intimidation when the proposals that we are discussing take effect. That is because the people associated with those perpetrating the intimidation will no longer be pushing for it to happen.
      Mr. Mallon: I assure the House that the SDLP representatives will not be pulled out because of intimidation. We have not done that for the past 30 years. We are not going to start now.
      Jane Kennedy: I very much welcome that reassurance. There is no question but that those SDLP representatives who have participated in the new policing arrangements have faced much greater risk to themselves than have others. We owe them a great deal for enabling the new start to policing in Northern Ireland, and for their commitment to this new beginning, which the proposals under discussion merely serve to embed.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: The Minister also wears a security hat in Northern Ireland. She will be aware that this is an intense and serious matter in localities. She will also recall that a recruit to the new police service was attacked in my constituency. Such hostility is being encouraged by a literature campaign being conducted in places of employment, where we never had trouble before. That campaign says that people should treat former members of the RUC the way they treated them before, even though those former officers are now in other jobs. Another campaign states that the new police service should be treated as though it was the old RUC. If that is going to be allowed to percolate through the areas in question, there could be serious trouble.
      Everyone in public life in Northern Ireland does the job that they have been elected to do—I do not include those who advocate violence—but all of us are threatened with intimidation.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is getting carried away, well beyond an intervention.
      Jane Kennedy: I acknowledge the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, but in the earlier debate the question arose as to what was meant by the phrase "acts of completion". How do we define that, and what do we intend should happen before we would enable the clauses to take effect? That is at the heart of the issue, and my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr Mallon) put his finger on it when he made his contribution to the earlier debate.
      When Sinn Fein embraces the new beginning to policing that is under way—and I say "when" and not "if"—and when it participates in the policing arrangements that we are discussing in detail now, the environment in which policing is carried out in Northern Ireland will be transformed. No longer will it be acceptable for those who espouse republican

      381
      traditions to attack members of the police service, because that service will be directly accountable—through the policing structures, the DPPs and the Policing Board—to those who espouse the republican tradition.
      At present, the Policing Board works on a cross-community basis. Any new arrangements arising out of what the House is discussing today could take effect only in exactly similar circumstances. So my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh is absolutely right—once we have done this business today, it really will be up to those who espouse the republican tradition to rise to the challenge being presented to them.
      Mr. Trimble: The Minister rightly says that one of the great successes of the past year or so has been the way in which the Policing Board has operated on a genuine cross-community basis. Why, then, are the Government introducing provisions that will in practice ensure that for at least half of Belfast there will be no requirement for the sub-groups to have cross-community composition?
      Jane Kennedy: There will be representatives of other parties in the sub-groups. As I explained, that will be built into the structure of the sub-groups through the roles of the chairman and the vice-chairman. I hear what the right hon. Gentleman says in the sense that potentially a majority of one particular community will be represented in some sub-groups. However, when hon. Members see how the parties involved and the independent members of the sub-groups and the district policing partnerships are genuinely and wholeheartedly engaged in a proper dialogue with the district policing commanders, holding them to account on behalf of their communities in order to deliver to them the best possible policing services, their anxieties about the way in which the sub-groups work will diminish. The system will be tested over time.
      Mr. Carmichael: Can the Minister assist me in trying to follow the logic of her argument? Presumably the point of having sub-groups is to ensure better representation of the communities. To take west Belfast as a working example, in accordance with what seems to be the consensus, there will be cross-community involvement in that sub-group only if there is some sort of artificial mechanism to ensure that it is not truly representative. I do not understand how the Minister can have both.
      Jane Kennedy: It will of course depend on the make-up of Belfast city council and the political demography at the time. Taking west Belfast as an example, it is likely that there will be representatives of the SDLP and of Sinn Fein—if Sinn Fein participates—and that representatives of other parties will have to come in through other means. That is what we are building in through the roles of the chair and vice-chair. There will be a requirement on Belfast city council to ensure that that political mix is available as the sub-groups are established.
      Mr. Trimble indicated dissent.
      Jane Kennedy: Well, that is my understanding of how the new arrangements will work.
      382
      The rules for disqualification and for the removal of members from office remain exactly the same as those that apply to membership of DPPs. The same is true of the provisions relating to allowances, indemnities, insurance against accidents and so on.
      Limbit Öpik: I am not sure if this is the right time to ask the Minister this, but will she, now or when she reaches the appropriate moment, give me an assurance—grateful as we are that the Secretary of State accepted the benefits of a debate on the Floor of the House and in another place—that the Government will offer the same commitment in this case? They were willing to accept our suggestion in relation to the previous debate, and exactly the same arguments apply here.
      Jane Kennedy: I am happy to give the assurance that the same arrangements will apply—the debate will take place on the Floor of the House—because the same commencement provision applies. I hope that that helps the hon. Gentleman.
      The arrangements relating to the procedure of sub-group meetings closely reflect the provisions for district policing partnerships. The only difference is that the Belfast DPP is given the power to give directions to a sub-group about the regulation of its procedure.
      The arrangements for constituting committees are similar to the arrangements that apply to DPPs. A sub-group may set up a committee of its own volition or it may be required to do so by the Belfast DPP. Earlier, I used the example of car crime. The Belfast DPP may wish to examine a cross-cutting issue such as car crime that affects more than one policing district. In that case, the DPP would ask the sub-group to establish a committee to deal with it. The Belfast DPP would need to approve the constitution of any committee set up by the sub-group of its own volition. It would need to approve its membership, the functions to be delegated to it and any directions that the sub-group might choose to give to the committee as to the way in which it carries out its functions.
      As the sub-groups will carry out a number of independent functions, we believe that it is appropriate for each one to be designated in its own right for the purposes of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the Commissioner for Complaints (Northern Ireland) Order 1996. Hon. Members will note that the latter designation automatically brings sub-groups in their own right within the scope of the statutory equality duties set out in section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.
      The final part of the new schedule deals with transitional arrangements. We believed that it was right to keep disruption to a minimum. I pay tribute to those who came forward to serve on the Belfast DPP. More than 200 people applied in Belfast alone. We propose that, if it believes it necessary in order to create a place for the sub-group chairmen on the main DPP, the council should be able to move one or more political members of the DPP to serve instead on one or more sub-groups.
      No equivalent provision is made for independent members because we believe that it would be inappropriate to alter the appointment of members of

      383
      the public who have applied for appointment to the DPP. However, there is provision to allow the board to consider as potential members of sub-groups individuals who have already been appointed by independent membership of the Belfast DPP. That would obviate the need for those individuals to go through the full application process a second time if, in addition to or instead of their membership of the Belfast DPP, they wanted to serve on a sub-group. Hon. Members will forgive me for going into some detail, hut I felt it necessary because the House has not previously had the opportunity to consider these issues closely.
      Before I conclude I want to draw Members' attention to two notable changes to the text as compared with the original that was published for consideration in November. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has explained in speaking to amendments Nos. 34 and 35 that the provisions relating to Belfast will be commenced separately by order subject to affirmative resolution of both Houses and considered on the Floor of this House.
      New schedule 2(9) provides that, in relation to Belfast districts, before issuing or revising a local policing plan under section 22 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000, the district commander shall consult the relevant sub-group, in addition to the main DPP, and take account of any views expressed. That is a practical requirement. Having given the sub-groups a role in consulting their district, it would be odd if the district commander were denied their views when it came to the police's drawing up the annual plan for the district. I assure hon. Members that each commander will also be required during the development of the plan to seek the views of the main Belfast DPP. We are not seeking to circumvent that.
      David Burnside: Will the Minister outline in her proposals for the four sub-groups the views, to her knowledge, of all the political parties in Northern Ireland? Who has told her that they are in favour, against or neutral?
      Jane Kennedy: In the consultation that I took forward in the fall of last year, there were differences of opinion. Very few political parties supported the text that we are discussing. The hon. Gentleman's party objected to the proposals. Indeed, concerns were expressed by members of the Policing Board about how they would work. I hope that in some way clarifying our intention in introducing the proposals will reassure those who have concerns.
      Mr. Mallon: Will the Minister help me to understand why a commencement order will be required for sub-groups?
      Jane Kennedy: That was one of the issues—I think I am being as honest as I can be with the House—that we undertook in response to the Weston Park talks. My hon. Friend's party did not press us on the issue, but Sinn Fein certainly did. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] I did not believe that there was any doubt about that. That is why the commencement clause is in the Bill. We believe that the sub-groups will work as they are constituted. Having considered the ideas that we are discussing today—notwithstanding the difficulties that may arise
      384
      in the constitutions of different sub-groups, rather than in their representativeness—I think that our proposals make a lot of sense I have fewer anxieties than other hon. Members may have.
      6.15 pm
      What is proposed in this group of Government amendments is broadly practical. Having given the subg-roups a role in consulting the DPP, it seems sensible to give the commanders—who will be drawing the district policing plans together and working with the sub-groups and the DPP—the opportunity to consider and take account of their views.
      The amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) relates to this point. I draw hon. Members' attention to new schedule 2(2). Hon. Members will be aware that section 15 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 provides for a situation in which a district council fails to set up a DPP in accordance with the statutory provisions. We wanted to ensure that there was a similar provision to deal with the situation if Belfast city council failed to set up sub-groups in accordance with the new requirements that we have discussed. As hon. Members will know, when the DPPs were being developed, some local authorities were more enthusiastic than others. However, I did not believe it right that any local authority, if it contained a majority from a party that disagreed with the establishment of a DPP, should be able to block it. The same notion should apply to the sub-groups in Belfast, and the proposed new section 15A seeks to ensure that that happens. It is simply a consequential change that is consistent with the existing provisions. That is why I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman's proposal.
      Mr. Carmichael: There is surely a distinction between the situation that the Minister has outlined and the one that exists. There is already a district policing partnership in Belfast, so there is no question of one not being set up. The Government seem to be imposing their will on Belfast city council in relation to the constitution of the sub-groups. There is merit in allowing the council some flexibility. As far as I can see, the council is starting to work well on a cross-community basis. It has a Sinn Fein mayor, which many would have thought an impossibility a few years ago. Why do we not have confidence in the people of Belfast, as a whole, to work together?
      Jane Kennedy: There would have been Belfast sub-groups anyway; we are seeking to enhance the role of those sub-groups. It is appropriate that the Belfast DPP and Belfast city council should be required to establish a sub-group in each of the four policing districts in Belfast. It is worth pointing out that the Belfast DPP retains responsibility for ensuring that those sub-groups function properly. If it has concerns about a particular sub-group, it will be for the DPP, in the first instance, to respond to those concerns, perhaps raising them with the Policing Board and Belfast city council.

      385
      I apologise for taking quite a little time to explain those points, but we are dealing with new issues and I felt it important to offer them to the House for debate.
      Mr. Quentin Davies: Well, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That was one of the most dramatically revealing half hours that we have had in the course of all the debates that I have attended on Northern Ireland issues in the past 18 months. In the first half of the hon. Lady's remarks, with the mixture of charm and mastery of detail that we have come to associate with her, she endeavoured to lull us into believing that all we were dealing with was a purely functional matter; that because of the size of the population of Belfast, the scale of the city and its relation to other cities and other DPPs, it was necessary for practical reasons to divide its DPP into sub-groups. That is completely spurious. We appear to be in the grip of complete unreality.
      Then came the dramatic intervention of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon). I give the hon. Lady full credit for her response; she said that, in all honesty—we know that she is an honest person—she had to concede that the provision was really a concession to Sinn Fein-IRA. We, on the Opposition Benches, have known that all along. All that business about the size and scale of Belfast and the functional attractions of splitting up the DPP is complete eyewash, as it always was. It has all been most revealing. The Government publicity machineöthe people who produce all the junk in the explanatory notes, no doubt Mr. Alastair Campbell or someone like that—tells us that the provision relates to purely functional and practical needs, yet the hon. Lady told us, quite directly, the truth. I do not say that she has let the cat out of the bag, as I do not want to get her into trouble. She told us what we all know to be the truth: the whole thing is a concession to Sinn Fein-IRA.
      If there had been functional grounds for sub-groups in Belfast with such extensive powers, provision would have been made for them in the Police (Northern Act) 2000 or they would have been provided for unconditionally in the Bill. The reason the proposals have been introduced now is that, once again, the Government have decided to make concessions to Sinn Fein-IRA. Everything that I said earlier about DPP membership applies in this case. The Government's tactics are inappropriate and inept; indeed, they are extremely foolish. Sinn Fein-IRA have done nothing to merit our advancing or preparing these new concessions. Whether the concessions are conditional or otherwise, they send a signal that makes sense only if Sinn Fein-IRA had been doing something, too—if they were a reward for good behaviour. If there had been some good behaviour, we could move a few steps forward; yet there has been no good behaviour and we are taking gigantic steps forward. That is most regrettable and, as I said earlier, it is especially regrettable for the peace process—the point on which we should really be focusing.
      I want to make two things plain so that there is no doubt in the minds of hon. Members when we take a decision on the new clause and the new schedule. I challenge the hon. Lady to intervene if I say anything that is not 100 per cent. justified by the facts.
      386
      First, the effect of introducing the new clause and the new schedule will be to emasculate the DPP in Belfast.
      Jane Kennedy indicated dissent.
      Mr. Davies: The hon. Lady shakes her head, but all the powers of the DPP that were set out in the 2000 Act are now included in paragraph 5 of the new schedule as powers for the sub-group. The powers of DPPs under the 2000 Act are
      "to provide views to the district commander … to monitor the performance of the police in carrying out"—
      various duties—
      "to make arrangements for obtaining … the views … and … co-operation of the public … to act as a general forum for discussion and consultation".
      All those powers are in the Act.
      Under the heading "District policing partnership sub-groups for Belfast", paragraph five of new schedule 2 states:
      "The functions of each sub-group shall be";
      then quotes verbatim from the 2000 Act. The sub-groups will have the same powers and functions as the DPP. They will have
      "to provide views to the district commander … monitor the performance of the police … make arrangements for obtaining … the views of the public … and … the co-operation of the public … to act as a general forum"—
      and so on. There is no question but that all the substantive powers of the DPP in Belfast will be devolved to the sub-groups. Now those will become the functions and powers of the sub-groups. They will provide views to the district commander, monitor the performance of the police, make arrangements for obtaining the views of the public and their co-operation and act as a general forum, and so on. So there is no question at all but that all the substantive powers—every one of them—of the DPP in Belfast will be devolved to the sub-groups.
      The one function or role in life that I can find that remains with the DPP in Belfast is that of making a report to the Policing Board on behalf of Belfast, depending on the reports that it receives from the individual sub-groups, so heaven knows what the DPP will do when it meets once a month. A meeting once a year to consider the reports from the sub-groups, rubber stamp them and pass them on to the Policing Board would be entirely adequate in practice. The DPP in Belfast exists purely for form; the substance has been handed down to the sub-groups. There is no doubt about that at all.
      Mr. John Bercow: The Government's proposal is deplorable and should be rejected by the House. If, however, it is not rejected and if the Minister is so confident that emasculation of the kind that my hon. Friend predicts will not transpire, would she not show confidence in her position if she were to agree to the insertion of a sunset clause that would require the Government to return to justify their position in, perhaps, 12 months' time?
      Mr. Davies: Indeed, that is an attractive proposal, but in fact I notice that the hon. Lady, who is always very quick to jump to her feet to intervene when she feels that

      387
      she may be able to correct something that I have said, is staying spectacularly seated and pretending not even to listen to me, reading her papers, because she knows that I have accurately described the situation. Whereas the original sub-groups had only a very modest role—merely providing views was all that they were supposed to do—now, under the Bill, they will take over all the powers of the DPP itself. That is one thing that we have established.
      David Burnside: Does the hon. Gentleman, understanding the reality of the political complexion of West Belfast, agree with my description of the sub-group? Does he agree that, if Sinn Fein comes on to that sub-group, it will be used as a platform to undermine, operationally and symbolically, the performance of the police in west Belfast? It will be used for propaganda against policing from within the sub-group, and it will be divisive of the community not only in Belfast, but across Northern Ireland.
      Mr. Davies: I fear that the hon. Gentleman is all too right. I started with the small transgression, the less worrying feature of the Government's proposal: the emasculation of the DPPs. We have established that point. I was coming to the second effect of the new clause and new schedule if they are allowed to pass on to the statute book, which is very serious indeed. It has already been trailed very effectively by the hon. Member for South Antrim (David Burnside), and it is the politicisation of the police in north Belfast.
      Such politicisation of the police would very seriously concern hon. Members wherever in the United Kingdom it was threatened, but it is extremely troubling when it is threatened in a place that has been as troubled as Belfast, with the prospect of Sinn Fein achieving a dominance of the sub-groups in west Belfast and an undue influence over policing, exactly as the hon. Gentleman has just said.
      When one hears that that concession is now being made in the absence of any progress by Sinn Fein-IRA and in the very week when Sinn Fein-IRA have apparently been revealed, once again, to be in substantial breach of their obligations under the ceasefire, one has to wonder about the rationality of the people who are charged with the peace process. That is more a criticism of the Prime Minister, who takes the lead and the essential, strategic decisions on such matters, and it would not be fair to make that a direct criticism of the hon. Lady herself.
      6.30 pm
      Let me move on to the way in which these measures would politicise policing. I have already read out the powers that the sub-groups are now taking over, which are considerable: not merely providing an opinion to the commander but monitoring the performance of the police. That will have a considerable influence on policing right away: the reins will be held by the sub-groups to a considerable degree. Under the new schedule, the sub-groups can
      "make arrangements for obtaining the views of the public … and the co-operation of the public",
      which is quite sinister. With paramilitary organisations such as Sinn Fein-IRA already embedded in parts of Belfast, the community is frightened of them. They have
      388
      an effective structure of authority in many parts of the city where there has always been great resistance to the writ of the Government or of the police force. As they have a majority—probably an overwhelming majority—on some of these sub-groups, they will be responsible for obtaining the views and co-operation of the public.
      Those sub-groups are therefore being given, basically, a mandate to orchestrate and deliver so-called public opinion about policing in Belfast. Those are very considerable powers, which we are handing over to people who, in many cases, will have a criminal record, even though, if the Government's proposals go through, they will not have had a conviction in the past five years. Many of those convictions, however, will relate to terrorist activities, and many of them to murder. Anyone who knows the republican organisation in Belfast knows that it is highly disciplined, very hierarchical and, what is more, people have a lifetime relationship with it. They may have had convictions, been to jail, and been released by the Government in 1998, but they are still part of, and known to be part of, the organisation and the structure by local people. They are now being given a status whereby the police are basically reporting to them.
      It is an extraordinary state of affairs that we are creating in part of the United Kingdom. It would be an extraordinary state of affairs if it were part and parcel of the peace process, and, as I said, if it really were part and parcel of the completion of the peace process, and of a comprehensive and definitive settlement involving 100 per cent. decommissioning and disbandment, and the permanent setting aside of the gun and explosive as part of public life in Northern Ireland, we might pay a high price for that. The Opposition would not exclude some major moves that, in principle, would appear to be completely out of the question. In such circumstances, however, we might see our way to taking part in them. To propose these measures at the present time, however, and to bring them halfway or three quarters of the way forward, subject only to a completely inadequate statutory instrument arrangement, cannot possibly be justified. It is a bad day for the peace process and for the prospects of good policing in Northern Ireland.
      I want to refer briefly to the conditionality, the commencement order and the statutory instrument procedure that the Government have proposed. The Secretary of State left the Chamber a few moments ago, perhaps having convinced himself that he had offered the House a major concession by saying that any discussion of a statutory instrument to bring these powers into effect would take place on the Floor of the House rather than in Standing Committee. Of course, it is desirable that such important matters should be debated on the Floor of the House; I am not suggesting otherwise. All that we are being offered, however, is a debate and a vote, and we have no chance whatever of going back on the substance of what we are agreeing this evening: no amendments or new clauses will be entertained.
      The Government have a vast majority, as we know, and they probably feel that they can put through anything that they want, any day of the week. What we are being offered is a farce. We will be told, "Oh well, no decision has been taken, and you can have your discussion on the Floor of the House." When we have

      389
      that debate on the Floor of the House, some of us may still find many of the concessions entirely unacceptable. Although we may be able to agree certain moves, that depends on what has happened on the other side. In particular, it depends on what Sinn Fein-IRA have done in the meantime. We will have no chance to look at that again. The package will have been wrapped up with sealing wax on its string. We will not be able to unwrap it and the Government, with their vast majority, will simply decide to dispatch it to Sinn Fein-IRA. That is not satisfactory at all. I do not want to leave any doubt in the minds of all hon. Members or those in another place that the substantive decision is regrettably being taken this evening, although it should not be for all the reasons that I mentioned.
      If the measure were rejected this evening, we would send a message to Sinn Fein-IRA. They are incredibly well organised and would consider carefully what had been said to explain such a dramatic change of events. They would understand that no hon. Member had rejected the peace process, but that a peace process must be and, perhaps, can only be two-sided and reciprocal. Each side must make corresponding moves. There is no justification for us to move forward unilaterally or for this House to take a different view on the measures than it did in November. If it was considered reasonable to publish them then and to put them on one side, with a view to returning to them after progress had been made on the peace process, it must be right to do that now.
      There has been no progress whatsoever on the peace process since November. The Minister might hope for progress soon, and I have no doubt that she has been hoping for progress for the past five years, but in fact there has been regress for much of the time. There is no conceivable justification for why events in Northern Ireland should change the Government's stance on the measures from that in November. We should leave them exactly as they were: published, and on the table to consider after substantial progress has been made in Northern Ireland. However, for the moment, we should decisively reject them.
      Mr. Mallon: It would be unfair to take the Minister to task, because Belfast is a difficult city. I appreciate her problem. Part of it lies in the difficulty of devising a relationship and an organisation that will be capable of the takeover that the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) described. That is why it would be unfair to blame the Minister in any way—Belfast just happens to be a very difficult place.
      There was a difficult situation in a part of Belfast when I was in office. With all the contacts of Government and all the influence of office, we could not deal with it without actually going to visit the people to whom the hon. Gentleman referred: members of paramilitary groupings. I shall go a little further if we are going to be honest: we facilitated meetings of members of the republican movement and loyalist paramilitary groupings to try to resolve the matter. If the devolved Administration in the north of Ireland faced such a problem, will it not also be faced by the present Government in the north of Ireland?
      390
      If we are going to debate the matter, let us at least be honest. There are parts of Belfast in which no Government, police service or wing of the security services will be able to deliver what is needed. For that reason alone, there is great merit in the proposal to get people involved in a DPP sub-group. Yes, there are substantial risks, but there are risks in everything that we are doing in the peace or political process, whichever we wish to call it. The reality is that Belfast is a difficult place, and continuing demographic changes have made it even more difficult. There is not going to be the nice pat symmetrical arrangement for DPPs that there will be in most other places in the north of Ireland. Hence the difficulty in arriving at proposals that will have substantial built-in protection against takeovers by any paramilitary grouping.
      I fully accept that this is, as the Minister would readily admit, a difficult one to explain. However, if we are trying to respond to needs, we must realise that they go beyond the semantics of our self-righteousness, as we speak from the safety of the green Benches.
      David Burnside: Is not the demographic shape of Belfast—the fact that west Belfast is Catholic and nationalist-and—the demographic make-up of the greater city of Belfast, with the split between Protestant and Catholic, and Unionist and nationalist communities, the strongest argument for a unitary policing institution covering the whole city? Do not the demography and the breakdown of the community argue for one such institution rather than four?
      Mr. Mallon: I am not arguing for either. May I make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that I support the Government on this because I know from experience that there must be involvement on the ground by people who were members of paramilitary groupings if we are to get stability in places like Belfast? That may not be what people want to hear or face up to, but it is the reality. I repeat, I have personal experience of not being able to do anything about a security situation in part of Belfast. That situation was flashed across the world to the discredit of the whole of the north of Ireland, and the only recourse was to enlist the help of both loyalist and republican paramilitaries.
      If we start from that basis, some of our attitudes may change a little. It is easy to feel self-righteous here, in the comfort of our own situation. It would not have been easy to be self-righteous in parts of east or north Belfast last year, and those who would put their own sense of self-righteousness before the safety of people in those areas should think again. I know that that is not what is being suggested, but I am trying to explain that experience tells us that there is a difficult problem that is not going to be resolved easily. There is not going to be any nice, neat, little piece of legislation that will achieve that in relation to either DPPs or sub-groups.
      Mr. Dodds: From what the hon. Gentleman is saying, it appears that he is advocating the membership by paramilitaries of the sub-groups in Belfast, if not DPPs more widely. Will it not reinforce the fears of many ordinary people who have lived for years under the heel of those paramilitaries in parts of Belfast if they hear an hon. Member saying that it would be a good thing for paramilitaries to serve on a body that is supposed to monitor and oversee the functions of the police?
      6.45 pm
      Mr. Mallon: In a contradictory way, yes. I want to see those who were involved in paramilitary violence not just on sub-groups, but on DPPs and policing boards. If we do not work towards that, and if we cannot arrange and deliver that in the coming period, we will have a gaping hole in the middle of what we are trying to achieve in the political process. Let us take it a step further, and let us see how harsh the questions are that we have to answer.
      There will be proposals, whenever they come, before the House in relation to the devolution of powers and responsibility for policing and justice. They will come before the House. They will be brought forward by a Government, and by and large it is those sitting in the Chamber tonight who will vote on them. What that means, in essence, is that the positions within the devolved Executive and the devolved arrangements are open to those who have paramilitary backgrounds, both loyalist and republican. It is not a nice, easy world that we live in, and there is no nice, easy, pat answer that the Minister or anybody else can give us on the matter tonight.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: The hon. Gentleman is correct. We are at stage 1 on the ground, but there are stages 2 and 3 to come. Today's papers tell us what the IRA is. Mr. Adams and his friend say that they will soon be in charge of the courts and the police in the devolved Government—that is right on the front of the newspapers—and they congratulate the Prime Minister. They have every confidence that even though there is a war on in Iraq, he will see them through.
      Mr. Mallon: I cannot speak, nor would I purport to speak, on behalf of the Prime Minister, but I know that when matters start to resolve themselves, the issue will come to the Floor of the House, just as it has tonight. There will be no easy way of dealing with it then, any more than there is an easy way of dealing with it tonight. I want to focus on the need that exists in a place like Belfast, but if west Belfast were not west Belfast, I wonder whether there would be the same reaction to the proposal.
      The hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) asked me a question. I ask him to think about what made west Belfast demographically, physically and politically. It might be a question worth asking. If the answer to it is honestly faced, we may start together to face the problems that we have. Yes, there will be people with paramilitary backgrounds sitting on the sub-groups and on the DPPs. There will be people from republican paramilitary groups and people from loyalist paramilitary groupings sitting on those organisations. There will be the colleagues of those in the IRA who killed people in the north of Ireland, and there will be the colleagues of those whom we have seen operating in loyalist parts of Belfast sitting on those groupings.
      The answer is not going to lie there, however; it will lie in the courage of people generally in Belfast, who will themselves impose their requirements. There are brave people in the north of Ireland who will not let themselves be pushed about, whether in west Belfast or anywhere else, as is being suggested. That is where the future lies, but let us not fool ourselves that there is some easy way
      392
      around the situation or that it can be sanitised so as to become entirely different. We cannot do that and the more we try to do so, the more our thinking becomes counterproductive.
      Mr. Trimble: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I agree that there is no easy way of dealing with these matters, but his exposition of the situation as he saw it might have been helped if he had been clearer about using the past tense in referring to people with various backgrounds. The situations that are envisaged will come about only if those with paramilitary backgrounds have clearly given up their activities, if the paramilitaries are no more, if we are operating in a context in which that is clearly in the past and if we have the safeguard of people who will monitor and apply remedies and sanctions should that become necessary.
      Mr. Mallon: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for making that point. Of course, that is the type of world in which we would like to live and which we want. Things would be a lot easier in such a world, but we have yet to get there. We must do so on the basis of a reality that he recognises. I am glad that he recognises it and I praise him for doing so. It is much too easy for all of us to hide behind our own self-righteousness at times, for want of a better word. It is much more difficult to stare reality in the face and see how we can deal with it.
      It is for that reason that I shall support the Government new clause. I shall do so not because I think it a work of art—I do not—nor because any work of art is available in dealing with the problem, but because it is an honest attempt to deal with that problem, in a very difficult city, in a way that is inclusive and that holds out a prospect, hope and confidence that, somehow or other, with people on the ground working together, an Administration of Northern Ireland working with them and the proposed structures in between, we can change the face of Belfast and other places.
      It is much too easy to say that the difficulties are too great, that there are nasty people out there and that we do not want to have much to do with them. It is the reality for us as politicians and legislators that we must recognise the difficulties and assume the type of courage that is needed to try to deal with them. It is for that reason, not because the new clause is a legislative gem, but because it is an honest way of dealing with the issue, that I shall support the Government on this issue.
      Mr. Trimble: Time is getting on and we want to get on to the next group of amendments, so I shall try to confine my comments to a few salient points.
      The Minister was remarkably frank and I was glad that one word was absent from her contribution and indeed those of some other hon. Members—the word "Patten". What we are dealing with tonight has no sanction at all in the Patten report. The report referred to four sub-groups in Belfast, but nowhere did it say that those four groups should exercise the entire functions of the district policing partnership. The original provisions in the 2000 Act were a reasonable interpretation of the half sentence in the Patten report that dealt with that issue. The amendments clothe the sub-groups with all the essential functions of district policing partnerships and thereby marginalise the DPP. That has no warrant

      393
      in Patten. It should go on record that the Government are introducing the new clause at the insistence of Sinn Fein, that they are supported by the SDLP, which claims that it wants the Patten report to be fully implemented, and that there is no such provision in Patten. The new clause is not consistent with Patten. That is the first key point.
      The second main point is balkanisation. I appreciate that the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) had to leave the Chamber, but I was greatly disappointed by his contribution on the new clause. On other matters, he and his party are great advocates of partnership, which runs through the agreement and the legislation that the Government have introduced in the past few years. However, the Government have abandoned partnership on the subject of our discussion, and that is worrying. My hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim (David Burnside) was right to say that if we want a partnership-based approach in Belfast, there should be a single DPP for the city. It should not be split into four groups.
      We have mainly discussed west Belfast, but the same problem will arise in east Belfast, where the demography is overwhelmingly Protestant and Unionist. In a way, west Belfast and east Belfast are mirror images. There should be no "Bantustanisation" of the city. The Government should be ashamed of themselves. They have introduced the new clause purely on Sinn Fein's insistence, because that party wants to dominate the sub-group in west Belfast and thereby control policing in the area. The Government have gone out of their way to assist them through designing the sub-group. The composition provides that the independent members must be representative of the sub-group area. That means that in west Belfast, the independent members will be overwhelmingly nationalist and republican and in east Belfast, overwhelmingly Unionist. The political appointees have to be balanced only on the council as a whole. That opens the door to domination of west Belfast by people from one side of the House and that of east Belfast by those from the other.
      The safeguard to which the Minister referred is no safeguard. It applies only in so far as it is practicable. If the Minister considers it, she will realise that there are ways in which Sinn Fein could make matters impracticable—for example, by making life miserable for people. As has been said, it would be a chairmanship from hell for a Unionist in west Belfast, but I do not believe that the converse would be true in east Belfast. A value judgment must be made.
      I have outlined the salient points. The new clause is not good in principle. It departs from the spirit of the agreement and the arrangements that the Government support. That has been done at Sinn Fein's insistence to advance its ulterior purpose. I would not be surprised if the Government were back here in a year or two to unscramble the mess that they are creating now.
      Mr. Carmichael: I, too, shall try to be brief, but as the term is understood in Upper Bann rather than in Newry.
      I am profoundly unhappy and ill at ease with new clause 14. However, I shall not vote against it; the Liberal Democrats will abstain for two reasons. First,
      394
      we accept that its genesis is in Patten, although I accept that the comments of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) have a great deal of force. Secondly, I am persuaded by the arguments of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) about the practicalities. I hope that the provision will wither on the vine in time. If the normalisation that we keep discussing means anything, Belfast will eventually have a single district policing partnership. It is always best to go with the natural community, which is Belfast in the case that we are considering. One encounters immense difficulties when one starts drawing lines to divvy up a natural community.
      7 pm
      I have a tremendous amount of respect for the Minister, as I think she knows. As the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) said in his typically understated way, however, her speech was very revealing. I ask her to reflect on one of her sentences in particular, of which I took note, which was, "I think I'm being as honest as I can be with the House". I appreciate that it is not always easy for politicians to be honest, but we are all hon. and right hon. Members in the House. The Minister went on to say, quite fairly, that this measure was a concession that was being given to Sinn Fein. I have to say that that adds further to my unease. What is in it for Sinn Fein? It is apparent from our discussions about the situation in west Belfast exactly what is in it for them.
      That goes back to the point made by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann and by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) about the balkanisation of Belfast. That was an appropriate term in many ways. I see this as a measure that will ultimately lead to the entrenchment of tribalism, instead of getting away from the situation that has pertained in the past. In an earlier intervention on the Minister, I referred to Belfast city council. It is apparent that people are able to work well together there. Why should it be different for the district policing partnership?
      I am afraid that I simply do not understand the logic of the Government's position. I can see that there would be an operational benefit for the police to have a divisional structure—that is a given. I do not understand, however, why an entirely pragmatic operational matter should be translated into a much wider aspect of policy, which is properly the reserve of the district policing partnership. They have very different functions. We should be looking for balanced, normal treatment of all the communities in Belfast, and I would ultimately like to see a Belfast-wide board forming the basis for that. I do not understand the logic of having a mechanism for taking consultation and responsibility for policing closer to the community while establishing another artificial mechanism that would result in the DPP not being perfectly—or even substantially—representative. As things stand, the different divisions are not cross-community.
      I am impressed with the Conservative amendment. There would be a great deal of benefit in putting some measure of control into the hands of Belfast city council. If, between now and the Bill going to the other place, the Government were able to find a means of achieving that

      395
      end, I would be minded to recommend these measures rather more warmly to my colleagues in the other place than I am tonight.
      Mr. Dodds: I have listened to the Minister attempting to explain how the sub-groups are going to be created, how the chairmen and vice-chairmen are going to be appointed, and how the matrix will be devised to ensure that it all complies with the legal requirements. As a member of Belfast city council—I declare that interest —I have enormous sympathy with the official who is going to have to sit down and work all this out. Towards the end of her speech, the Minister said that she thought that these were very practical proposals, but I have not heard more impractical proposals about setting up bodies such as these in a very long time. It is clear that there is no real logic behind them; they have a political purpose. The Minister let the cat out of the bag by saying that she was being as honest as she could be. In so doing, she admitted that Sinn Fein pushed for the proposals at Weston Park. The SDLP did not push so much, but it certainly supported them.
      The fact is that when the proposals were published as part of a text for consideration back in November, my party made it clear that we would oppose them. Other parties made that clear as well, and members of the Policing Board made their position fairly clear. I had the opportunity to speak to members of the Belfast DPP at a meeting in my constituency only last Thursday night, and I have to tell the Minister that they think that the idea of setting up four sub-groups is, to put it mildly, not a sensible or practical way forward. They are worried about the dissipation of energy and focus that the Belfast policing partnership would otherwise have.
      Apart from Sinn Fein—the SDLP has gone along with the proposals—who else in Northern Ireland believes them to he either sensible or practical? I cannot understand why the Minister and the Government are not prepared, on that particular issue, to say, "Let the Belfast DPP get up and running for a while to see what it thinks, or let the city council have the final say."
      Although the DPP has just been created—it has had only one meeting thus far, I think—here we have the Government immediately stepping in to introduce legislation making it mandatory for the council to set up the sub-groups, which will, more or less, have the powers of DPPs. There is no sense whatever in that. It runs counter to every principle that one would imagine the Government wanting to apply in relation to consultation and taking on board the views of those who have gone through the process of applying and being appointed to the Belfast DPP.
      The Minister touched on some Belfast DPP members having to serve on one or perhaps two sub-groups, in addition to being members of the full partnership. Clearly, an onerous burden will be placed on those members, given that they must also attend many community and other meetings throughout the year. Frankly, it will be an onerous task for anyone to undertake that range of duties and carry them out satisfactorily, especially councillors, who have other duties to undertake and other meetings to attend.
      The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) talked about the difficult situation in Belfast. Of course, we all recognise that there are difficulties in the
      396
      city. Representing Belfast, North, I know that better than most. I acknowledge some of the issues that the hon. Gentleman referred to, but I do not agree that breaking down the responsibility for overseeing and monitoring policing into four sub-groups is the way to tackle those difficulties. They would be better managed and less exacerbated by keeping things in an overall, city-wide DPP with a balance across council representation and across independent members, rather than breaking them down into local areas.
      Clearly, in west Belfast and, on the other side, in east Belfast, one view will be preponderant. Take my area, north Belfast: the proposals could be a recipe for some pretty stormy meetings, to put it mildly.
      Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman giving way. Will he accept it from south Belfast and other parts of the city that one board for Belfast is ideal? When we raise issues of policing in south Belfast, we are told, "We do not have the manpower because they are all up in north Belfast."
      Mr. Dodds: I recognise what the hon. Gentleman says, and he is quite right. The same is said to me frequently about the policing resources that are required—unfortunately in some circumstances—to deal with the situation on the ground. Thankfully, in recent times there have not been the same demands.
      The hon. Gentleman is right, in that while an argument can be advanced in favour of local accountability, district commanders in Belfast—I often talk to the one in north Belfast—tend to say that the issues involved are not for them, but for the Assistant Chief Constable. If I, as an elected representative, want more resources or want to change policing arrangements, I would do better to consult those whose control relates to the city of Belfast, rather than concentrating on the area in which I have an interest. The same must apply to other Members.
      The fact remains that had not Sinn Fein wanted to chalk up another success in terms of their control, or their wish to be seen to be in control, of the west Belfast sub-group, there would have been no question of the proposals that we are discussing.
      Limbit Öpik: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern, but does he accept that for some of us the issue is not so much the possibility of Sinn Fein's seeing this as a victory as the sheer complexity of the Government's proposals? If this were a good idea it would not matter for whom it was intended, but it looks to me like the administrative nightmare that the hon. Gentleman has described.
      Mr. Dodds: I have already mentioned the administrative nightmare caused by the practical complexities of this set-up. It cannot have been based on any sound functional argument; it must have been proposed for political reasons.
      Mr. Quentin Davies: Is not one of the great advantages of a real, effective Belfast-wide DPP the fact that it would force people from different communities to work together? If they did not, the whole process would be paralysed. Such a DPP would encourage closer, more

      397
      effective working relationships between communities. The division and fragmentation proposed by the Government, however, are bound to make people feel that, where they have a preponderant majority, they have their own fiefdom—and does not the requirement for representatives of the community in the sub-group's police district to reflect the predominant political group reinforce that unfortunate tendency?
      Mr. Dodds: I agree. It would obviously be easier for people to work together in a Belfast-wide group because there will be an overall balance that would not exist in the sub-groups.
      Like the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), the hon. Gentleman mentioned the discrepancy in new schedule 3A between the provisions relating to political members and those relating to independent members. That makes it impossible in, for example, west Belfast for Sinn Fein and their supporters not to have a massive majority in the sub-group. Paragraph 3 of the proposed new schedule 3A says that it should be ensured that
      "the political members of all the sub-groups, taken together, reflect the balance of parties prevailing among the members of the council".
      Requiring each sub-group to reflect that balance would provide a wider balance of political representation. Paragraph 4 (2), in contrast, states:
      "In appointing independent members of a sub-group the Board shall so far as practicable secure that the members of the sub-group … are representative of the community in the sub-group's police district."
      In that instance, the requirement applies to only one sub-group.
      An inevitable and inexorable outcome of the Government's proposals will be sub-groups—certainly that in west Belfast—with a massive preponderance of republican members. That certainly seems to be the intention of the Bill—and the Minister has said that the reason for it, subject to a commencement order, is that it was one of Sinn Fein's demands at Weston Park.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: Does my hon. Friend agree that because of the community groups from which most of these independents are drawn, these sub-groups are controlled by paramilitaries—in both Protestant and Roman Catholic areas? So although such people may not be elected members of a political party, they certainly have a political agenda.
      Mr. Dodds: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. It is true that in certain areas and among a certain type of community, some groups include people with paramilitary backgrounds. Indeed, the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh recognised the situation clearly, and spoke in terms that will reinforce the opposition expressed by many of us on these Benches, and by people in Northern Ireland at large. What will happen if these boards and sub-groups are set up in the way that is planned? The hon. Gentleman pointed out that they will consist of members of loyalist and republican paramilitary organisations. That will send a real shiver of fear down the spines of many decent, law-abiding people in Northern Ireland who,
      398
      having witnessed the emasculation of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and police numbers decline continuously, are now being told that members of paramilitary organisations will be in charge of monitoring the police and calling them to account. What could be a clearer way of saying to the people of Northern Ireland that the sub-group arrangement to which the hon. Gentleman referred is precisely the road that we should not go down? What he said reflects the reality.
      7.15 pm
      The right hon. Member for Upper Bann said that in the new situation, such things will be in the past and people will have changed, but the reality is that such people could be members of these sub-groups within a very short time. We will have to take their word for it that they have changed. We should remember that these same people were in the Government of Northern Ireland. Sinn Fein were actually in the Government of Northern Ireland—never mind in the policing partnerships. Yet they were quite prepared to continue importing arms, racketeering, intimidating, carrying out murders, and organising spy-rings at the very heart of government. So how are we supposed suddenly to accept Sinn Fein on the policing partnerships, and to accept that then, everything will be all right, as the result of so-called acts of completion, which, as we know, will amount to more statements and more stunts from the IRA?
      I have to say that I find very naïve the Minister's view that if Sinn Fein members join the Policing Board and the policing partnerships, there will be a completely different attitude, and in the community at large there will be no more attacks on the police, and so forth. As I have said, Sinn Fein's joining the Government of Northern Ireland did not prevent its members from trying to undermine the Government from within, or from importing the materiel of terrorist armoury in order to carry out physical attacks on property and lives, and on the people of Northern Ireland.
      Lady Hermon: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that if Sinn Fein were to join the Policing Board, his DUP colleagues who are currently members of it will actually leave?
      Mr. Dodds: Of course, that is exactly the position and policy of the hon. Lady's party, although she may not agree with it and I should be interested to hear her views. As things stand, if Sinn Fein join the Policing Board and the Ulster Unionist party stands by its policy as set out in a recent UUP council meeting, there will be no Unionists on the Policing Board. One of the paradoxes of this situation is that although so much has been done to bring Sinn Fein-IRA on to the Policing Board and on to district policing partnerships, nothing has been done to take account of the fact that in so doing, the current position could be wrecked. At the moment, according to the Minister and others, there is a good working relationship on the Policing Board, and from what we can tell thus far, a good start has been made to many of the DPPs in local areas.
      I end by taking this opportunity to pay tribute to the work of community police liaison committees in Belfast. I attended one such meeting just last week, and earlier

      399
      this week I was able to bring a delegation from one of the CPLCs in my constituency to meet the Minister. It was a productive and useful meeting.
      Over the past three decades, those people have carried out their work dutifully despite intimidation. They have done enormous work in their attempts to create better conditions for local people and the police. They have built good relations between their communities and the police, often at great personal risk to themselves. We should not forget their contribution, which deserves our congratulations. I hope that, in the new environment, there will be a continuing role for CPLCs in Belfast and throughout the Province.
      Finally, it seems that former senior and distinguished members of the police—of the RUC and the PSNI—are unable to gain membership of DPPs in Belfast and elsewhere. They are turned down and not considered suitable for appointment, but it appears from today's debate that the Government consider paramilitaries and people with serious convictions—even those convicted of murder—to be more than suitable. If the Bill is passed, the Minister will be opening the gates to allowing that sort of representation on policing boards, and that will go down very badly throughout Northern Ireland.
      Jane Kennedy: Belfast sub-groups were always going to be established. The Bill extends their powers, but section 21 of the Terrorism Act 2000 requires the council to set them up. The Belfast DPP has met twice already. It has made recommendations and begun to consider the work of the sub-groups. We are not debating a choice between a single DPP with no sub-groups, and a DPP with sub-groups. That is not what we are considering today.
      Various hon. Members have contributed to the debate, including the hon. Members for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) and for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael), and the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). They questioned the politicisation of policing that they fear may take place, and the word "balkanisation" was used several times.
      The sub-groups in west Belfast and east Belfast will have at least one representative from each of the four largest political parties on the council. Based on the current electoral strength, that means that there would be at least two unionists. That is not ideal, and neither is it a whole answer to the concerns that have been expressed. However, it means that there will be representation, from across the Belfast community, on each of the sub-groups. I do not accept that that will necessarily politicise policing. It will not, if the sub-group members take their responsibilities seriously.
      The hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds) charges me with naivety when I talk about the transformation of the atmosphere in which the police in Northern Ireland would find themselves if Sinn Fein were to support the new arrangements for policing—as everyone is demanding and requiring it to do. I do not believe that it is naïve to expect republicans to encourage young men and women from their communities to embrace policing as a career. That is something that we should demand from the republican movement. I also believe that we should demand that members of the republican movement encourage their communities to
      400
      co-operate with police investigations into criminal activity in republican neighbourhoods. It is not naïve to hope that that will happen. We should demand and expect that those changes come about.
      On whether the measure would emasculate the DPP in Belfast, that partnership will retain responsibility for oversight of the sub-groups' work. Moreover, it will retain an important strategic city-wide role that cannot be undermined. This creates the right balance between a strategic overview of the largest local council area in Northern Ireland and proper attention to local details within each operational police district.
      I draw the House's attention to the real changes that have taken place between the texts as they were first published for our consideration and the form in which they appear before us today. Each new clause contains the guarantee that this will not come into force unless it is by order made by the Secretary of State, and we have talked about the arrangements that we will make in terms of the procedures of this House in order to enable that to happen. That is a significant new addition to the texts, and it underpins our insistence that none of the changes will take place unless and until we consider them in the context of the acts of completion that we are all looking, and expecting, to see.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 299, Noes 126.

      Division No.141]

      [7:26 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

      Casale, Roger

      Ainger, Nick

      Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Challen, Colin

      Alexander, Douglas

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Allen, Graham

      Clapham, Michael

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

      Austin, John

      Bailey, Adrian

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Baird, Vera

      Coaker, Vernon

      Barron, rh Kevin

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Battle, John

      Coleman, Iain

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Connarty, Michael

      Berry, Roger

      Cooper, Yvette

      Blackman, Liz

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Corston, Jean

      Blizzard, Bob

      Cousins, Jim

      Borrow, David

      Cranston, Ross

      Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

      Crausby, David

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Cruddas, Jon

      Bradshaw Ben

      Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

      Brennan, Kevin

      Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

      Brown, rh Gordon (Dunfermline E)

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

      Davidson, Ian

      Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

      Bryant, Chris

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Burden, Richard

      Davis, rh Terry (B ham Hodge H)

      Burgon, Colin

      Dawson, Hilton

      Burnham, Andy

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Burstow, Paul

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Byers, rh Stephen

      Dismore, Andrew

      Caborn, rh Richard

      Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

      Cairns, David

      Dobson, rh Frank

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Doran, Frank

      401

      Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

      Drew, David (Stroud)

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Knight Jim (S Dorset)

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      Edwards, Huw

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Efford, Clive

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Lepper, David

      Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

      Leslie, Christopher

      Etherington, Bill

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Ewing, Annabelle

      Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

      Fisher, Mark

      Linton, Martin

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

      Flint, Caroline

      Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

      Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

      Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

      Follett, Barbara

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Foster, rh Derek

      McCabe, Stephen

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      McCafferty, Chris

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

      McCartney, rh Ian

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      George, Andrew (St. Ives)

      MacDonald, Calum

      George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

      McDonnell, John

      Gerrard, Neil

      MacDougall, John

      Gilroy, Linda

      McFall, John

      Godsiff, Roger

      McIsaac, Shona

      Goggins, Paul

      McKechin, Ann

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      McNulty, Tony

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      MacShane, Denis

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      McWalter, Tony

      Hanson, David

      McWilliam, John

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Mallaber, Judy

      Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

      Mallon, Seamus

      Healey, John

      Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Hendrick, Mark

      Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Heppell, John

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Hesford, Stephen

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Heyes, David

      Martlew, Eric

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

      Hinchliffe, David

      Merron, Gillian

      Hodge, Margaret

      Miliband, David

      Hope, Phil (Corby)

      Miller, Andrew

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Moffatt, Laura

      Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

      Moonie, Dr. Lewis

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

      Morgan, Julie

      Morley, Elliot

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

      Morris, rh Estelle

      Mountford, Kali

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Mudie, George

      Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

      Mullin, Chris

      Hutton, rh John

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Iddon, Dr. Brian

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Illsley, Eric

      Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

      Naysmith, Dr. Doug

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Olner, Bill

      Jamieson, David

      O'Neill, Martin

      Jenkins, Brian

      Organ, Diana

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Owen, Albert

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Palmer, Dr. Nick

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Kaufman, rh Gerald

      Pike, Peter (Burnley)

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Plaskitt, James

      Keen, Alan (Feltham)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Keen, Ann (Brentford)

      Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

      Kidney, David

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      King, Andy (Rugby)

      Prescott, rh John

      402

      Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Stoate, Dr. Howard

      Primarolo, rh Dawn

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Tami, Mark (Alyn)

      Purchase, Ken

      Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

      Purnell, James

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Quin, rh Joyce

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

      Raynsford, rh Nick

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Tipping, Paddy

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

      Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

      Trickett, Jon

      Robertson, ,John (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Truswell, Paul

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

      Rooney, Terry

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Ruarie, Chris

      Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Vis, Dr. Rudi

      Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Salmond, Alex

      Ward, Claire

      Salter, Martin

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Watts, David

      Sawford, Phil

      Weir, Michael

      Sedgemore. Brian

      White, Brian

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      Sheridan, Jim

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

      Simon, Siôon (B'ham Erdington)

      Williams, Betty (Conwy)

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

      Singh, Marsha

      Winnick, David

      Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

      Wishart, Pete

      Wood, Mike (Batley)

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Woodward, Shaun

      Woolas, Phil

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Wray, James (Glasgow Baillieston)

      Soley, Clive

      Southworth, Helen

      Wright Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

      Speller, rh John

      Squire, Rachel

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Stevenson, George

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

      Mr. Ivor Caplin and

      Dan Norris

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Dodds, Nigel

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

      Bacon, Richard

      Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

      Barker, Gregory

      Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

      Baron, John (Billericay)

      Fabricant, Michael

      Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

      Fallon, Michael

      Bellingham, Henry

      Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

      Boswell, Tim

      Brady, Graham

      Flight Howard

      Brazier, Julian

      Flook, Adrian

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Forth, rh Eric

      Burns, Simon

      Fox, Dr. Liam

      Burnside, David

      George, Andrew (St. Ives)

      Burstow, Paul

      Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

      Cameron, David

      Gillen, Mrs Cheryl

      Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

      Gray, James (N Wilts)

      Cash, William

      Grayling, Chris

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Greenway, John

      Chope, Christopher

      Grieve, Dominic

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Gummer, rh John

      Collins, Tim

      Hague, rh William

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

      Hammond, Philip

      Hawkins, Nick

      Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

      Hayes, John (S Holland)

      Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

      403

      Hendry, Charles

      Pickles, Eric

      Hermon, Lady

      Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

      Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

      Robathan, Andrew

      Hogg, rh Douglas

      Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

      Horam, John (Orpington)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

      Jack, rh Michael

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Johnson, Boris (Henley)

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Key, Robert (Salisbury)

      Ruffley, David

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

      Selous, Andrew

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

      Lansley, Andrew

      Shepherd, Richard

      Laws, David (Yeovil)

      Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

      Leigh, Edward

      Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

      Letwin, rh Oliver

      Soames, Nicholas

      Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

      Lidington, David

      Spring, Richard

      Lilley, rh Peter

      Swayne, Desmond

      Loughton, Tim

      Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

      Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

      Syms, Robert

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Mackay, rh Andrew

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Maclean, rh David

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Maims, Humfrey

      Tredinnick, David

      Maples, John

      Trimble, rh David

      Mates, Michael

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

      Watkinson, Angela

      Mercer, Patrick

      Whittingdale, John

      Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

      Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

      Wiggin, Bill

      Murrison, Dr. Andrew

      Willetts, David

      Norman, Archie

      Wilshire, David

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

      Ottaway, Richard

      Young, rh Sir George

      Page, Richard

      Paice, James

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Paisley, Rev. Ian

      Mr. Laurence Robertson and

      Paterson, Owen

      Mr. Mark Francois

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Schedule 2

      BELFAST No. 2
      1 The Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 (c. 32) is amended as set out in paragraphs 2 to 13.

      2 After section 15 insert—
      "15A Default of council: Belfast subgroups

      (1) If the Secretary of State is satisfied that the district council for Belfast has failed to comply with—

      (a) section 21(1), or

      (b) any provision of Schedule 3A, he may, after consulting the Board, direct the council to take, within such period as is specified in the direction, such action for the purpose of remedying the default as is so specified.

      (2) If the council fails to comply with a direction under subsection (1), the Secretary of State may—

      (a) declare the council to be in default; and

      (b) make an order empowering the Board to exercise the functions of the council to such extent as appears to him necessary or expedient to secure that a subgroup of the council's district policing partnership is established for each police district established under section 20(2).

      (3) An order under subsection (2) may provide for Schedule 3A to have effect in relation to the exercise by the Board of any functions of the council with such modifications as may be specified in the order.

      404

      (4) An order under subsection (2) may confer on the Board power to remove any members of a subgroup of the council's district policing partnership holding office at the date of the order.

      (5) Any costs incurred by the Board under an order under subsection (2) shall in the first instance be defrayed as expenses of the Board, but—

      (a) an amount equal to one quarter of those costs as certified by the Board shall on demand be paid to the Board by the council; and

      (b) any sums demanded under paragraph (a) may be recovered summarily by the Board as a debt.

      (6) A subgroup established in pursuance of an order under subsection (2) shall be treated as having been established under section 21."

      3 In section 17 (annual report by district policing partnership to council) after subsection (1) insert—
      "(1A) Subsection (1) does not apply to the district policing partnership for Belfast."

      4 In section 18 (reports by district policing partnership to Board) after subsection (1) insert—
      "(1A) Subsection (1) does not apply to the district policing partnership for Belfast."

      5 For section 21 substitute—
      "21 District policing partnership subgroups for Belfast

      (1) The district council for Belfast shall establish a subgroup of its district policing partnership for each police district established under section 20(2).

      (2) The functions of each subgroup shall be—

      (a) to provide views to the district commander of the subgroup's police district and to the district policing partnership on any matter concerning the policing of that police district;

      (b) to monitor the performance of the police in carrying out—

      (i) the policing plan in relation to the police district; and

      (ii) the local policing plan applying to the police district;

      (c) to make arrangements for obtaining—

      (i) the views of the public about matters concerning the policing of the police district; and

      (ii) the cooperation of the public with the police in preventing crime;

      (d) to act as a general forum for discussion and consultation on matters affecting the policing of the police district.

      (3) The code issued under section 19 may contain guidance as to the exercise by subgroups of their functions.

      (4) In exercising its functions a subgroup shall have regard to any such guidance contained in the code.

      (5) If the district policing partnership is satisfied that a subgroup is carrying out any of the subgroup's functions in relation to a police district, the partnership is not required to carry out any corresponding function it has in relation to the part of the district comprising the police district.

      (6) Schedule 3A shall have effect in relation to the subgroups."

      6 After section 21 insert—
      "21A Annual report by subgroups to Belfast district policing partnership

      (1) A subgroup established under section 21 shall, not later than 2 months after the end of each financial year, submit to the district policing partnership for Belfast a general report on the exercise of its functions during that year.

      (2) A report under subsection (1) shall include details of the arrangements made under section 21(2)(c).

      (3) Before submitting any report under subsection (1), a subgroup shall consult the district commander of its police district."

      405

      7 After section 21A (inserted by paragraph 6 above) insert—
      "21 B Annual report by Belfast district policing partnership to council

      (1) The district policing partnership for Belfast shall, not later than 4 months after the end of each financial year, submit to the district council for Belfast a general report on the exercise during that year of—

      (a) its functions;

      (b) the functions of the subgroups established under section 21.

      (2) When the district policing partnership submits its report under subsection (1) it shall at the same time—

      (a) send to the council copies of the subgroup reports for the year;

      (b) send copies of its report and the subgroup reports for the year to the Board.

      (3) If the district policing partnership has made arrangements under section 16(1)(c) the report under subsection (1) shall include details of the arrangements.

      (4) Before submitting any report under subsection (1), the district policing partnership shall consult the district commander of each police district in the district of Belfast.

      (5) The district council shall arrange for a report submitted under subsection (1) to be published in such manner as appears to the council to be appropriate.

      (6) The district council may arrange for a subgroup report to be published with the report submitted under subsection (1) if—

      (a) the council considers publication of the subgroup report to be appropriate, or

      (b) the district policing partnership has requested the publication of the subgroup report.

      (7) A "subgroup report" is a report submitted to the district policing partnership under section 21 A."

      8 After section 21 B (inserted by paragraph 7 above) insert—
      "21C Other reports by subgroups to Belfast district policing partnership

      (1) A subgroup established under section 21 shall, whenever so required by the district policing partnership for Belfast, submit to the partnership a report on any matter which is specified in the requirement and is connected with the exercise of its functions.

      (2) A report under this section shall be made—

      (a) in such form as may be specified in the requirement under subsection (1); and

      (b) within the period of 2 months from the date on which that requirement is made, or within such longer period as may be agreed between the subgroup and the partnership.

      (3) The partnership may arrange for a report submitted under this section to be published in such manner as appears to the partnership to be appropriate.

      (4) Subsection (3) does not apply if the partnership has imposed the requirement under subsection (1) to enable it to comply with a requirement imposed on it under section 21D(1)."

      9 After section 21C (inserted by paragraph 8 above) insert—
      "21D Reports by Belfast district policing partnership to Board

      (1) The district policing partnership for Belfast shall, whenever so required by the Board, submit to the Board a report on any matter which is specified in the requirement and is connected with the exercise of—

      (a) its functions, or

      (b) the functions of a subgroup established under section 21.

      (2) A report under this section shall be made—

      (a) in such form as may be specified in the requirement under subsection (1); and

      406

      (b) within the required period or such longer period as may be agreed between the district policing partnership and the Board.

      (3) The required period is—

      (a) 4 months from the date on which the requirement under subsection (1) is made, if the requirement relates wholly or in part to the functions of a subgroup;

      (b) 3 months from the date on which the requirement under subsection (1) is made, in any other case.

      (4) When the district policing partnership submits its report under subsection (1) it shall at the same time send to the Board copies of any related subgroup report.

      (5) The Board may arrange for the publication, in such manner as appears to the Board to be appropriate, of—

      (a) a report submitted under subsection (1);

      (b) a related subgroup report.

      (6) A "subgroup report" is a report submitted to the district policing partnership under section 21C.

      (7) A subgroup report is related to a report submitted in pursuance of a requirement under subsection (1) if the district policing partnership imposed the requirement to submit the subgroup report to enable it to comply with the requirement under subsection (1)."

      10 In section 22 (the local policing plan) after subsection (3) insert—
      "(3A) Before issuing or revising a local policing plan for a police district established under section 20(2), the district commander shall also consult the subgroup established for the district under section 21 and take account of any views expressed."

      11 (1) Schedule 1 (the Northern Ireland Policing Board) is amended as follows.

      (2) In paragraph 3(7) (disqualification from membership of Board during suspension of devolved government), after paragraph (b)(iii) insert—
      ";or
      (iv) a member of a subgroup established under section 21.".
      (3) In paragraph 10(1)(b) (disqualification from membership of Board during devolved government), after "district policing partnership;" insert1y1—
      "or
      (iv) a member of a subgroup established under section 21;".
      12 In Schedule 3 (district policing partnerships) after paragraph 16 insert—

      BELFAST No. 2

        Belfast district policing partnership
        17 (1) The preceding paragraphs of this Schedule have effect in relation to the district policing partnership for Belfast with the following modifications.

        (2) In paragraph 2 after subparagraph (5) insert—

        "(6) The members of the DPP who are appointed by the council in accordance with paragraph 3 shall include the persons who hold the office of chairman of each of the subgroups of the DPP established under section 21."
        (3) In paragraph 5 after subparagraph (3) insert—
        "(3A) In relation to each person nominated by it under subparagraph (1) the council shall also notify the Board of—

        (a) whether the person is also willing to be a candidate for appointment as an independent member of a subgroup established under section 21;

        (b) the subgroup or subgroups concerned, if he is so willing.""

        13 After Schedule 3 insert—
        "schedule 3A
        Belfast subgroups

        Interpretation
        1 (1) In this Schedule—
        "the council" means the district council for Belfast;
        a "declaration against terrorism" means a declaration in the form set out in Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Elected Authorities (Northern Ireland) Act 1989, with the substitution of the words "if appointed" for the words "if elected";
        "independent member", in relation to a subgroup, means a member appointed under paragraph 2(4);
        "local general election" has the same meaning as in the Electoral Law Act (Northern Ireland) 1962;
        "the partnership" means the district policing partnership for Belfast;
        "political member", in relation to a subgroup, means a member appointed under paragraph 2(3);
        "subgroup" means a subgroup established under section 21.
        (2) For the purposes of this Schedule an independent member of the council shall be treated as a party.

        Size and composition
        2 (1) A subgroup shall consist of 11 members.
        (2) The members of a subgroup need not be members of the partnership.
        (3) Six of the members of a subgroup shall be appointed by the council from among members of the council in accordance with paragraph 3.
        (4) Five of the members of a subgroup shall be appointed in accordance with paragraph 4.

        Political members
        3 (1) The council shall exercise its power to appoint political members of a subgroup so as to ensure that, so far as practicable, the political members of all the subgroups, taken together, reflect the balance of parties prevailing among the members of the council immediately after the last local general election.
        (2) Subject to the following provisions of this paragraph, a person shall hold and vacate office as a political member in accordance with the terms of his appointment.
        (3) A political member shall hold office until the date of the local general election next following his appointment.
        (4) A person appointed to fill a casual vacancy shall hold office for the remainder of the term of the political member in whose place he is appointed.
        (5) A political member shall cease to hold office if—

        (a) he resigns by notice in writing to the council;

        (b) he becomes disqualified for membership of a subgroup; or

        (c) he ceases to be a member of the council.

        (6) A person whose term of office as a political member expires or who has resigned shall be eligible for reappointment.

        Independent members
        4 (1) Appointments of independent members shall be made by the Board from among persons nominated by the council in accordance with paragraph 5.
        (2) In appointing independent members of a subgroup the Board shall so far as practicable secure that the members of the subgroup (taken together) are representative of the community in the subgroup's police district.
        (3) Subject to the following provisions of this paragraph, a person shall hold and vacate office as an independent member in accordance with the terms of his appointment.
        (4) An independent member shall hold office until the date of the local general election next following his appointment.
        (5) A person appointed to fill a casual vacancy shall hold office for the remainder of the term of the independent member in whose place he is appointed.
        (6) An independent member shall cease to hold office if—

        (a) he resigns by notice in writing to the council; or

        (b) he becomes disqualified for membership of a subgroup.

        (7) A person whose term of office as an independent member expires or who has resigned shall be eligible for reappointment.

        The council's nominations
        5 (1) Where appointments are to be made of independent members of a subgroup, the council shall nominate persons willing to be candidates for appointment.
        (2) Unless otherwise agreed with the Board, the number of persons to be nominated under subparagraph (1) on any occasion shall be twice the number of appointments to be made of independent members.
        (3) The council shall notify the Board of—

        (a) the name of each person nominated by it under subparagraph (1); and

        (b) such other information regarding those persons as it considers appropriate.

        (4) In relation to each person nominated by it under subparagraph (1) the council shall also notify the Board of—

        (a) whether the person is also willing to be a candidate for appointment as an independent member of any other subgroup;

        (b) the subgroup or subgroups concerned, if he is so willing;

        (c) whether the person is also willing to be a candidate for appointment as an independent member of the partnership.

        (5) A person shall not be nominated under subparagraph (1) if—

        (a) he is disqualified for membership of a subgroup, or

        (b) he has not made a declaration against terrorism.

        (6) Where the number of persons nominated by the council is less than twice the number of appointments to be made, the Board may itself nominate such number of candidates as when added to the number nominated by the council equals twice the number of appointments to be made.
        (7) If the Board does so, paragraph 4(1) shall have effect as if those persons had been nominated by the council.

        Code of practice on appointment of independent members
        6 (1) In exercising functions under paragraphs 4 and 5, the council and the Board shall have regard to any code of practice under this paragraph.
        (2) The Secretary of State may issue, and from time to time revise, a code of practice containing guidance as to the exercise by the council and the Board of their functions under paragraphs 4 and 5.
        (3) Before issuing or revising a code of practice under this paragraph, the Secretary of State shall consult—

        (a) the Board;

        (b) the council; and

        (c) the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland.

        (4) The Secretary of State shall arrange for any code of practice issued or revised under this paragraph to be published in such manner as appears to him to be appropriate.

        Removal of members from office
        7 (1) The Board, or the council with the approval of the Board, may remove a person from office as a political or independent member of a subgroup if satisfied that—

        409

        (a) in the case of an independent member, he failed to make the necessary disclosure in relation to a conviction of his for a criminal offence in Northern Ireland or elsewhere;

        (b) in the case of an independent member, he has acted in breach of the terms of a declaration against terrorism;

        (c) he has been convicted of a criminal offence in Northern Ireland or elsewhere committed after the date of his appointment;

        (d) he has become bankrupt or made a composition or arrangement with his creditors;

        (e) he has failed to comply with the terms of his appointment; or

        (f) he is otherwise unable or unfit to discharge his functions as a member of the subgroup.

        (2) "The necessary disclosure", in relation to a conviction of an independent member, means full disclosure of it—

        (a) before his nomination, to the council;

        (b) before his appointment, to the Board.

        (3) Section 6 of the Elected Authorities (Northern Ireland) Act 1989 applies to determine whether an independent member has acted in breach of the terms of a declaration against terrorism as it applies to determine whether a person who has made a declaration required for the purpose of section 3, 4 or 5 of that Act has acted in breach of the terms of the declaration.
        (4) As applied by subparagraph (3), section 6 of the Elected Authorities (Northern Ireland) Act 1989 applies with the following modifications—

        (a) in subsection (1), for the words from "after" to "the Assembly" substitute "when he is an independent member of a subgroup established under section 21 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000";

        (b) omit subsection (4);

        (c) in subsection (5), in the definition of "public meeting" after paragraph (c) insert—

        "(d) any meeting of a subgroup established under section 21 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 or a committee of such a subgroup (whether or not a meeting which the public is permitted to attend), and
        (e) any meeting of a district policing partnership or a committee of a district policing partnership (whether or not a meeting which the public is permitted to attend),"

        Disqualification
        8 (1) A person is disqualified for membership of a subgroup if he is—

        (a) a police officer;

        (b) a member of the police support staff;

        (c) a member of the Board; or

        (d) an employee of the council.

        (2) A person removed from office under paragraph 7(1) is disqualified for membership of a subgroup until the date of the next local general election following his removal.
        (3) A person is disqualified for being an independent member of a subgroup if—

        (a) he has been convicted in Northern Ireland or elsewhere of any offence and has had passed on him a sentence of imprisonment or detention, and

        (b) the relevant period has not ended.

        (4) The relevant period is the period of five years beginning with the person's discharge in respect of the offence.
        (5) For the purposes of subparagraph (4) the following are to be treated as the discharge of a person (whether or not his release is subject to conditions)—

        (a) his release on licence;

        (b) his release in pursuance of a grant of remission.

        (6) Subparagraph (5) does not apply in relation to the release of a person in respect of an offence if he is required to return to prison or detention for a further period in respect of the offence.
        (7) Subject to subparagraph (8), the reference in subparagraph (3) to a sentence of imprisonment or detention does not include a suspended sentence.
        (8) Subparagraph (7) does not apply in relation to a suspended sentence that has been ordered to take effect.
        (9) In this paragraph "suspended sentence" means a sentence of imprisonment or detention that is ordered not to take effect unless the conditions specified in the order are met.

        Chairman and vicechairman
        9 (1) There shall be a chairman and vicechairman of a subgroup appointed by the council from among the political members.
        (2) In making appointments under subparagraph (1), the council shall ensure that, so far as practicable—

        (a) the office of chairman and vicechairman are at all times held by members of different political parties;

        (b) a person is appointed to the office of chairman or vicechairman for a term of 12 months at a time or, where that period is shorter than 12 months, for a period ending with the date of the local general election next following his appointment;

        (c) the office of chairman is held in turn by each of the four largest parties represented on the council immediately after the last local general election;

        (d) the office of chairman is not held by a person who is a member of the same political party as a person who holds the office of chairman of another subgroup.

        (3) Subject to the following provisions of this paragraph, a person shall hold and vacate office as chairman or vicechairman in accordance with the terms of his appointment.
        (4) A person may at any time resign as chairman or vicechairman by notice in writing to the council.
        (5) If the chairman or vicechairman ceases to be a member of the subgroup, he shall also cease to hold office as chairman or vicechairman.

        Allowances
        10 The council may pay to the chairman, vicechairman and other members of a subgroup such allowances as the council, with the approval of the Board, may determine.
        Indemnities
        11 The council may indemnify a member of a subgroup in respect of liability incurred by him in connection with the business of the subgroup.

        Insurance against accidents
        12 (1) The council may insure against risks of a member of a subgroup meeting with a personal accident, whether fatal or not, while he is engaged on the business of the subgroup.
        (2) Subparagraph (3) applies if the council receives a sum under any such insurance in respect of an accident to a member of the subgroup.
        (3) The council shall pay the sum to the member or his personal representatives, after deducting any expenses incurred in its recovery.
        (4) The provisions of the Life Assurance Act 1774 as extended by the Life Insurance (Ireland) Act 1866 do not apply to any insurance under this paragraph.

        Finance
        13 The Board shall for each financial year make to the council a grant equal to threequarters of the expenses reasonably incurred by the council in that year in connection with the establishment of or the exercise of functions by, subgroups.

        Procedure
        14 (1) The quorum for a meeting of a subgroup shall be 5.
        (2) Every question at a meeting of a subgroup shall be determined by a majority of the votes of the members present and voting on the question, and in the case of an equal division of the votes, the chairman of the meeting shall have a second or casting vote.
        (3) If the chairman and vicechairman are absent from a meeting of a subgroup, the members present shall elect one of their number to act as chairman of the meeting.
        (4) Subject to subparagraphs (1) to (3) and to section 19 arid to any directions given by the partnership, a subgroup may regulate its own procedure.

        Validity of proceedings
        15 The validity of any proceedings of a subgroup or a committee thereof shall not be affected by—

        (a) any defect in the appointment of the chairman or vicechairman or any other member; or

        (b) any vacancy in the office of chairman or vicechairrn an or among the other members.

        Disclosure of pecuniary interests, family connections, etc.
        16 Sections 28 to 33, 42, 46, 47 and 146 of the Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 1972 (and section 148 of that Act so far as applying for the interpretation of those sections) apply to a subgroup and its members as if—

        (a) in those sections—

        (i) any reference to a council were a reference to the subgroup;

        (ii) any reference to a councillor were a reference to a member of the subgroup;

        (iii) any reference to the clerk of the council were a reference to the person acting as secretary of the subgroup;

        (b) in section 28(4) of that Act for the words from "by any local elector" to the end there were substituted the words "by any person";

        (c) in section 29 of that Act any reference to the Minister were a reference to the Secretary of State.

        Committees
        17 (1) A subgroup may constitute a committee of its members.
        (2) A subgroup shall constitute a committee of its members if directed to do so by the partnership.
        (3) A committee of a subgroup shall consist of 5 or more members of the subgroup.
        (4) The members of a committee of a subgroup shall he appointed by the subgroup.
        (5) A subgroup may delegate any of its functions to a committee constituted by it.
        (6) The powers of a committee of a subgroup shall be exercised in accordance with and subject to directions given by the subgroup.
        (7) The proceedings of a committee of a subgroup shall be regulated in accordance with and subject to directions given by the subgroup.
        (8) The approval of the partnership is required to—

        (a) the constitution of a committee under subparagraph (1);

        (b) the members of a committee of a subgroup to be appointed under subparagraph (4);

        (c) the functions to be delegated to a committee under subparagraph (5);

        (d) the exercise by a committee of any functions delegated to it under subparagraph (5);

        (e) the directions to be given to a committee under subparagraphs (6) and (7)."

        14 In Schedule 2 to the Commissioner for Complaints (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 (N.I. 7) after the entry for the Staff Commission for Education and Library Boards insert—
        "A subgroup established under section 21 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000.
        15 In Part 7 of Schedule 1 to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (c.36) at the appropriate place in alphabetical order insert—
        "A subgroup established under section 21 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000."
        16 (1) Subparagraphs (4) and (5) have effect in relation to the transitional period.
        (2) The transitional period is the period—

        (a) beginning on the date on which this Schedule comes into force;

        (b) ending on the date of the next local general election after that date.

        (3) "Local general election" has the same meaning as in the Electoral Law Act (Northern Ireland) 1962.
        (4) In paragraph 17 of Schedule 3 to the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 (inserted by paragraph 12 above) after subparagraph (2) insert—
        "(2A) In paragraph 3, after subparagraph (4) insert—
        "(4A) The council may, with the approval of the Board, terminate the appointment of a political member if it appears to the council to be necessary or expedient to do so in order to enable it to comply with paragraph 2(6).",
        (2B) In paragraph 3(5), after paragraph (a) insert—
        "(aa) his appointment is terminated under subparagraph (4A);".
        (2C) In paragraph 3(6), after "expires" insert ", whose appointment is terminated under subparagraph (4A)"."
        (5) In Schedule 3A to the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 (inserted by paragraph 13 above), in paragraph 4(1) after "among" insert "(a)" and after "paragraph 5" insert;—and
        (b) persons who hold office as independent members of the partnership".'.—[Jane Kennedy.]
        Brought up, and read the First time.
        Motion made, and Question put, That the schedule be read a Second time:—
        The House divided: Ayes 289, Noes 61.

        Division No. 142

        [7:38 pm

        AYES

        Abbott, Ms Diane

        Bradshaw, Ben

        Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

        Brennan, Kevin

        Ainger, Nick

        Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

        Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

        Alexander, Douglas

        Bryant, Chris

        Allen, Graham

        Burden, Richard

        Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

        Burgon, Colin

        Burnham, Andy

        Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

        Burstow, Paul

        Atherton, Ms Candy

        Byers, rh Stephen

        Atkins, Charlotte

        Caborn, rh Richard

        Austin, John

        Cairns, David

        Bailey, Adrian

        Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

        Baird, Vera

        Barron, rh Kevin

        Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

        Battle, John

        Casale, Roger

        Begg, Miss Anne

        Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

        Beith, rh A. J.

        Challen, Colin

        Berry, Roger

        Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

        Blackman, Liz

        Chaytor, David

        Blears, Ms Hazel

        Clapham, Michael

        Borrow, David

        Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

        Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

        Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

        Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

        413

        Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

        Hope, Phil (Corby)

        Hopkins, Kelvin

        Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

        Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

        Coaker, Vernon

        Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

        Coffey, Ms Ann

        Coleman, Iain

        Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

        Connarty, Michael

        Corbyn Jeremy

        Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

        Corston, Jean

        Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

        Cranston, Ross

        Hutton, rh John

        Crausby, David

        Iddon, Dr. Brian

        Cruddas, Jon

        Illsley, Eric

        Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

        Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

        Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

        Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

        Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

        Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

        Jamieson, David

        Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

        Jenkins, Brian

        Davidson, Ian

        Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

        Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

        Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

        Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

        Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

        Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

        Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

        Dawson, Hilton

        Kaufman, rh Gerald

        Dean, Mrs Janet

        Keeble, Ms Sally

        Dhanda, Parmjit

        Keen, Alan (Feltham)

        Dismore, Andrew

        Keen, Ann (Brentford)

        Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

        Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

        Dobson, rh Frank

        Kidney, David

        Donohoe, Brian H.

        Kilfoyle, Peter

        Doran, Frank

        King, Andy (Rugby)

        Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

        Knight Jim (S Dorset)

        Drew, David (Stroud)

        Kumar, Dr. Ashok

        Drown, Ms Julia

        Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

        Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

        Lazarowicz, Mark

        Edwards, Huw

        Lepper, David

        Efford, Clive

        Leslie, Christopher

        Ellman, Mrs Louise

        Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

        Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

        Linton, Martin

        Etherington, Bill

        Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

        Ewing, Annabelle

        Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

        Fisher, Mark

        Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

        Fitzpatrick, Jim

        Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

        Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

        McAvoy, Thomas

        Flint Caroline

        McCabe, Stephen

        Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

        McCafferty, Chris

        Follett, Barbara

        McCartney, rh Ian

        Foster, rh Derek

        McDonagh, Siobhain

        Foster, Michael (Worcester)

        MacDonald, Calum

        Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

        McDonnell, John

        Mac Dougall, John

        George, Andrew (St. Ives)

        McFall, John

        George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

        McIsaac, Shona

        Gerrard, Neil

        McKechin, Ann

        Gilroy, Linda

        McKenna, Rosemary

        Godsiff, Roger

        Mackinlay, Andrew

        Goggins, Paul

        McNamara, Kevin

        Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

        McNulty, Tony

        Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

        MacShane, Denis

        Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

        McWalter, Tony

        Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

        MacWilliam, John

        Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

        Mallaber, Judy

        Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

        Mallon, Seamus

        Hanson, David

        Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

        Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

        Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

        Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

        Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

        Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

        Healey, John

        Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

        Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

        Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

        Marshall-Andrews, Robert

        Hendrick, Mark

        Martlew, Eric

        Heppell, John

        Merron, Gillian

        Hesford, Stephen

        Miliband, David

        Heyes, David

        Miller, Andrew

        Hill, Keith (Streatham)

        Moffatt, Laura

        Hinchliffe, David

        Moonie, Dr. Lewis

        Hodge, Margaret

        Morgan, Julie

        414

        Morley, Elliot

        Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

        Morris, rh Estelle

        Soley, Clive

        Mountford, Kali

        Southworth, Helen

        Mudie, George

        Speller, rh John

        Mullin, Chris

        Squire, Rachel

        Munn, Ms Meg

        Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

        Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

        Steinberg, Gerry

        Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

        Stevenson, George

        Naysmith, Dr. Doug

        Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

        Olner, Bill

        Organ, Diana

        Stinchcombe, Paul

        Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

        Stoate, Dr. Howard

        Owen, Albert

        Sutcliffe, Gerry

        Palmer, Dr. Nick

        Tami, Mark (Alyn)

        Picking, Anne

        Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

        Picktlnall, Colin

        Taylor, David (NW Leics)

        Pike, Peter (Burnley)

        Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

        Plaskitt, James

        Tipping, Paddy

        Pollard, Kerry

        Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

        Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

        Trickett, Jon

        Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

        Truswell, Paul

        Prescott, rh John

        Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

        Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

        Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

        Prirnarolo, rh Dawn

        Turner, Neil (Wigan)

        Prosser, Gwyn

        Twigg, Derek (Halton)

        Purchase, Ken

        Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

        Purnell, James

        Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

        Quin, rh Joyce

        Vis, Dr. Rudi

        Quinn, Lawrie

        Walley, Ms Joan

        Raynsford, rh Nick

        Ward, Claire

        Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

        Wareing, Robert N.

        Robertson, Angus (Moray)

        Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

        Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

        Watts, David

        Weir, Michael

        Roche, Mrs Barbara

        White, Brian

        Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

        Whitehead, Dr. Alan

        Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

        Wicks, Malcolm

        Ruane, Chris

        Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

        Ruddock, Joan

        Williams, Betty (Conwy)

        Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

        Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

        Salmond, Alex

        Winnick, David

        Salter, Martin

        Wishart, Pete

        Samar, Mohammad

        Wood, Mike (Batley)

        Savidge, Malcolm

        Woodward, Shaun

        Sawford, Phil

        Woolas, Phil

        Sedgemore, Brian

        Wray, James (Glasgow Baillieston)

        Shaw, Jonathan

        Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

        Sheridan, Jim

        Shipley, Ms Debra

        Wright, David (Telford)

        Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

        Wright, Tony (Cannock)

        Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

        Singh, Marsha

        Tellers for the Ayes:

        Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

        Mr. Ivor Caplin and

        Dan Norris

        NOES

        Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

        Fabricant, Michael

        Barker, Gregory

        Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

        Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

        Brady, Graham

        Flook, Adrian

        Brazier, Julian

        Francois, Mark

        Burnside, David

        George, Andrew (St. Ives)

        Burstow, Paul

        Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

        Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

        Grayling, Chris

        Grieve, Dominic

        Chope, Christopher

        Hague, rh William

        Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

        Hayes, John (S Holland)

        Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

        Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

        Hermon, Lady

        Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

        Dodds, Nigel

        Hunter, Andrew

        Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

        Jack, rh Michael

        Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

        Jenkin, Bernard

        Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

        Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

        415

        Lait, Mrs Jacqui

        Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

        Leigh, Edward

        Rosindell, Andrew

        Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

        Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

        Liddell-Grainger, Ian

        Swayne, Desmond

        McIntosh, Miss Anne

        Syms, Robert

        Maclean, rh David

        Taylor, Ian (Esher)

        Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

        Taylor, John (Solihull)

        Mercer, Patrick

        Trimble, rh David

        Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

        Watkinson, Angela

        Whittingdale, John

        Murrison, Dr. Andrew

        Wiggin, Bill

        Osborne, George (Tatton)

        Willetts, David

        Paisley, Rev. Ian

        Young, rh Sir George

        Paterson, Owen

        Pickles, Eric

        Tellers for the Noes:

        Robathan, Andrew

        Mrs. Iris Robinson and

        Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

        Mr. Gregory Campbell

        Question accordingly agreed to.
        Schedule read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

      Clause 13

        INDEPENDENT MEMBERS
        Mr. David Trimble: I beg to move amendment No. 48, in page 10, line 12, leave out clause 13.
        Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
        No. 49, in page 10, line 17 [Clause 13], after `practicable', insert
        'and so far as is consistent with subparagraph (1B) below'.
        No. 50, in page 10, line 18 [Clause 13], at end insert
        'in terms of ethnicity, gender, religion and age'.
        No. 51, in page 10, line 18 [Clause 13], at end insert—
        '(1B) In appointing independent members of a DPP the Board shall in so far as practicable appoint persons who are representative of business or trade unions or have expertise in community safety matters.'.
        Mr. Trimble: This series of amendments applies to clause 13, which deals with the appointment of independent members. As drafted, it imposes on the board a duty to ensure that the members of the board, taken together, are representative of the community in the district. It is noteworthy that that is the first statutory provision setting out criteria for the appointment of independent members.
        The key amendment of this group is No. 51, which would add the following provision:
        "In appointing independent members … the Board shall in so far as practicable appoint persons who are representative of business or trade unions or have expertise in community safety matters."
        The reason we are tabling that amendment is to write into legislation the terminology used in the Patten report. I had reason to refer to that earlier to point out that Patten was clear about the character of the persons who should be independent members: they should not be just a collection of individuals or people drawn from local community groups; they should be persons who have some expertise in community safety matters, and persons drawn from business or trade unions. Indeed, in the earlier debate, I pointed out that Patten had implied that those should be persons with some credibility, who
        416
        would add to the value of the board, and who would therefore balance, as it were, the political members drawn from the council.
        It is important that those additional words be added, because community safety partnerships should reflect a broad range of backgrounds, and that is not necessarily the case at the moment. I intervened on the Secretary of State earlier to ask him to trawl through the existing persons who are appointed to district policing partnerships to see how many of them can honestly be said to have any expertise or background in community safety matters. I suspect that it will turn out to be comparatively few.
        The amendments also raise the general question of how appointments to district policing partnerships should be made. Thanks to the energy of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik), we discovered earlier this evening that, back in August 2002, a code of practice was produced on the appointment of independent members to district policing partnerships. I was not previously aware of that code of practice, even though it was produced well over six months ago. I do not know whether any effort was made to circulate it to people or to consult on it, but it appears that it was produced. Consequently, I have had the opportunity to see it.
        I should add that that is quite a common occurrence: I heard a rumour earlier today that, a week or two ago, the Northern Ireland Office produced a revised community safety strategy. Where it has been sent I do not know. None of my hon. Friends has heard of it or seen it. We have just heard a rumour about it, and I do not know whether, in fact, it has been produced. The Northern Ireland Office really needs to look at its communications with Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies and other Members who have responsibility to speak on Northern Ireland matters in the House.
        Lembit Öpik: It is thanks to our researcher. Elizabeth Hanna, that we were made aware of the code of practice and a credit to the Northern Ireland staff that they supplied me with a copy. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that we could save time and, in some cases, allow Ministers to avoid hassle if such documents were made available to us, because sometimes they answer the questions that we would otherwise raise on the Floor of the House.
        Mr. Trimble: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution. The issue is important. It tends to sour relations with those in other parties who take an interest in Northern Ireland if the Northern Ireland Office does not communicate with them successfully.
        Having discovered the existence of the code of practice, it was interesting to see what it said about the appointment of independent members. Paragraph 3.2 states:
        "Appointments must be made on merit"—
        that word appears in bold and is underlined—
        "strictly in line with the competence based selection criteria outlined in the person specification."
        So far, so good. Paragraph 3.2(3) refers to equal opportunities and equality, although I hasten to point out that section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 mentions only equal opportunity. We need to be careful because equality can mean something different.

        417
        The rest of the paragraph is unexceptional. It mentions proactive measures to secure equality of opportunity and that the Government expect widespread advertisement of appointments as well as letters of invitation and appropriate follow-up to relevant groups. In other words, reasonable steps should to be taken to widen the field of candidates. Those are acceptable measures to encourage a broad spread of applicants. The paragraph ends by stating:
        "Ultimately, of course, appointment must be made on merit, strictly in accordance with the requirements outlined in the personal specification."
        Again, so far, so good, but how I wish that the Policing Board had followed the code of practice.
        I should perhaps mention that it is a matter of public notoriety in Northern Ireland that my wife failed in her attempt to become a member of the Lisburn district policing partnership. Correspondence that she received subsequently from the Policing Board made it clear that merit was not the overriding consideration in the appointments. Apparently, community background, gender and political opinion overruled merit. The Policing Board developed matrices that allowed it to take so many people from one background and so many from another. It then applied the merit score within the context of those results, but it would not be used to override those who fell into that category. So it is clear that merit is disregarded in some circumstances to obtain a community or gender balance.
        Thanks to the industry of my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth), we have also discovered the remarkable imbalance in the political background of those appointed. Independent members went through a two-stage process. The interview at district council level determined whether they were worthy of appointment. The list of appointable people was sent to the Policing Board, together with their scores in the interview, and it made the final decision. My hon. Friend tabled a written question on that. I do not have the exact figures, but to the best of my recollection the answer stated that more than 100 of those who applied for appointments as independent members were identified as coming from a Unionist background. Although 60 were regarded as appointable, only four were appointed. The equivalent figure for the Social Democratic and Labour party showed that, of the 50-odd who applied, 30 got over the bar to appointment and 15 were actually appointed. The percentage of members of the Women's Coalition who were appointed in terms of the proportion of those who applied was even higher. So there was a remarkable variation in terms of political background. It is clear from the written answer that there is something unusual about the appointments.
        The key point, however, is that it appears that the Policing Board departed from the merit principle, which the Northern Ireland Office properly underlined in its code of practice. What steps were taken to ensure that the code of practice was adhered to and that merit was regarded as the overriding consideration? It is clear from the material available and the outcome that it was disregarded. The person who was ranked first in the interviews for the Lisburn DPP—not the lady I referred to earlier, in case anybody is putting two and two
        418
        together and getting five—was not appointed, so merit was clearly disregarded. It is important that statutory provisions govern appointment, and I am glad that clause 13 allows for that. We have tabled amendments to bring the legislation into line with Patten, and I very much hope that we will be supported by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), who is keen on the full implementation of Patten. Our amendments would achieve that. Taking the matter on its own merits, it is appropriate that the provisions in Patten are written into the legislation.
        However, there are wider considerations. It is sad, given that the Policing Board has got off to a good start, that it has been undermined by both the last group of Government amendments and the curious procedures that it was persuaded to adopt, even though those procedures departed from the Government's own guidelines. That should be rectified before it does even more damage to the Policing Board.
        Mr. Carmichael: I wish to place on record the fact that Liberal Democrats regard the amendments favourably. As the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) said, they are a straight, uncomplicated lift from the Patten report. Having said in the past that we regard the report as an all-or-nothing option, we are more than pleased to endorse the amendments. I understand, however, that they will not be pressed to a vote, and accordingly I hope that the Minister will find a mechanism, when she reads the debate in Hansard tomorrow—she may not be listening at the moment—to introduce similar amendments in another place.
        The appointment of representative members is an important part of the normalisation process, and will ultimately contribute to the effective operation of the DPPs. It is important that the House should state that if a body is to be representative, especially in Northern Ireland, it must be judged and constituted according to something other than religion. References to ethnicity, gender and age are therefore of particular importance, and accordingly Liberal Democrats in the Commons and elsewhere support the amendments.
        Jane Kennedy: May I tell the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) that I will review the consultation procedures used by the Northern Ireland Office? However, there was extensive consultation on the code of practice, including a detailed consultation with the Policing Board, on which the right hon. Gentleman's party is represented. The consultation began in January last year and concluded in the summer, and the code of practice was published in August. As a result of representations that I have received, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said that he will look at I he procedures that were followed by the board. Although the right hon. Gentleman's good wife did not succeed in joining a DPP, I was delighted that she succeeded in abseiling down the BT building the other day—she deserves respect and commendation for doing so.
        We will review procedures, but we did consult widely. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for tabling the amendments, which seek to put on a statutory footing the requirement already set out in the code of practice on the appointment of independent members of DPPs. However, they are not necessary, because the code

        419
        specifies what representativeness means, so it is not helpful to define it in the Bill itself. This is not the time or place to comment on the controversy. I attended the Belfast launch of DPPs last Wednesday, and it was refreshing to see DPP members from such a wide variety of backgrounds, despite the perceived bias that the right hon. Gentleman believes there has been. A significant proportion of new members of the DPPs are young people. They all share a desire to contribute positively to local policing and to improving community safety.
        It is right that we define what we mean by representativeness, but that should be done in a code of practice. By doing that, we would be complying with a request that was put to me by the chairman of the Policing Board on its behalf last September.
        Mr. Trimble: The Minister says that the code of practice meets the case. Where does the code of practice refer to the desirability of people having expertise in matters of public safety?
        Jane Kennedy: The code may not specifically use the phrase "expertise in community safety", but it clearly refers to concepts of representativeness, which we may not usually think of in the context of Northern Ireland. It refers to gender and equality in the widest possible sense.
        Amendment No. 51 is, as the right hon. Gentleman said, one of a group of three amendments tabled for our consideration. It proposes that only those who are representative of business or trade unions or have expertise in community safety matters should be appointed as independent members. With my history of involvement with trade unions, it may seem curious for me to take issue with the right hon. Gentleman on an amendment that includes reference to trade unions, but it is important that we leave the board as much flexibility as possible in selecting independent members.
        May I direct the right hon. Gentleman to page 30 of the code of practice, which deals with the eligibility criteria and lists as the first of a group of essential requirements the requirement that there should be a demonstrable interest in local community, community safety or policing issues?
        Mr. Trimble: But not expertise.
        Jane Kennedy: The code of practice refers to a value, a skill or experience that we would look for among those whom we would want to appoint to a district policing partnership. It is important that we leave the board as much flexibility as possible in selecting independent members. We do not want to be unduly restrictive. That is why it is inappropriate for us to tie the board's hands in the way that the amendments would do. The code of practice adequately meets the spirit of the amendments without being over-prescriptive. We are satisfied that the provisions laid out in the Bill, supplemented by the provisions of the code of practice, are appropriate and sufficient. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment and that clause 13 will stand part of the Bill.
        Mr. Trimble: I have noted the Minister's comments. I know that her response was hurried, but I regret to say
        420
        that I find it wholly inadequate. The Patten report is clear about the need for solid expertise, and that does not appear in the code of practice. I ask the Minister to re-examine the matter.
        I had advised other hon. Members earlier that we did not intend to have any further Divisions, so that those who had been held in the House later than they thought they would be this evening could get on their way. Only for that reason, and not in any way connected with the merits of the matter or the quality, such as it was, of the Minister's response, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
        Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
        The proceedings set down for the day being concluded, the Deputy Speaker brought proceedings to a conclusion, pursuant to Order [10 February].
        Bill to be further considered tomorrow.—[Mr. Heppell.]

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

    SITTINGS IN WESTMINSTER HALL
    Ordered,
    That, on Wednesday 9th April, the sitting in Westminster Hall shall begin at half-past. Nine o'clock and conclude at half-past Eleven o'clock.—[Mr. Heppell

    SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE
    Ordered,
    That, not withstanding paragraph (5) of the Order of the House of 29th October 2002 (New provision for earlier sittings on Wednesdays, and for Thursdays and Fridays), the House shall sit on Friday 11th April.—[Mr. Heppell.]

  PETITIONS

    Police Service of Northern Ireland Band
    8.9 pm
    David Burnside: Some 1,500 people from Northern Ireland, cross-community, have signed a petition to save the band of the Police Service of Northern Ireland. Tomorrow, in a performance at Ards leisure centre for Action Cancer, and on Friday at the passing out parade at Garnerville, 100 years of service of the band will come to an end. That service has included many sad events, such as funerals of the brave officers and men of the Royal Irish Constabulary and the Royal Ulster Constabulary, but also many happy community relations events of good service for all the community of Northern Ireland in promoting an excellent community relations performance on behalf of the police force and police service in Northern Ireland.
    The petition states:
    Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House request the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to encourage the Chief Constable of the Police Service for Northern Ireland to reconsider his decision to stand down the band.
    And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
    To lie upon the Table.

  Local Pharmacies
  8.10 pm
  Bob Spink: Local pharmacies are a key part of primary health care. They take a great burden away from our general practitioners and could do much more if regulations were altered to enable them to do so. They are an important element in our local communities, forming the very fabric of our society. We should recognise that they are not simply retailers, but health care professionals. The proposals of the Office of Fair Trading would damage the most vulnerable people in society—especially the elderly, those with mobility difficulties, young mothers and disabled and poor people. Deregulation would hurt, not help, the consumer and set back the pharmacy service for years.
  I have three petitions to present .From three different communities; I apologise for having to read out each petition.
  The first petition is from Thundersley. It states:
  To the Honourable Commons of the United Kingdom, Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
  The Humble Petition of Ms Patel, Norman Ladzrie, Godfrey Isaacs and others of like disposition sheweth
  That local communities are best served by local pharmacies and that the OFT's recommendations to abolish the "control of entry" regulations would seriously damage local pharmacies.
  Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House shall urge the Government to reject proposals that would allow unrestricted opening of pharmacies a ale to dispense NHS prescriptions, and to preserve local pharmacies and safeguard their continuing provision of services.
  And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
  To lie upon the Table.
  The second petition is from the residents of the community of Hadleigh. It states:
  To the Honourable Commons of the United Kingdom, Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
  The Humble Petition of Asif Moledina, Tony Thomas, Bill Sharp and others of like disposition sheweth
  That local communities are best served by local, community-based pharmacies, and that the OFT's recommendations to abolish the "control of entry" regulations would seriously damage local pharmacies.
  Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House shall urge the Government to reject proposals that would allow unrestricted opening of pharmacies able to dispense NHS prescriptions, and to preserve local pharmacies and safeguard their continuing provision of services to local communities.
  And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
  To lie upon the Table.
  The third petition is from the residents of Canvey Island. It states:
  To the Honourable Commons of the United Kingdom, Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
  The Humble Petition of Mr. Bill Sharp, Lance Munt, Norman Bambridge and others of like disposition sheweth
  422
  That local communities are best served by local, community-based pharmacies, and that the OFT recommendations to abolish the "control of entry" regulations would seriously damage local pharmacies.
  Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House shall urge the Government to reject proposals that would allow unrestricted opening of pharmacies able to dispense NHS prescriptions, and to preserve local pharmacies and safeguard their continuing provision of services to local communities.
  And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Regional Government (North-West)
  8.14 pm
  Mrs. Louise Ellman: I wish to present a petition from the Necessary Group calling for elected regional government in the north-west. It is signed by 82 north-west celebrities from the worlds of football, film making, acting, business, academia, entertainment and music.
  The petition states:
  The Petitioners therefore request the House of Commons to urge the Deputy Prime Minister to hold a referendum and to ensure that such an elected regional government be brought forward immediately.
  And the Petitioners remain, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Local Pharmacies
  Mr. Michael Weir: The fear in communities about the future of pharmacies is genuine in Scotland, too. The position is slightly different because health is a devolved matter, but competition policy is not.
  I wish to present a petition signed by more than 200 residents of the small villages of Invergowrie, Longforgan and Kingoodie and the surrounding areas of eastern Perthshire, which are paradoxically in the Angus constituency that I am proud to represent.
  The petition states:
  To the House of Commons,
  The Petition of the Constituents of the villages of Invergowrie, Longforgan, Kingoodie and surrounding areas of East Perthshire declares
  That they oppose the recommendations made in the Office of Fair Trading report—the Control of Entry Regulations and Retail Pharmacy Services in the UK—to end pharmacy control of entry regulations and allow all supermarkets to open a pharmacy within their stores.
  The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons encourage the Government to rethink the decision regarding the recommendations of the OFT report—the Control of Entry Regulations and Retail Pharmacy Services in the UK.
  And the Petitioners remain etcetera.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Green Belt (Hertfordshire)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Heppell]
  8.16 pm
  Mr. Mark Prisk: Thankfully, I do not have a petition to include in the debate.
  The purpose of the debate is to highlight my constituents' anxieties about the growing threats to the green belt of east Hertfordshire. I also hope that the Minister will explain the way in which the Government's newly announced policy will work in practice. East Hertfordshire, of which my constituency represents the largest part, is the only rural district left in the county.
  The metropolitan green belt straddles the southern third of the district and covers more than half the land area of my constituency. It surrounds Bishop's Stortford in the north-east, runs south to High Wych and Sawbridgeworth, west past Eastwick and Gilston, and envelopes the towns of Hertford and Ware. The three villages of Bayford, Brickendon and Little Berkhamsted lie in the green belt land, which affords a buffer from the urban sprawl of London.
  Indeed, given the proximity of east Hertfordshire to London, the metropolitan green belt, more than anything else, has helped keep the character of the district and the distinctive identity of the communities.
  Sadly, that attractive environment faces a series of threats. First, the Government have a range of proposals, including plans for up to three new runways at nearby Stansted airport. That would lead to up to 256 million new road and rail journeys through the area. It would mean having to house up to 83,000 more workers, with the attendant industrial and commercial development. It would also mean that noise pollution would severely affect four times the number of people who are currently affected. Such pollution would cover large tracts of the district.
  The Government's housing targets pose the second threat to the green belt. Despite lacking many brownfield sites, east Hertfordshire is being encouraged—some would say "bullied"—into building thousands more houses when our current infrastructure can barely cope.
  The third threat stems from the proposed M11 corridor study, which envisages an additional 200,000 houses over and above the already high figure in the regional planning guidance.
  The combination of threats—the airport, the housing targets and the changes that the M11 study proposes—means that the pressure on the green belt of east Hertfordshire is now greater than ever. A classic symptom is the rising number of speculative developers who are already trying to exploit the difficulties. On a variety of sites in the green belt, some near Hertford, agricultural land is being bought up and sold on in small plots to gullible people. The prices reach £60,000 per acre. The only reason this scam is working is that enough people believe that the green belt will soon be up for grabs.
  424
  That brings me to the statement made by the Deputy Prime Minister on 5 February entitled "Sustainable Communities", in which he made the following commitment on the green belt:
  "Today, I give the House a guarantee to maintain or increase greenbelt land in every region in England."—[Official Report, 5 February 2003; Vol. 399, c. 275.]
  That was not a guarantee to maintain existing greenbelt land. As a chartered surveyor who is reasonably familiar with planning, I thought that that was a strange choice of words. After he had completed his statement, I asked the Deputy Prime Minister whether he could confirm that it meant that the green belt in Hertfordshire was safe, and that no new houses would be built on it. He declined to say. Instead, he pointed out that the guarantee was for the regions, not for the counties.
  I appreciate that the Deputy Prime Minister's words on this issue have caused problems before. Indeed, his glorious utterance that
  "The green belt is a Labour achievement and we mean to build on it"
  has amused many people. In east Hertfordshire, we are now wondering whether he really meant it. If the policy is indeed as he stated, it represents a radical change in Government policy that undermines the permanence of the green belt and poses a serious threat both to the environment of east Hertfordshire and to many other parts of the United Kingdom.
  The reason I say that lies in the Government's own document, policy planning guidance 2—or PPG2, as it is known—which has set green belt policy year in, year out for Governments of all parties. The guidance states:
  "The essential characteristic of Green Belts is their permanence. Their protection must be maintained as far as can be seen ahead."
  In other words, defending the green belt means maintaining the land currently designated as such, in terms not of total acreage but of specific sites. This is about location, not land area, yet in the statement made by the Deputy Prime Minister, the Government's policy merely guarantees acreage, which seems to open the possibility of swapping one site for another within a region. Many of my constituents fear that, by allowing land elsewhere in East Anglia—perhaps around Peterborough or Luton—to be designated as green belt, the land currently protected would be released. Equally, this is the hope on which speculative developers are relying. And, given the quasi-legal nature of our planning system, there is a real danger that once precedence has been established, the whole policy of green belt will be undermined.
  Given that, I would like to ask the Minister to clear up any confusion and to answer the following questions in his reply. Are the Government still committed to a policy of permanent green belt asset out in PPG2? Does the Minister recognise that swapping land fails to uphold the permanency test? And what does the new policy mean in the east of England region—as we have been called—when the metropolitan green belt can only ever apply to southern Hertfordshire and Essex? It can never be relevant to Norfolk or Suffolk.
  There are five stated purposes of green belt policy, and it is clear to me that the land currently designated in my constituency admirably fulfils them. They are: to check the unrestricted sprawl of large urban areas; to prevent neighbouring towns from merging; to preserve

  425
  the character of historic towns; to safeguard the countryside from encroachment; and to help urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land. It is on these last two purposes—protection of the countryside from encroachment and helping urban renewal—that I would like briefly to focus.
  The consistent control of the supply of land, notably through green belt policy, helps the market to reuse developed land and buildings. However, if the market perceives that Government policy means that green belt land might be de-designated and available for development, that will not only lead to unhealthy speculation, but undermine any hope of local urban renewal. That is especially relevant in the area around my constituency. If developers believe that land in east Hertfordshire that was formerly green belt may about to become available, that will undermine any hopes of redeveloping Harlow—a once-new town that is in urgent need of reinvestment. It will also remove any hope of regenerating the Lea valley, which is a key stated aim of the Government.
  Put simply, why should developers go to the expense of assembling, and in some cases decontaminating, land in the Lea valley when, just a few miles north, there might be the possibility of virgin, former green belt land coming on to the market? That is the signal that Government policy is sending out.
  The policy on green belts has served us well over the past 50 years, and the secret of its success is its permanence, which rules out speculation. The Government's latest policy announcement appears to undermine that permanence by implying that location is no longer material. In doing so, it sends out the worst possible signal to the market. Already, speculators are moving in and the danger is that, without clarification from the Government, not only will that activity spread across Hertfordshire into Essex and other areas, but potential investment in urban renewal will be held back.
  I hope that the Minister provides a clear reply to the questions that I have posed and puts it on record that the metropolitan green belt land of east Hertfordshire is permanent and will not be swapped for land elsewhere. After all, we do not own the countryside. We are merely its stewards. If, after 50 successful years, this Government loosen the green belt, intentionally or otherwise, future generations will look back at this moment and remember who was responsible for the destruction of their environment.
  8.27 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Tony McNulty): As is customary, I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) on securing the debate—and I mean that, not least because the issue is very important for the country as well as for Hertfordshire. I am from what was called Middlesex, so I can say without being flippant that I know where Ware is.
  I know much of Hertfordshire, as I was born in Harrow, and I note that the hon. Gentleman pops down to my constituency, or at least used to, via Stanmore
  426
  choral society, which is a great pleasure, although I do not think that I ever received a letter from him saying that he was coming. I also note that, as he said in his maiden speech, he was a front-row rugby player, as was I. That is probably apparent from my build, too.
  I shall get on to the matter under debate in a moment, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman was part of the "proper" club—a tight-head prop, which is where the real props play, rather than a loose head, which we always regarded as a rather effete position. None the less, I also congratulate him on his consistency. I note that in his maiden speech he said, among other things, that he would
  "fight and fight again to ensure … that we defend our green belt from excessive development."—[Official Report, 9 July 2001; Vol. 371, c. 597.]
  In the context of national policy, let me briefly go through the Government's position before coming more directly to some of the hon. Gentleman's concerns. I reassure the House that the Government do not intend to change the basis of green belt policy, as set out in PPG2. He went through the five key criteria, so I shall not repeat them. In achieving the objectives, the most important attributes of green belts are their openness and what they add to the area. In July 2002, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister reaffirmed the Government's intention to review all national planning policy guidance, including PPG2, over the next three years. The principal aim of that review is not to change the existing balance of economic, social and environmental objectives in national policy, but to ensure that we have statements of national planning policies that are clear, concise and fit for the purpose. I do not want to digress unduly, but the hon. Gentleman will know that the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill is proceeding through its stages; it will have to be taken into account when we consider subsequent changes to guidance, as well as planning policies.
  We have strengthened our commitment to our aims on a variety of fronts. We have added 30,000 hectares to the green belt since 1997. In 1986, 5,000 hectares were added to the area around Bishops Stortford; of the 30,000 hectares added since 1997, north Hertfordshire—which is not in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, but next door to it—has benefited from an additional 3,600 hectares, and Dacorum has been given 1,000. The hon. Gentleman probably knows—hence the importance of this debate to him and his constituents—that some 60 per cent. of Hertfordshire consists of green belt: 21,000 hectares.
  Additions to the green belt since 1997 have brought benefits to parts of the country that had previously been left out. There are 14 green belts in England, covering approximately 13 per cent. of the land mass, or 1.65 million hectares. Following the Government's revision of policy planning guidance note 3, on housing, in 2000, developers must take account of the 22,000 hectares of developable brownfield land in London, the south-east and the east before touching green fields. That in turn will help to focus development in towns and cities rather than "leapfrogging" the green belt to more distant locations.
  In February, for the first time ever—the hon. Gentleman mentioned this—the Government gave a guarantee to maintain or increase the amount of green belt in every region, including regions such as the east,

  427
  which already have sizeable amounts of land designated as green belt. If local authorities decide to undesignate green belt, we shall expect the regional planning body to work with them to find additional green belt, to ensure that the total amount in each region is maintained or even increased.
  The Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), said on 11 March:
  "The green belt itself is a difficult situation. On the whole, green belts should be preserved, although a case could be made for replenishing the green belt with other areas, and for building the green belt itself provided that areas are added in compensation."
  I do not want to condemn the hon. Member for Cotswold unduly by agreeing with him, but that has always underpinned PPG2. The notion of permanence has never been a key element of PPG2; indeed, east Hertfordshire district council's plan, currently on first deposit, proposes 38.4 hectares in addition to green belt extensions, and the removal of 54.71 hectares from the green belt. It is not for me to comment on the pros and cons, because the process is unfolding as we speak; but the green belt, and additions, amendments and reviews pertaining to it, have always been at the core of PPG2—which, ultimately, means the preservation of the green belt.
  Mr. Prisk: If I may continue the rugby analogy. I thank the Minister for passing the ball across to me. He has referred to land area and the replacement of land elsewhere, but he has not returned to the main question: does he accept that the essential characteristic of green belt—I am thinking not of the policy, but of the land and the specific sites—is its permanence?
  Mr. McNulty: I do not often pass the ball to the Opposition, although others may have different interpretations of the way in which I play the game!
  In the context of PPG2, that is of course the case. There would have to be good and substantive reasons for the suggestions offered by east Hertfordshire, locally or elsewhere. Often the expanse and permanence of the green belt are what make it valuable. As a London Member, I find that that is increasingly so as one gets closer to London. If the hon. Gentleman toured Stanmore when he popped down to sing, he would know that much of the north of my constituency is green belt. It would be very difficult to unpick that in any way, given that it constitutes the start of what the metropolitan green belt was initially intended for: the barrier between the end of the metropolitan sprawl, as it were, and the start of the countryside. So permanence is important, but the notion that the Deputy Prime Minister's suggestion in the communities plan—that there can be additions to, and withdrawals from, the green belt, which is the implication of the commitment to maintaining the overall acreage on a region-by-region basis—is new and has not always formed the heart of PPG2 is inaccurate.
  Mr. Prisk: I shall not continue the metaphor too much further, but I thank the Minister for again allowing the ball to pass to the other side. However, he will know from his own constituency experience—I should point out, for his benefit, that I have moved choirs and am now a member of the parliamentary choir, not of Stanmore choir—that the people of
  428
  Stanmore, for example, will be deeply worried if the gap between them and Bushey, or between them and Elstree, is chipped away. The issue is not the odd small site, but the permanent presence.
  The Minister said that he accepts that the character of the green belt is important, but I am arguing, and asking him to confirm, that it is essential; indeed, that is the principle that I am trying to establish. People in my constituency are worried about the fact that, slowly but surely, the character of their area is being diminished. Does he accept that that character is essential?
  Mr. McNulty: I do, and so has the Deputy Prime Minister in his statement. However, the notion that the announcements in recent weeks mark a departure from what has always prevailed in terms of the core of PPG2—permanent, fixed, never-to-be-moved, immutable boundaries—is not appropriate. Even in the metropolitan green belt in my own constituency, there have been small movements in or out, and where there is justification for them, they have been allowed.
  If I may, I should like to return, at least in part, to the east Herts local plan. The local plans, the entire plan-led system and their responsiveness and flexibility are crucially important in at least giving people the certainty of designation of green belt, and in avoiding the speculation about other elements which, I fully accept, is occurring in the hon. Gentleman's constituency.
  Development plans should take a long-term view of their area and how it should develop and change, and should plan positively for that change. In east Herts, the local plan was adopted in 1999 and made provision for development only up to 2001. The local plan is currently being reviewed. In December 2000, the local authority placed on deposit a review of that local plan for public consultation. Some 26 months later, it still has not reached second deposit stage, including all the designations to and from the green belt. I understand that the local authority currently expects that it will not adopt the plan until 2007, yet the plan's life expires by 2011. That tardiness is not very useful for the hon. Gentleman's constituents in terms of responding to the boundaries and what goes into, or stays out of, the green belt; nor does it help with any other aspects of the planning framework in the east Herts area.
  Mr. Prisk: I detect a cul-de-sac arriving, but it is important to put on the record one of the problems that local authorities have had. Just as they are trying to form the local plans to which the Minister has referred—I should be grateful for his response to this point—along comes the M11 corridor review and the sustainable communities plan. All such initiatives, including the regional guidance for which his Department is responsible, are actually slowing the process. So to suggest that local plans are biding their time and being very slow in the absence of other distractions is a little disingenuous, if I may say so. [Interruption.] I see the Minister nodding in agreement. I hope that he will recognise that east Hefts intends, of course, wherever possible—he will undoubtedly want to respond to this point—to bring in enough homes for young people. However, the suggestion that it is dragging its feet is perhaps wrong.
  Mr. McNulty: I will meet the hon. Gentleman half way, but with the best will in the world, in terms of the

  429
  areas that east Herts must respond to, a process that lasts from 1999 through to 2007 is tardy by any token, however active the Government and others are. We need to change that, but I should point cut that that is not a reflection on east Herts; in part, it is a reflection on the system that the planning legislation intends to change.
  It is true that the plan-led system has to be appropriate for east Herts. It would damp down precisely the sort of speculation that the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford has referred to. I accept that that is a heated topic in connection with the London-Stansted corridor, the M11 and other developments, but the process is rather lengthy nevertheless. I recognise that other factors are in play, but that is by the way.
  The local authorities, led by the regional planning body, are undertaking work to develop a planning and implementation strategy for the London-Stansted-Cambridge growth area for inclusion in RPG14, which will provide housing figures for the period up to 2021. However, that strategy must be rooted in the realities of regional problems and opportunities, and it must work on a time scale relevant to the local community.
  Two further studies are under way to supplement that work—the Harlow options study and the Stansted-M11 development options study. I accept that the local plan will have to take them into account. These further studies will inform the regional planning body in preparing RPG14, which is due to be submitted to Government in February 2004. My difficulty is understanding why it will take east. Herts until 2007 to prepare matters, when all the other things that I have mentioned will come on stream before.
  It will be for the regional planning body to prepare a sustainable development strategy for the growth area, and to consider whether the necessary exceptional circumstances, which have always been embodied in PPG2, exist to justify a review of the green belt. That review would then determine what extensions and releases be made.
  Any proposals in RPG14 for a review of the green belt will be fully tested through a public examination, at which a full range of local people and their representatives will have their say. Should RPG14, in its final form, identify a need for green belt review, there will be a further opportunity through local development frameworks for stakeholders to have their say on the appropriate boundaries. By local development frameworks I mean the final deposited versions of local plans.
  I am aware also of the cases in Hertfordshire that the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford mentioned, where land in the green belt is being fenced into individual plots and sold to gullible people—I accept the hon. Gentleman's description—apparently as an opportunity for housing. The fencing of the land does not need planning permission, as it benefits from permitted development rights. The hon. Gentleman will
  430
  know that the council has asked the Secretary of State to approve two directions that would remove the permitted development rights on land that has been subdivided into individual plots.
  The hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford will know, too, that it is inappropriate for me to comment on the issue, other than to say that the Government office for the south-east will be giving full consideration to the merits of the proposed directions, and will take account of all material considerations. The matter may well land on my desk.
  Mr. Prisk: I accept that the Minister cannot go into the details on the Floor of the House, but my point is that the signal being sent is the worst one—that there may be a chance that the land will be de-designated. That would undermine everything that the Minister has just set out. Does he genuinely believe that the metropolitan green belt can ever apply to any area other than those like mine, in southern Hertfordshire and Essex? How could it be transferred anywhere else and not be destroyed?
  Mr. McNulty: The original conception was that the metropolitan green belt would be the lungs around London. In part, that can still be recognised readily enough, but it has expanded. I have mentioned the 30,000 hectares that have been added since 1997, and before that 5,000 hectares were added around Bishops Stortford. The growth of the green belt should benefit everyone in the country, but I accept that there are special circumstances associated with the metropolitan green belt that need to be taken into account.
  I do not suggest that the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford is adopting scare tactics, but those tactics make good headlines. However, government is about delivering sustainable solutions to meet clear and pressing need for housing. To safeguard the effectiveness of the green belt, PPG2 remains in place, while PPG3 and the other studies focus development on existing land, where it rightly belongs.
  This Government are committed to maintaining or enhancing the green belt, combating low density development and delivering the affordable housing that people need. I shall certainly keep the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford abreast of those studies, and of wider developments in connection with the review of PPG2. I agree with his initial proposition, and endorse what he said about the heart of PPG2, which is that the green belt is crucial for the future vitality of the urban and rural areas of our country.
  I thank the hon. Gentleman for the measured, temperate and mature way in which he dealt with the matter, rather than turning it into an issue of "bulldozers versus concrete" and other such nimbysms. It is a serious subject, and I have no doubt that we will be in touch about it.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at fifteen minutes to Nine o'clock.

Preamble
[MR. FRANK COOK in the Chair]

Shipbuilding Industry
Motion made and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Phil Woolas.]
9.30 am
Mr. John Burnett: Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is a pleasure to welcome you to the Chair for such an important debate. When I applied for the debate, I did not expect that, only yesterday, 100 employees of Appledore shipbuilders in my constituency would have received 30 days' notice of redundancy. It is a dreadful irony, and I shall return later to the predicament of that important and excellent shipyard.
I am pleased to see the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Campbell) in his place. He is a member of the all-party shipbuilding and ship repair group, and I know that he is a great supporter of the industry. I am delighted also that a number of other Members are here and I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that they catch your eye.
It is often said that the shipbuilding industry goes from feast to famine. We are now in the famine phase; indeed, we have been in that phase for a considerable time. However, even when world market conditions improve, Britain's shipbuilding industry must constantly endeavour to overcome unfair competitive practices. Those practices includes the huge steel subsidies given in certain countries, and other compensation arrangements; for example, two companies in an overseas country that have a mutual agreement to depress prices for services or materials, with the state often surreptitiously picking up the tab. In addition, certain advantageous loan and guarantee arrangements available within the European Union do not seem to be available in this country.
Those anti-competitive arrangements have been referred to in previous debates on shipbuilding. However, that does not mean that they should not get a good airing today. Indeed, the difficult predicament of Appledore shipbuilders, and of other non-Ministry of Defence shipyards, is certainly down to those factors.
I am pleased to note that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) has joined us. He is secretary of the all-party shipbuilding and ship repair group. I am keen to put on record my gratitude for his work for the group and, more important, for the industry.
As hon. Members will know, an agreement was reached in 1994 by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development against threats by the United States to penalise subsidised shipping that entered US ports. The object of the agreement was to eliminate all subsidies, including contract aid and anti-dumping procedures. The agreement should have come into force in January 1996, but it has not; ironically, because of delays in ratification by the US, the country that precipitated the negotiations.
72WH
In December 2002, the OECD announced that the world's principal shipbuilding economies had launched negotiations on ways to counter over-capacity and plunging prices in the world shipbuilding industry. A special negotiating group was set up, with the participation, on an equal footing with OECD members, of numerous non-OECD economies; namely Brazil, China, Croatia, Romania, the Russian Federation, Chinese Taipei, and Ukraine, all countries with large shipbuilding capacities. Part of the group's remit was to establish normal competitive conditions in shipbuilding.
We are informed that the special negotiating group hopes to conclude its work by 2005, but many are sceptical about whether that time limit will be met. In the meantime, that world industry—for that is what it is—will be bedevilled in any event by other market-distorting factors, such as various Government support measures and transfer pricing, all of which distort normal competition conditions in the world shipbuilding industry.
It has often been said that Korea operates an unfair pricing system. I suspect that one of the reasons why Korea is singled out is because, by 2000, it had achieved 40 per cent. of the world market compared with only 29 per cent. in 1997. I remind the House that the EU and Norway had a market share of 16 per cent. in 2000, as against 18 per cent. in 1997.
Many hon. Members believe that Korea has won orders by pricing orders below production costs, and is able to do so by recycling funds received in aid and money from the International Monetary Fund. Not surprisingly, the Koreans emphatically deny that allegation. The EU is prosecuting an anti-subsidy case against Korea through the World Trade Organisation. The dispute settlement procedures will take much time to be resolved and, during that time, yet more damage will have been done to our industry.
Unfortunately, Korea is not alone. Early last year, Appledore was competing for a Government contract to build a heavy load barge. The idea, which came from the Department for Transport, is excellent. A large barge would be constructed to carry heavy loads—especially heavy transport vehicles such as cranes—by sea rather than on the roads. That would be in the interests of the environment and road users. Unfortunately, Appledore could not compete against a bid from the Dutch company, Damon. We have now discovered that the entire ship fabrication work for that barge is being done overseas; I believe in Ukraine.
I know from discussions with Appledore and others that certain countries of the former Soviet Union offer huge subsidies in steel. We understand that they are buying steel for shipbuilding for less than a quarter of the world price. When Appledore's management telephoned the appropriate authorities in Ukraine, it was told that it could not buy steel at that price. No shipyard can compete against that level of subsidy.
Many hon. Members may be surprised that a British shipyard should be short of work, given that the Government announced in July 2000 the largest programme of new warship construction since the second world war. Unfortunately, Appledore and a number of smaller shipyards were not included as prime

73WH
contractors in respect of any of those orders. Appledore tendered for the two alternative landing ships logistic—ALSLs—that the Government were minded to order.
On 26 October 2000, the Government announced that the successful bidder was Swan Hunter shipbuilders; good for them. However, we were amazed to find that a further two ALSLs had been ordered without a tender process and that they were to be built at the Govan shipyard, using Swan Hunter's design. To have the opportunity to build only one of those vessels would have been a massive boost for the Appledore yard, and for the local economy of north Devon. Additional jobs would have been created, the yard would have been extended and we would then have been able to compete in the market for medium-sized vessels.
Appledore went on to tender as prime contractor for some offshore patrol vessels. Just before tenders closed, the Ministry of Defence, through its intermediaries, informed us that a condition was to be imposed that Appledore had to be willing to buy back the ships after five years. That was a body blow for the shipyard, imposing an outrageous burden at the last minute. No responsible management in a medium-sized independent shipyard could possibly accede to that condition.
I come now to the future, which, unfortunately, is pretty grim. However, a Plymouth-based company, Sea Wind International, is seeking to place an order with Appledore for an offshore construction vessel, which is needed to construct offshore windmills. That is exactly what the Department of Trade and Industry said it wanted in its recent energy White Paper, and there are significant Government inducements for wind farm operators. Let us hope that the British industry has the opportunity to become involved in those important projects.
Sea Wind International will invest a substantial amount of its own money in the cost of producing the vessel. Obviously, it will have to borrow some, and banks, as usual, are seeking guarantees in respect of their loans for the vessel. I believe that such guarantees are available in other European Union countries, and we look to the Government for a loan guarantee. The offshore construction vessel will provide one-and-a-half years' work for the yard and will, in due course, be employed doing just the sort of work that the Government are exhorting the renewable energy industry to take on. That investment will sustain the shipyard and create a further 140 new jobs in Plymouth.
I should put on record that the Minister for Employment Relations, Industry and the Regions has seen me and the managing director of Appledore shipbuilders on several occasions. He has also seen Jim Wilson, the excellent managing director of Appledore, and representatives of Sea Wind International. He has informed us that he is anxious to help, and we shall see him again next week. I must impress on the Minister that time is of the essence. At Appledore, we have the last significant commercial shipyard left in England. It has an enviable record that is second to none. It is a company of not only vital local importance but national importance. It has a consistent record of building ships of the highest quality to a fixed price and to a fixed time.
74WH
In that respect, I should also mention that we had a subcontract to build HMS Scott, the arctic survey vessel, which was built in 1995 and has been at sea almost continuously since she was launched. When the current Secretary of State for Defence had an opportunity to scrutinise the contractual arrangements and to see exactly what Appledore had done in the process, he was moved to say that its work was exemplary and that he wished he could say the same about other Ministry of Defence contracts. As I said, that is an outstanding vessel, built on time at a fixed priced. The company has an outstanding work force and an innovative apprenticeship scheme. It and the region deserve the support that we seek.
9.44 am
Mr. Alan Campbell: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this important debate and, at the outset, I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members' Interests. I congratulate the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) on securing the debate and very much regret, as he does, the loss of jobs in his area. I also want to associate myself with his comments about unfair practices and subsidies in other countries. Those points will definitely be understood and supported on Tyneside.
I want to limit my contribution today to the state of shipbuilding on Tyneside. We have a proud tradition of shipbuilding, and it will not have gone unnoticed to Tynesiders that the Sir Galahad is awaiting clearance to go into the Iraqi port of Umm Qasr to bring much-needed humanitarian aid to the people of that area. That ship was built at Swan Hunter, and we wish her and her crew a safe return.
Almost exactly three years ago, I secured an Adjournment debate in this Chamber on shipbuilding in Tyneside, against the background of a crisis in the industry. We had marched through Newcastle and London to draw attention to the problems of shipbuilding and offshore construction, but I am pleased to say that, three years on, considerable progress has been made with regard to shipbuilding on Tyneside.
As the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon has already said, Swan Hunter was able to secure the contracts for two landing ships, which will soon be completed and launched; the first ships built on the Tyne since 1995. At about the same time, the topside of the Bonga project, a floating production storage and offloading vessel—FPSO—will be completed by AMEC on time and to price, like Shearwater three years ago. In two years' time, we very much hope that, at Swan Hunter and other yards across the region, we shall begin to construct a major part of the two aircraft carriers that were recently ordered.
The transformation of the shipbuilding industry in the region is a tribute to the superb work force and to forward-looking companies such as Swan Hunter and AMEC. It is also a tribute to the decisions taken by the Government to put work into the region in the form of MOD contacts and actively to support AMEC in its attempts to win the Bonga project. It is also due to the difficult decisions taken by the Government after 1997 to create a stable economic framework. Although I acknowledge difficulties with the exchange rate, the manufacturing industry in general benefits from low

75WH
interest rates and low inflation, which allow us to move away from the damaging situation of previous decades when wage rises and wage demands priced us out of the market. That means that United Kingdom companies can now compete for and win work from abroad, although it is still difficult.
The success and revival of shipbuilding on Tyneside is also a tribute to an attitude in the region of not waiting for MOD work, important though it is, but of actively seeking commercial work to ensure that yards are consistently full and not lurching, as the hon. Gentleman said, "from feast to famine." We are seeing a new way of working at Swan Hunter, which is at the centre of a cluster of small and medium-sized companies in the supply chain that, together, are trying to find ways of working efficiently and innovatively. It is no coincidence that the owners and many of the senior managers of Swan Hunter are Dutch, because I understand that cluster working is the norm in certain parts of the continent. We have imported that lesson, which is standing us in good stead.
I understand also that cluster working goes down well with the Ministry of Defence, which wants to ensure that the benefits of contracts do not go just to the prime contractors, but to the supply chain companies.
As I said, the landing ships that will be completed this year will be the first ships built and launched on the River Tyne since 1995, but the aircraft carrier orders announced in January will take us into a new dimension. Two of the vessels are three times the length of the pitch at St. James's park, and one can imagine the number of man hours required to construct even part of such a vessel. About 1,000 jobs will be either created or safeguarded on Tyneside, and a similar number created on Teesside, over a 10-year period in an industry that is used to lurching from one short contract to another. It is an excellent example of public expenditure, because it will provide not only the best kit for our armed forces, but jobs in UK shipyards. I am sure that the work force and companies will look to future Governments of whatever political persuasion to ensure that such contracts continue to be placed and persevered with.
The prospect of carrier work has been a huge psychological as well as economic boost for the region. I must also say that it stands in stark contrast to how Swan Hunter was treated in 1995 by the then Government. It is also important to recognise the important contribution of the north-east maritime and offshore cluster, which is a strategic cluster bringing together companies, agencies and trade unions in the region. I include in that the important work of the One NorthEast regional development agency, and I want to put on record my thanks for the work of Kevin Curran, the GMB regional secretary. He has been instrumental not only in bringing the cluster together, but ensuring that work comes into our region.
The cluster examines strategic issues such as training and the possibility of creating a core work force in an industry that has been plagued by short-termism, and is going out of its way to challenge the culture that existed a decade ago that shipbuilding was dead. We should not underestimate the difficulties that shipbuilding in the region still faces, but it is infinitely better placed now than it was three years ago when I secured my Adjournment debate.
76WH
I have three points for the Minister, the first of which concerns the work force. A work force still exists on Tyneside, although it may be scattered to the four winds with people doing other jobs outside the industry. Despite the apprentices who have been brought in, the average age of the work force on Tyneside is still in the high 40s, and there will be a point, perhaps during the lifetime of the carrier work, when many of those people will leave the industry. I want the assurance that the Government acknowledge the extent of the problem and are committed not only to bringing people back into the industry—former workers want to return from being taxi drivers, for example, to the industry in which they trained—but to investing resources to bring new people into the industry and convince them that they have a future, as I believe they do.
My second point is about procurement issues, which I know are ongoing. Will the Government ensure that a ship that they order that can in any way be described as a military vessel is so described? That will mean that the work is placed in UK shipyards and not abroad, as happened after our mistake with the roll-on/roll-off ferries. In procurement, will the Government also examine the proposition that best value in shipbuilding does not always mean the cheapest? Tyneside credits itself on quality and reliability, and that should be built into the equation.
My third and final point is that when the Government are in a position to place or influence the placing of large contracts, they should consider the lasting benefits to the region. As hon. Members will know, a planning gain factor exists in development matters, and I believe that the Government could consider something similar. For example, they could ensure that when a large contract is awarded, part of the contract finds its way into investment by the company into higher and further education. We will need project managers as well as engineers in the future, and it is clear from the work of the clusters that higher education is the way forward for shipbuilding. We must concentrate on the value-added projects, which is where the real wealth is found. In doing that, we will ensure that the high-scale, value-added projects that are available offer a future for shipbuilding and that shipbuilding is not an industry of the past, but part of the new economy.
9.56 am
Mr. Mark Hoban: Thank you, Mr. Cook. I congratulate—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Frank Cook): Order. I would be remiss in my duties were I not to remind the House that when it was decided to have parallel sittings in Westminster Hall, it was agreed that the occupant of the Chair should be addressed as Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Hoban: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) on securing this debate. His comments on the feast and famine in the shipbuilding industry were well made, and I will return to that point later. I also echo the comments made by the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Campbell). As a native of the north-east, I understand the concerns that he raised about the shipbuilding industry. He also made a valid

77WH
point about the skills that must be developed to meet the needs imposed on shipyards in securing contracts and the new aircraft carrier programme. That is another point to which I want to refer later.
In south-east Hampshire, the shipbuilding industry is an important local employer that spreads far and wide along the south Hampshire urban area. Although the Vosper Thornycroft shipyard is due to move from Southampton to Portsmouth in the near future, many people employed in that yard live in constituencies up and down the M27. Vosper is a major local employer, employing 1,000 people in its shipbuilding operations, and it is investing £50 million in the new yard in Portsmouth. Part of the Type 45 destroyer, the contract for which was announced last year by the Government, will be built there.
The next opportunity for Vosper Thornycroft is the future aircraft carrier programme, and like other shipyards, it hopes to win a decent share of the contract. Everyone was grateful for the Secretary of State's reassurance on 30 January that the work on the carriers would be split between four yards; Swan Hunter on Tyneside, BAE Systems Marine at Govan, Vosper Thornycroft at Portsmouth and Babcock BES at Rosyth. In that statement, he went on to touch on the crux of the issue affecting all those yards:
"The precise arrangements will be the subject of discussions between the alliance and the yards, to determine the best value for money and work load capacity."—[Official Report, 30 January 2003; Vol. 398, c. 1028.]
That concerns me, and one aspect highlighted by the hon. Member for Tynemouth was the need to develop skills to meet those needs.
Vosper Thornycroft believes that it may have to employ an additional 1,000 people, which will double its shipbuilding work force. Many of those recruits will not have the necessary skills to complete the work on time and to budget, so it is important for all the yards concerned to have some certainty about the work that will be allocated to them as soon as possible. That certainty has been affected by the way in which the Government have decided to involve both Thales and BAE Systems in the deal. Before that arrangement, all the yards had a fairly clear idea of the proportion of the contract that they would obtain if their preferred lead bidder won the contract.
The arrangements set out in the Secretary of State's statement of 30 January have led to a great deal of uncertainty in those yards over what work they will have and what skills they will need to develop in their staff. Vosper Thornycroft has developed a programme called "Skills for Life", which will meet the needs of the work force that it must recruit and the specification laid down by the Ministry of Defence.
The other aspect of the "Skills for Life" programme is to enable employees at the end of the carrier contract to be used elsewhere in the yard, in the neighbouring yard—the Fleet Support Ltd. ship maintenance facility in Portsmouth—or elsewhere in the local economy. Clearly, the optimum solution for many of the yards involved would be to move away from feast or famine. A levelling of the work load would assist not only the employers but the employees, as well as local suppliers.
78WH
As with the maritime cluster in the north-east, the South East England Development Agency, SEEDA, is looking to develop a cluster of suppliers, which will be required to invest in extra capacity and skills in their work forces. A greater degree of certainty in the stream of orders will advantage the prime contractors, the shipbuilders and their suppliers.
It would be useful if the Minister could address today when we will get certainty over the placing of the orders and whether we can sort out the peaks and troughs. If he cannot answer those questions today, will he take them back to the MOD, which is in the lead on those issues?
We have seen in the past few days that our naval capacity is fundamental to the deployment of troops and our armed forces overseas. The orders placed by the Government to strengthen that naval capacity are welcome, but we need a vibrant, viable shipbuilding sector—particularly a naval shipbuilding sector—to service those orders. I hope that the Government take back today the message that we need to ensure that all parts of the shipbuilding sector are there to support our armed forces.
10.2 am
Mr. Ian Davidson: We meet at a time when the future of shipbuilding has never been brighter. As secretary of the all-party group on shipbuilding and ship repair, I start by saying how grateful we are, as has been mentioned, for the co-operation that we have received from this Government, particularly in the placing of naval orders. I do not think that at any time within memory has so much work been given to the yards, and in a fashion that has allowed them to plan. It is clear that the flow of work will allow the yards continued employment and stability for the foreseeable future.
For the first time, the yards can make promises to their work forces about continuity of employment and try to recruit new people with a guarantee of stability of employment. That is extremely welcome in my area and in many other areas of the country. I am talking about not only the major orders for the Type 45s and the aircraft carriers but the orders that came before those. The programme of work has been a model of procurement.
I want to raise at this early stage—while the Ministry of Defence is discussing the Military Afloat Reach and Sustainability, or MARS, project—the absolute importance of ensuring that all the vessels involved in that project are built in the United Kingdom. I appreciate that innovative routes of financing are being examined, but because those vessels will be involved in support for fighting vessels, it is essential that they are considered naval vessels and are built in the UK. We have had difficulties with some items of procurement in the past, as my hon. Friend the Minister may be aware. I refer in particular to the two ships of the ALSL order that were given to Tyneside. Some steelwork and some design work—more than had been expected—from that order went off to Holland, resulting in delays for not only Swan Hunter but the work on Clydeside. If we get assurances from Government that work will be done in this country, we do not want then to find that subcontract work, especially steelwork, is handed out abroad. I am sure that the Minister will be able to give

79WH
the same assurances that we have already had on that from the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, Lord Bach.
On the aircraft carriers, we in the shipbuilding and ship repair group are grateful for the close liaison that there has been with the MOD and Lord Bach. The assurances that many of us sought that all the design, build and intellectual property rights would be retained for this country have been made. We have also had suitable assurances that nothing will be done that will compromise the UK's opportunities to compete for export orders of naval vessels in the future. We will not find that key parts of the skills base or the technology will be retained elsewhere. Given the present creative tension with France, that issue has exercised the minds of many of my colleagues, but I am glad to hear that guarantees have been given that that tension will not interfere with our opportunity to seek export work in the future.
The tripartite structure that the Government have chosen for the aircraft carriers of BAE Systems—formerly British Aerospace—Thales and the MOD, which has an overarching management and risk management role, is novel, innovative and not without dangers. However, given that the MOD seems willing to bear that risk, who are we mere mortals to cast doubts on its ability to cope with the complexities? We want to ensure, however, that none of those complexities will cause delays to the ordering and subcontracting programmes. As other Members have mentioned, this order is a bonanza not only for the yards where the main modules will be created, but for virtually everywhere in the UK that can turn its hand to metal fabrication and the like. It is one of the largest boosts to the entire industry for a considerable period. I hope that the liaison that we have had with the MOD to date continues and that we are able to have similar liaison with the Department of Trade and Industry to explore various issues relating to the future of the industry.
There are still several issues for the future that need to be explored. The first is the need to do what we can to ensure that the order books are smoothed out. The pattern of ordering for the Type 45s and the aircraft carriers might result in some peaks and troughs, and it would be helpful if the Government entered the negotiation process with an understanding that it would be in the interests of all concerned to adjust the times, dates and schedules to allow smoothing out. We want to avoid, as far as possible, the boom and bust that has been the curse of the industry in the past.
Other Members have mentioned skills. Given the nature and age profile of the industry, considerable recruitment is likely to be required in the future. In my constituency and neighbouring areas, 10 years' guaranteed work in the shipyards as a result of the naval orders is longer than many other local employers can offer. The Government have a responsibility to work with Scottish Enterprise and other local organisations to market the industry as something that offers a secure future for youngsters leaving school. There are obvious difficulties surrounding the industry. It still has an image of providing dirty jobs, which is unfortunate in many ways. I have been to the yards and seen the high-tech basis of much employment there, and we need to ensure that the jobs are marketed in a way that sends out a proper, balanced image of the industry.
80WH
It is interesting that we have had so much debate in Parliament on university education. A high proportion of the young people from my constituency will not go to university, but will take apprenticeships. I do not see public schools fighting to ensure that they get a disproportionate share of modern apprenticeships. If the future of industries such as shipbuilding is marketed correctly, perhaps they will move into that area; such competition would be welcome.
The Government have a heavy responsibility to ensure that the jobs are made sufficiently attractive to bring in some of the best and brightest of our youngsters. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Campbell) said, many who have left the industry and are working as taxi drivers and the like would be enthusiastic about returning if there were to be stability of employment and the opportunity for reskilling that enabled them to move up the salary scale. Many of the wages in the industry leave a bit to be desired; that is not the way to recruit and retain the best and brightest work force for the future.
The Government also have a responsibility to discuss more closely with the Shipbuilders and Ship Repairers Association—the employers—the future of the LINK project. The funding will expire at the end of 2003, and all the money is already committed. Substantial amounts have been spent on business improvement master classes; research and development; projects such as SSA marine; advice on science and technology; marketing services; a variety of special interest groups; and areas that suffer a shortage of skills and education.
Now that the future seems bright for the industry, we need to ensure that the Government contribute to such pump-priming amounts, balanced by income from the industry so that it remains at the cutting edge. Where international competition is concerned, others have already made points about unfair practices by other countries. In particular, the running sore of South Korea has not been adequately tackled by the European Union or by other major shipbuilding powers. The message that such nations take from that is that they can get away with it with virtual impunity. The Government have been relatively feeble in that regard, although I recognise the difficulties that they have faced in persuading the European Union to act. If we were to establish a precedent of taking action against unfair competition, it would have consequences for many of our European friends and neighbours.
Finally, I pay tribute to my colleague, the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett), for securing this important debate. He has been a stalwart as vice-chairman of the all-party group, and I know that the chairman has been grateful for his support.
10.13 am
Mr. David Chidgey: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) on securing this debate. It comes at a good time and gives us a chance to pause for breath after some dramatic developments in the shipbuilding industry in the past 18 months or so. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Campbell) on his studied and thoughtful analysis of the industry and of what could well happen in the future.

81WH
Some years ago I was fortunate enough to secure a Westminster Hall debate on the shipbuilding industry at the time of the campaign to save south-coast shipbuilding. The industry was in sharp decline, the major shipbuilder in our region, Vosper Thornycroft—whose Woolston shipyard had been in my constituency until the boundary changes—was struggling in the domestic market, although it was a very successful exporter of ships, and 6,000 jobs in the industry were at risk across the region.
The main problem was the lack of royal naval orders, particularly for Vosper Thornycroft, which is known throughout the world for its excellence in warship building. It was having great difficulty in convincing overseas customers, mainly Governments, that they should buy its wares, when it could not demonstrate that it had the seal of approval of building our own Royal Navy's ships, which are reckoned to be the best in the world.
The future of shipbuilding on the south coast hung in the balance. There was great concern, not just for the jobs, but for what it meant to the community. Our tradition of warship building has been unbroken since at least the time of Henry VIII, and it was on the verge of disappearing. When I was a student engineer in Portsmouth, people could not remember when the last ship had been built in the dockyard. I think that it had been in the 1950s, so we have had a 50-year break in the naval dockyard of naval ship construction.
The award of the type 45 destroyer contract was important not just as an order but as a way of helping to win the fight for survival. The key issue was the fact that the order was placed through competition. Hon. Members will remember that there was a great debate at the time; it was feared that the Government would set aside the well-established principle that naval contracts should be awarded on the basis of competition between shipyards. The argument was advanced strongly that there should be a negotiated contract with BAE Systems, through its subsidiary BAE Marine, to take on the whole lot. The other option was that it should be split and that there should be competition between the two yards most able to undertake the work, BAE Systems and Vosper Thornycroft.
The decision was whether to leave the United Kingdom with a sole prime contractor in the naval shipbuilding industry or to have two competing prime contractors able to bring the Government and the country the benefits of competition; not just costs, but innovation and a dramatic and dynamic approach to the task of winning orders. I am glad to say that the principle of competition was upheld and Vosper Thornycroft benefited from the award of part of the Type 45 contract. I understand that that is going particularly well.
That award turned round the prospects for shipbuilding on the south coast. I understand the difficulties of the excellent firm Appledore that my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon
82WH
described. The right principle is in place, but the benefits have not been distributed as well as they might have been.
Mr. Burnett: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is particularly difficult at present for shipyards that do not have the benefit of MOD orders, but rely on worldwide commercial conditions?
Mr. Chidgey: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Although I would not wish in any way to diminish the excellent work of Appledore, in most cases it is probably a supply-chain operator rather than a prime contractor. I shall return to the issue of how we give our supply chain industry every opportunity to bid fairly for work.
The benefits of the Type 45 destroyer contract are worth dwelling on for a couple of minutes. It brought with it £50 million of investment in the Portsmouth shipbuilding facility—which we used to call a dockyard—which will be completed later this year. It will be the most advanced facility in western Europe, and its advanced capabilities in design and manufacture will not just benefit competition for projects within the UK, but will enable it to compete effectively throughout the world. As many colleagues know, overseas firms are fighting tooth and nail for the opportunities to win warship contracts. The facility is of terrific benefit to our local economy and it is strengthening competition for royal naval projects.
The Rand Corporation made an assessment of the MOD's procurement options for the Type 45 destroyer, in which it said:
"To summarise the current status of the UK shipbuilding industrial base only two shipbuilders—BAE SYSTEMS Marine and VT—have the combination of physical facilities, management and labour experience, and financial resources necessary"
to provide that service to the MOD. That is a healthy situation, and I should like it to be strengthened and preserved.
Vosper Thornycroft, the prime shipbuilding contractor on the south coast, can now restructure, expand and diversify into a wide range of engineering facilities. The VT Group, as it is now named, has moved its headquarters to my constituency and has developed its work force of 6,000, of whom 1,000 are in shipbuilding, to provide a wide range of skills in engineering, design and construction, and product support. Most importantly, the group has strengthened its training for the future generation of engineers and technicians in the industry.
As hon. Members have mentioned, we are now on the verge of the award of substantial contracts for the future aircraft carrier. I understand that the VT Group is well placed to win a substantial part of that, which could be some 20 per cent. of the production and through-life support. I do not just hold a candle for a local employer in my constituency; I can see beyond that to what the contracts mean for engineering and shipbuilding across the region. Hampshire has the most defence-dependent economy of any shire county in the country. I hope that the speedy award of the future aircraft carrier contracts will not only bring major recruitment in the shipbuilding division of VT—over 1,000 additional personnel—but will be just one aspect of the benefits of orders for the Royal Navy. Those orders are won through competition, and they will benefit a wide sector of the local economy.

83WH
Lack of skills is the major issue in the economy of what is often known as the affluent south-east. Although overall unemployment is low, lack of skills is restraining economic development, which is a huge problem. The future aircraft carrier project gives an opportunity to develop the "Skills for Life" training programme. There are exciting prospects of continual, diverse training, and career development by choice in many different ways; not only in Vosper Thornycroft, but in the local economy. People will have the option of moving in and out of shipbuilding as the peaks and troughs arise, while developing and improving their skills, and making themselves more productive and more employable.
From the discussions that I have had with the Learning and Skills Council, Eastleigh further education college—of which I am a governor—and the VT Group, which is the second biggest supplier of modern apprenticeship schemes in the UK, I can be confident that the programme has the potential to break the mould with regard to the mounting skills shortage in the area and the problems related to peaks and troughs in the shipbuilding industry. In the modern world it is important to give people the skills that enable them to change their roles and their jobs, be flexible and take up opportunities as they arise.
So far the news has been good. Shipbuilding on the south coast has been saved from collapse due to the MOD's retention of the principle of competition. More than £50 million has been invested in the shipbuilding industry, and there is a groundbreaking "Skills for Life" programme. However, there is just one cloud on the horizon; procurement by prime contractors through the supply chain. In a speech to the Northern Defence Industries in October last year, the Minister with responsibility for defence procurement said:
"How prime contractors manage the supply chain is primarily their business but we have an interest in ensuring fair play. This is essential if we are to maximise benefit from your skills and expertise. In that context"
we have
"reached an agreement through the MOD/industry commercial policy group—on a number of practices dealing with supply chain relationships."
He said that the agreement had been established on codes of practice, which is
"an important step towards encouraging a positive equitable and co-operative approach between the MOD and its suppliers".
That is all very well, but do such things happen in practice? "Positive equitable and co-operative" are the key words, and the contracts such as those for the Type 45 destroyers and the future aircraft carrier are a good opportunity to display those qualities, but will they? Those contracts are hugely complex and taking a huge slice of taxpayer's money; I reckon that the figure is about £15 billion, but it might be more than that.
Although the MOD, rightly, does not willingly subsidise the defence industry, it is well known—hon. Members have given examples of case after case this morning—that other countries subsidise their industries, in particular their defence industries. The state advantage to foreign firms in direct competition with UK suppliers to the Government and the taxpayer is, frankly, not acceptable. Although I recognise that he does not speak on behalf of the MOD, I ask the Minister to assure us that he will take the matter up with his
84WH
colleagues and perhaps try to assure us later that MOD contracts in the supply chain—especially those to the Royal Navy, which probably constitute most of the overall cost—will not be awarded to foreign firms that benefit from state subsidies, whatever form those subsidies take. Will the Government take the initiative to set an example, and reject the award of contracts to the MOD in the supply chain when the firms involved undercut UK firms through the benefit of unfair subsidies? Competition must be transparent, open and fair.
10.26 am
Brian Cotter: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) on initiating the debate, which is important not only for the Appledore company in his constituency and shipbuilding as such, but for manufacturing as a whole. Hon. Members frequently address issues to do with manufacturing and keeping the country going as they relate to those skilled with their hands.
There has not been fairness in the shipbuilding industry for some time. As is so often the case, such matters have been allowed to drift on for far too long. My hon. Friend rightly referred to South Korea and eastern European countries, where steel has been greatly subsidised, which means that manufacturers and users in this country cannot gain from those lower steel prices.
I should like to declare an interest, in that I am the managing director of a small manufacturing company. I do not know whether the company is doing anything in the way of shipbuilding orders at the moment, because although I keep reasonably good track of my company I am there for a few hours a week only, when my brain is ticking over as to what is going on. However, the company has done shipbuilding work in the past and we shall, I hope, no doubt do so again.
I pay tribute to Appledore, having visited the website, read its history and seen a fine picture of what looks like a schooner from the early days—I am not sufficiently into shipping to describe it properly—and one of a tanker from today. The company is long-established. People tend to think that because long-established companies have been around for a long time they may not be meeting competition very well. However, from what I have read about Appledore, I am certain that it is a vibrant company, as many British manufacturers are; otherwise, it would not still be trading, as it hopes that it will continue to do. Although Appledore is rather bigger than my company, I feel a commonality in that both share the desire to carry on the manufacturing tradition of this country.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) spoke with great heart about manufacturing and engineering skills, the need for training, and the need to recognise manufacturing as an attractive industry to enter. I urge all hon. Members to take that on board. We should encourage people not only to go to universities such as Oxford and Cambridge, but to go into manufacturing. Having been in manufacturing for a good part of my life, I would recommend people to go into it and give it the priority that it should have, because it can be an interesting, challenging and exciting industry to work in. My hon. Friend the Member for

85WH
Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey), who has a great deal of experience in engineering, spoke today, as he has in the past, with great knowledge on the matter. He rightly spoke about the need for skills training to get the right people in place in manufacturing. He made interesting comments about the supply chain measures and spoke, far better than I, on the need to address the situation. I hope that the Government will respond appropriately.
We have seen unfair practices throughout the world. In that connection I would like to refer to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development agreement of 1994, which was made against threats from the US to penalise shipping that was seen to be subsidised. On 5 December 2002, the OECD announced that the world's principal shipping economies had launched negotiations on how to counter overcapacity and plunging prices in the world shipbuilding industry. As a result, a special negotiating group, known as the SNG, was set up. Future meetings of the SNG were to discuss mechanisms to deal with subsidies and other support measures, as well as disciplines on pricing and other practices that distort the market and eventually, to produce remedies and dispute settlement procedures.
The SNG was supposed to be concluding its work by 2005, which is all well and good. However, that is an awful long time away. In the meantime, we must ask what effect unfair practices will have on the shipbuilding industry and on Appledore in particular. Korea has been mentioned in that context. Although submissions have been made over many years about the shipbuilding industry in South Korea, there is a strong feeling that that country has indulged, and may be continuing to indulge, in subsidies and benefits not available to our companies. I hope that the Minister will respond to that concern.
The EU supported the abolition of state help, although it initially delayed changing its rules on the seventh directive on aid to shipbuilding to accommodate the OECD agreement until reciprocal measures had been introduced in some of the far east countries. We look to the Government for guidance and a response on what is being done to address the situation. Our very fine companies have to trade from a disadvantageous position.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville, Minister for Science at the Department of Trade and Industry, said in response to a written question on competition from Korea:
"We have long recognised the adverse impact that Korean unfair competition has had upon the world shipbuilding market. The European Union (EU) is pursuing, with our firm support, a bilateral/trade remedy to this issue ߪ If the Commission's examination does confirm the case against Korea and does recommend action in the WTO, we would be minded to support such action, subject to completing our review".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 9 May 2001; Vol. 634, c. 387W.]
Many believed that the matter would be resolved without referring to the World Trade Organisation. However, that was not to be, and on 24 October 2002 the permanent delegation of the European Commission to the WTO sent a request for consultation to the permanent mission of Korea and to the chairman of the dispute settlement body at the WTO. I hope that the Minister will tell us how matters are proceeding on that matter.
86WH
I also hope that the Minister will assure us that officials at the DTI are keeping in close touch with the shipbuilding industry. I am sure that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok and other hon. Members on the all-party shipbuilding and ship repair group will know much more than I on the matter. On a very personal level, I hope that Government officials have been in touch with Appledore and are doing everything that they can to help it to survive and prosper.
In summary, it is my heartfelt wish that we do all that we can to support engineering and shipbuilding manufacture. We must not let matters slide when addressing unfair competition from other parts of the world.
10.35 am
Mr. Henry Bellingham: I congratulate the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) on securing the debate and on presenting his case so eloquently and forcefully. I declare an interest that is in the Register of Members' Interests. The point that the hon. Gentleman made about feast or famine was well made. He also clearly illustrated the real problems faced by yards that do not have MOD work. They are much more exposed to unfair competition from abroad. The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Brian Cotter) also touched on the OECD agreement and Korea, and I will return to that in a moment.
The hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon spoke about the various anti-competitive loan guarantee arrangements in the EU. I see the point that he was making about their effect on non-MOD yards, including Appledore. He pointed out—
Mr. Burnett: My understanding is that many companies in the EU get loan guarantees for the cost of manufacturing vessels. We seek the same terms; we seek no favours or support. We merely seek the same terms that are available to others.
Mr. Bellingham: That is a fair point. It is important that the Minister speaks about our own home shipbuilding credit guarantee scheme, which was set up under the Industry Act 1972. It is interesting that we were debating the Industrial Development (Financial Assistance) Bill in Committee yesterday. Although we did not discuss part 3, we looked at the section 8 scheme. The scheme is far-reaching and has supported 1,200 vessels up to a value of £4.5 billion since its inception. Presumably, it is possible under that scheme to sort out the problems in the shipbuilding industry that have been raised by the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon. Perhaps the Minister will tell us whether that is the case.
The hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon also mentioned the Dutch firm Damon, which was able to subcontract most of its work to the Ukraine by buying steel in at a quarter of the world price. That is staggering. I agree with him that no one could compete against such subsidy. Perhaps, if he does not have the answer now, the Minister could write to the hon. Gentleman and to me, as it is a cause of substantial concern.

87WH
The hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon also mentioned the offshore patrol vessel for which Appledore bid. However, a buy-back condition was imposed, presumably by the MOD. If so, that is fairly staggering.
Mr. Burnett: At the last moment.
Mr. Bellingham: At the last moment, indeed. Perhaps the Minister could comment on that or write to me. I know that he is not here to answer for the MOD, but it struck me as unconscionable.
Mr. Hoban: On offshore patrol vessels, does the hon. Member agree that the important issue is to ensure that taxpayers get good value for money? If the buy-back led to taxpayers getting a better deal, it was not a wholly bad decision.
Mr. Bellingham: Indeed. That is exactly one of the points that I hope the Minister will answer. We all need clarification on that.
I agree with the comments about offshore wind turbines. There are currently planning applications for more than 90 offshore turbines along the Wash and off the Norfolk coast. In fact, if there is another proposal put forward by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, it could lead to another 100 turbines going off the Norfolk coast. That would certainly solve the problem of huge controversies about onshore turbines, which are extremely unpopular. Much of the work will indeed be given to UK companies. I should have thought that that would create a huge amount of potential for the future.
The hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Campbell) talked about the yard in his constituency, Swan Hunter. I visited Swan Hunter some years ago as part of a project that I was doing at the time. I know only too well the extraordinary sense of affinity between the city, the yard and the people in the region. I was very pleased to hear from the hon. Gentleman that the yard is going through a period of revival and that there is a spirit of optimism in his constituency. The point that he mentioned about the cluster work is obviously extremely important, as is the way in which Swan Hunter has been able to look very proactively for non-military work.
The hon. Gentleman rightly congratulated the Government on the orders that have come from the MOD. However, it was the last Conservative Government who wrote the two large aircraft carriers into the defence programme, and it is only fair that credit is given for that. Apart from that, I thought that what the hon. Gentleman said about trying to attract skills back into the industry was very important. That point was echoed by my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) and the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) when they talked about ensuring not only that there is re-skilling, but that people who already have those skills are attracted back into what is obviously a very exciting industry to work in, notwithstanding the peaks and troughs.
I certainly agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham said. Although the split of the work between the four yards is welcome in many ways, there is a need for a framework for the split of work and
88WH
a need for consistency. That will be crucial in ensuring that the right levels of recruitment take place. If the Minister cannot answer that question now, he can talk to his colleagues at the MOD and move forward on that. Since the excitement, and especially the relief, of the announcement that the main contract did not go to Thales's offshore construction service, there is a need to dot some of the i's and cross some of the t's because the yards obviously need to know exactly where they stand so that they can move forward with their long-term planning.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) made a very good point about the subcontracting work going abroad, which was echoed by the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare. It is fine if subcontracting work goes abroad, but it should not go to yards that are unfairly subsidised by particular countries within the EU. The Government must be alive to that important point. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok made the point that there will be a spin-off benefit for small and medium-sized companies not just on Clydeside but throughout the UK. That is obviously important. I hope that a steady flow of vessels will be launched in his constituency. I also hope that even he will put his well-known republican views to one side to welcome members of the royal family to launch those vessels in the years ahead.
The Minister should definitely answer the point that the hon. Member for Eastleigh raised regarding skills. Several hon. Members are very concerned about the crucial need to get people who have skills back into the industry as well as attracting those who are in the industry already.
As far as the economy is concerned, there has been a very substantial decline in manufacturing and heavy engineering, and shipbuilding and ship repair are obviously part of that. Since 1997, 600,000 jobs have been lost. In fact, the CBI predicted the other day that another 40,000 could be lost between now and Easter. I am very sorry that probably 100 jobs at Appledore will be included in that figure. That is why it is vital that everything that can be done is done to help key industries such as shipbuilding. The picture as far as MOD orders are concerned is fairly rosy, notwithstanding the need for clarity now and certainty, which I hope that we shall see in the very near future.
I do not always agree with the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare, but as far as non-naval work is concerned, I agree with him that the OECD agreement and the special negotiating group are most crucial to the way in which we move forward. With those sentiments, I would add that 2005 is still a long way off. Why can there not be any progress before 2005 as far as the special negotiating group is concerned? What are Her Majesty's Government doing to encourage more progress? What meetings have taken place? What role is the shipbuilding forum playing in spearheading discussions between Her Majesty's Government and the special negotiating group? Have any talks taken place and if not, why not? I should have thought that one of the absolutely key roles for the shipbuilding forum would be in those discussions with the OECD and the special negotiating group, which is made up of non-OECD countries.

89WH
As far as home-grown assistance is concerned, the shipbuilding intervention fund, as I understand it, came to an end in December 2000. What, if anything, is being put in its place? I want to push the Minister on the home shipbuilding credit guarantee scheme. Questions have been asked about why various UK yards cannot get access to the same level of credit guarantee as their EU counterparts. If that is the case, why is more not being done to widen the scheme and make it more attractive? That is vital as far as Korea is concerned because there is not only anecdotal evidence that Korea is winning orders at prices below production costs; I have read article after article that endorses that point. If we are to guarantee any future at all for non-MOD yards in this country, that point must be addressed.
I very much hope that the Minister will answer those questions. If he answers them successfully, we hope very much that there will be a brighter future for the UK yards than there perhaps has been for several years.
10.48 am
The Minister for E-Commerce and Competitiveness (Mr. Stephen Timms): I too congratulate the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) on securing the debate. We have had a useful discussion with several well informed contributions, in which Members have drawn on their constituency experience of the shipbuilding industry. I also want to pay tribute to the work of the all-party group, and I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) has been able to contribute to the debate. The debate provides me with a useful opportunity to stress again our continuing support for the UK shipbuilding industry and to draw attention to the actions that we are taking to help it improve its competitive performance to meet the considerable challenges, several of which have been highlighted in the discussion.
The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Brian Cotter) asked me to confirm that the Department was continuing to take a close interest in and be in close contact with the industry, and I am glad to do that. I pay tribute to Appledore Shipbuilders in the constituency of the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon. As we heard, that company has a long and distinguished tradition of shipbuilding. The hon. Gentleman has rightly drawn attention to some challenges that the yard faces. I want to comment on those, but first I will set out the context.
There is, as we heard, a clear distinction between the market prospects for the naval and the merchant shipbuilding markets in the United Kingdom. The MOD's current naval procurement programme is the largest for many years. It includes the construction of three Astute class submarines, six Type 45 destroyers, four landing craft and two aircraft carriers, which will be the largest naval vessels ever built in the UK. That programme provides an excellent opportunity for the industry to re-establish itself, because it will provide substantial opportunities for the commercial as well as the naval yards.
In heartening contributions from my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Campbell) and the hon. Members for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) and for Eastleigh
90WH
(Mr. Chidgey), we heard about how that opportunity is being successfully grasped throughout the UK. My hon. Friend made important points about cluster working. There are many examples of the success of that approach in other industries and in the shipbuilding industry in other countries. He is right to draw attention to the benefits that it could bring to our industry.
Several hon. Members invited me to comment on the future procurement policy of my MOD colleagues. I shall decline those invitations, but I will say that the MOD consults my Department on procurement decisions in order to take account of the implications for industry. Hon. Members also referred to skills. Next week there will be a meeting between my Department and the MOD's project team in respect of aircraft carriers to discuss skills, so we are keeping a close eye on how those issues and challenges are developing.
I cannot argue that commercial yards are not experiencing great difficulties; they certainly are. UK merchant yards are finding it very difficult to win new orders, but other yards throughout north-western Europe are experiencing similar difficulties for similar reasons. Global demand for new shipbuilding has weakened substantially, reflecting the global economic slowdown. In addition to competition from Korea, about which we heard a good deal, and from Japan, there is increased competition from China and from Turkey, a relative newcomer whose order book has expanded by 30 per cent. in the past three years. There is also new competition from eastern Europe; Ukraine was mentioned.
Mr. Bellingham: Is the Minister concerned about Poland's accession to the European Union and possible subsidies that its shipbuilding industry receives?
Mr. Timms: As I said, there are new competitive challenges from eastern Europe, and we are alive to them. If there are questions of illegal subsidy, the fact that such issues are being addressed in the EU will be helpful, but we certainly keep a close eye on those issues. The question of cheap steel from Ukraine was mentioned, but we have not been able to find firm evidence for what was described. If hon. Members have evidence for that, I would be keen to see it.
Mr. Burnett: I do not want to interrupt the Minister for long, but I will see what I can do about that evidence. He will know that I and the managing directors of Appledore and Sea Wind International have been negotiating with the DTI for a loan guarantee for some time. Next week we again see the Minister for Employment Relations, Industry and the Regions. I hope that this Minister will pass on to his colleague our concerns about the critical difficulties that Appledore faces. I ask him to tell his colleague that about 800 jobs are in jeopardy.
Mr. Timms: I will certainly pass that message on to my hon. Friend. He is following developments with great interest, as the hon. Gentleman knows. We very much regret that the company had to take the decision about redundancies to which he referred. We recognise that redundancies will have a big impact on north Devon, given the lack of real alternative engineering employment in the area. I am pleased, however, that the

91WH
South West of England Development Agency has announced the establishment of the Bideford taskforce and the immediate involvement of Jobcentre Plus's rapid reaction team to assist the workers who are made redundant in finding alternative employment. The hon. Gentleman will find that that is an effective approach.
The first meeting of the taskforce took place yesterday. Its members include Appledore Shipbuilders, the regional development agency, the district council, the local chamber of commerce, Jobcentre Plus and the Government office for the south-west. David Whiteley, who chairs the north-west Devon economic partnership, heads the taskforce.
We continue to work closely with Appledore to help it to win new orders and, we hope, avoid further redundancies. As the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) thought, there is an application for a home shipbuilding credit guarantee scheme loan guarantee for the wind barge contract that Appledore is pursuing. Yesterday my officials met everyone involved. We anticipate having a final report from the advisory committee of the Ship Mortgage Finance Company before the Minister for Employment Relations, Industry and the Regions meets the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon and the firm next week.
Let me set out briefly what we have done to help the industry in the last few years. In 1998 we set up the Shipbuilding Forum, which was mentioned. It comprised the industry, unions, training bodies, the national training provider—the Engineering and Marine Training Authority—Departments, including the MOD, and the devolved Administrations. Last year we expanded the forum's membership to the marine equipment and boatbuilding sectors, renaming the forum the Shipbuilding and Marine Industries Forum.
In December 1998 we received the forum's first report, which concluded that the industry's future depended on its ability to improve competitiveness. Since then we have been working closely with it to take forward its key objectives for improved productivity, better marketing and improvements in training and skills. Several hon. Members referred to that.
We established the LINK shipbuilding research project to help the industry to improve productivity. Launched in 2001, that five-year project combines academic studies with "master class", which aims to
92WH
bring about practical, short-term productivity improvements. The concept derives from the automotive and aerospace industries, where industry experts visit and inspect a yard, recommend immediate improvements and, crucially, embed that ability in the yard so that continuous improvement can be achieved. "Master class" has been very successful.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok asked about continued funding for that initiative. I cannot make new announcements about that today. We are considering the criteria for Government support for such exercises in future, so I cannot say now how a proposal in respect of that project would stack up against those criteria. It is important to factor in the potential for the Department and the shipbuilders' association to work with RDAs to look for regional initiatives. Of course, yards can access the manufacturing advisory service and the regional centres for manufacturing excellence. We are supporting a newbuilding marketing project, which was launched in 2001. That has highlighted the considerable potential that still exists within UK shipyards to attract new customers.
The Shipbuilding and Marine Industries Forum has identified in particular the need for substantial improvements in the skills base of the industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth talked about that a good deal, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok and the hon. Members for Fareham and for Eastleigh. To address that issue, my Department has been working closely with EMTA—the former national training organisation—the Science, Engineering and Manufacturing Technologies Alliance, the Learning and Skills Council and the Department for Education and Skills. The focus has been on improving craft skills, such as welding and project management.
Hon. Members' concerns about skills in the shipbuilding industry could also be raised in the context of a number of other industries. Skills are a big challenge for the UK as a whole. The Government will publish a skills strategy later this year to help us to address it jointly. Apprenticeships are an important part of the progress that we need to make on that front. I was interested to see that the Govan yard advertised 100 apprenticeships recently and received more than 1,000 applications. The attractiveness of this industry is becoming well understood. I welcome that.

Hearing Tests (Southampton)
11 am
Sandra Gidley: I welcome the opportunity to put the matters in question before the Minister. This is beginning to feel like a regular event. I have long been aware that audiology could be regarded as a Cinderella service in the NHS, but I have only just realised how far the local service has deteriorated in the three years since my election.
I have a letter from a constituent, highlighting the fact that in June 2000 there was a 12-month waiting list. The waiting time runs from the hospital's receipt of the GP's referral letter to the date of the hearing test. It is important to bear in mind that the wait is for a hearing test only, and that a further wait follows before a suitable hearing aid is provided. The good news for my constituent was that we managed to bring her appointment forward. She was an elderly lady and had to wait only about three months. That is important: at one time local hospitals' policy was to bring forward appointments for very elderly people, but that policy has recently changed.
Since October I have received a significant number of letters from constituents informing me that the waiting list for a hearing test is anything from 27 months to 29 months. Clearly, that situation is unacceptable. The first question that I asked myself was whether the problem was unique to Southampton. It might be instructive to tell the Minister about my first encounter with the Royal South Hants hospital, where hearing tests are performed for the Southampton University Hospitals NHS trust. I was initially put through to a fairly junior member of staff who was very helpful, but who, upon realising that I was an MP, clammed up completely and said, "I really don't know if I should be talking to you." She checked, and told me that the boss wanted to speak to me. The then boss was forthcoming about his department's severe underfunding, and the reasons for it. Quite simply, audiology is not, or was not, a priority.
I suspect that the problem is not unique to Southampton, because the evidence shows that the Department of Health has been aware of such a problem for some time. On 7 June 1998 the Department of Health issued a press release that stated:
"Latest figures show the NHS is continuing to make good progress on cutting long waits for NHS patients."
Clearly audiology is not part of those figures, but I am not sure why. In December 1998 the then Under-Secretary of State for Health, the right hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), responded to issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) by saying:
"I assure her that we are absolutely committed to ensuring that people who need audiology services from the NHS get a first-class service. Nothing else will do."—[Official Report, 2 December 1998; Vol. 321, c. 854.]
I do not know the NHS definition of a first-class audiology service, but in my book it is not a wait of 27 or 29 months.
Between December 1998 and August 2001 the number of people throughout the country waiting more than 13 weeks for an initial audiology appointment rose from 491 to 1,529, according to Government figures. Clearly the hype does not match the reality. In 2001 the
94WH
Royal National Institute for Deaf People produced the report "Audiology in Crisis", which highlighted lengthening queues for audiology services. It stated that the funds allocated by trusts for acquisition of hearing aids are in most cases inadequate to meet demand, even using the most basic hearing aid technology. That fact, together with inadequate staffing and infrastructure, is a major threat to the successful roll out of the Government's initiative to modernise hearing aid services.
The important point that arises from what I am outlining is that in many cases the funding available to audiology departments has struggled to keep up with inflation. Bearing in mind the many other calls on NHS resources that may be understandable, but it is set against the scenario of a rapidly ageing population that naturally gives rise to a greater demand for audiology services. What assessment have the Government made of the likely increase in demand for audiology services, and what predictions are made for the future?
I attempted to verify the waiting time figures provided by the RNID, but it was impossible because the Government do not collect the figures in a useable form. That is a signal that the matter is low on the list of priorities, so trusts are all too ready to divert resources elsewhere in order to meet Government targets. The background to the matter is inaction and a scenario in which the only topic of discussion—worthy though it is—has been the provision of digital hearing aids. Digital hearing aids are important, but any excitement at the prospect of receiving one wears off with a wait of about three years from referral by the doctor.
Naturally, when letters about waiting times of 27 or 29 months began to hit my desk, I was concerned and wrote to the agencies involved and to the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Salford (Ms Blears), who has responsibility for public health and for the area that I am concerned with. Her reply, dated 12 November 2002, stated:
"I have been informed by Southampton University Hospitals NHS Trust that waiting times for hearing tests at the Trust are indeed 29 months as a result of the number of referrals received. The Direct referral Access service, which was set up in 1994, was based and funded on a maximum of approximately 500 patients a year. The demand for this service has however increased to approximately 1500 patients a year."
The situation is clearly unsustainable, but apparently is being ignored by Ministers, because the reply continued:
"I have been advised by the Trust that it is presently working on ways to get additional funding for this service."
Then followed the words that always make my heart sink:
"A local Audiology Steering Group has been set up to consider ways of reducing the waiting times for patients by working closely with the primary care trusts"—
I shall return to primary care trusts shortly—
"ensuring more resources are made available to improve the service and exploring ways of working within the GP practices for assessments. There will be frequent validation of the lists".
I am not sure what that means, but the cynic in me says that it involves frequent checking so that those who have died or used the private sector can be removed from the list, as a way of cosmetically improving it. I was informed that there would be
"a review of staff skill mix within the department and a support mechanism for patients on the waiting list that require information".

95WH
I hesitate to guess at what sort of support mechanisms will make people feel happy about the fact that they do not have what they want, but I should be interested if the Minister could clarify that; clearly they do not deal with the basic problem. The Under-Secretary acknowledged that the changes would take time.
I wrote to two of the primary care trusts in my area and was interested to receive a letter from the Eastleigh and Test Valley South primary care trust, confirming that the Minister had outlined the situation correctly and describing some of the measures that the trust had taken. It stated:
"An early step was to apply queuing theory and reduce the number of queues to be seen by giving priority only to those in urgent clinical need."
The phrase "queuing theory" worries me slightly, but no one could argue about those with greater clinical need receiving a better service. The letter continued:
"This routine checking of patients on the list, and the introduction of audiology technicians has already reduced the wait to 21 months at the beginning of February".
I shall return to the figure of 21 months later, because it is wrong, but I should also point out that the letter went on:
"The back log of people waiting for hearing assessment is significant and even if limitless funds were available there are recruitment issues in audiology services which have been compounded by changes to the duration of the training for new audiologists".
Clearly, with a primary care trust quoting a figure of 21 months and constituents quoting a figure of 27 or 29 months, I needed to form an accurate, up-to-date picture of the situation in Southampton to convey to the House, so I contacted the audiology department at the Royal South Hants hospital yesterday. The staff were extremely helpful and confirmed the following waiting times: those in the Eastleigh and Test Valley South primary care trust are waiting 27 months for an assessment or a reassessment. My constituents in Bassett, which is part of the Southampton City primary care trust area, are waiting only 17 months for an assessment and 21 months for a reassessment. I asked why that significant difference had arisen, and the answer was quite simple: it is because the city primary care trust is slightly ahead of its neighbours and has invested in the service by funding extra staff. The aim is that by April 2004 the waiting time for audiology services will be 13 weeks, which will bring it into line with the waiting time target for other outpatient services. I thought that that picture was stark and could not get any worse, but I discovered that waiting times in New Forest PCT, which is not part of my constituency, are 31 months for assessment and 29 months for reassessment. I was also told that the Eastleigh Test Valley South PCT was now considering ways to give more money to reduce waiting times.
So what is happening to those people on the long waiting lists? Quite simply, some have no choice. They will have to wait for almost three years for a hearing aid while their hearing slowly deteriorates, which can have a significant isolating effect. People may decide not to attend noisy functions because it is suddenly all too difficult to communicate. Others may decide to try to access the private sector, as a constituent, Mr. Leo King, reluctantly did. He says:
96WH
"I should keep you up to date with my further enquiries on this subject thus: I went for further private hearing tests a week ago. The first was in Winchester at Winchester Hearing where the process took about 2 hours and the decision was that I needed an aid in each ear at a cost of approx £2200. The next appointment was in Verwood at a superbly equipped office ߪ where I was given an extremely professional examination utilising what appeared to me to be the latest equipment but the result was the same and the cost much of a muchness (£2300 but more advanced product). In each case the cost was the total for both ears. Hidden Hearing is still much more expensive than this (I understood ߪ that an up to date comparison would be £5400 for Hidden Hearing) As I am now pretty desperate and cannot wait for the NHS to perform as I believe it should I shall be taking up the offer from the Verwood."
That is from a gentleman who I believe is in his 60s, who has accessed NHS services only through his GP. He has been to hospital only once in his life, and feels aggrieved at not getting a fair service after investing what he considers to be so much in the NHS.
Mr. King continues:
"This is what I think the NHS assumes—ie that if the delay period is long enough it becomes a matter of urgency for the individual so he/she is more or less forced to seek a private alternative. Thus the waiting list becomes 'shorter' for which the NHS will then claim success. Sorry to sound so cynical but I truly believe this to be the case."
I must point out that this gentleman had to e-mail me. I had come across him on Saturday night in a noisy social setting and he had difficulty hearing me, although it was not so noisy that I could not communicate with other people. How much worse would his condition have got in two and a half years' time? His e-mail gave me cause for concern. The prices that he quotes are high, but I know that the cost of hearing aids to the NHS has dropped to a two-figure price. The price that people have to pay in the private sector seems unacceptably high, even accounting for the fact that the NHS has the advantage of its purchasing power and that premises and personnel have to be paid for. Will the Minister say what control the Department of Health has over non-NHS provision of hearing aids, as the costs seem to be high? After all, we are talking about medical devices.
I mentioned that Eastleigh and Test Valley South PCT is considering possible funding, and I understand that it may be applying for the next tranche of modernisation money. However, I am unclear about what measures the Government have taken to encourage PCTs to apply for the funding. I understand that the closing date for applications is tomorrow, but will the Minister say how many trusts have applied and how many trusts the Department of Health has actively encouraged?
The problem is clearly exacerbated by the lack of audiologists in the country. When the Labour party came to power, there were only 30 audiology consultants in the country. Waiting lists have tripled, but the number of audiology consultants remains stagnant. Last March, one of the Minister's colleagues admitted to me in a parliamentary answer that there was a drastic need for an increase in the number of audiology consultants above and beyond the 11 proposed by 2010 under the NHS plan.
The Government are clearly well aware of the need, but will the Minister outline what positive measures have been taken to address the problem that one of his

97WH
colleagues has acknowledged? The Audit Commission described audiology as a Cinderella service. The key reason for that is something to which I alluded earlier; namely, that the statistics are not formally collected and published. The lack of statistics leads in turn to audiology being treated as a low priority. Although it is not the only solution, the setting of waiting time limits and the collection of statistics on how they are being met would greatly help to improve the situation.
I call on the Minister to make an assessment of future needs and to agree to fund the training of the necessary numbers of staff. I also ask him to investigate the private sector to see if there is any evidence of undue profiteering and overcharging. Last, but by no means least, it is imperative that audiology services are included in the range of services for which the current target for waiting lists is 13 weeks. Only then will the service receive enough attention and funding from the PCTs, and only then will my constituents be able to receive a humane and timely audiology service.
11.16 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. David Lammy): I congratulate the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) on securing today's debate. I believe that this is the third time in the past two weeks that we have had occasion to take part in an Adjournment debate together, and I commend the hon. Lady on the assiduous way in which she has brought the concerns of her constituents to the House.
This is an important issue, which the Government take very seriously. I am grateful that the hon. Lady, at least at the end of her speech, outlined the grave situation that we inherited in 1997—the lack of consultants throughout the system and serious under-capacity for people with hearing difficulties in this country. We have started to improve services from that very low standard, and I reassure her that the Government are attempting to do all that they can to support not only her local PCT and local health economy, but health economies throughout the country.
Major investment and a challenging modernisation programme are spearheading work on improving the way in which audiology services are being delivered locally, and to ensure that patients receive an efficient and high quality service, including the population in Southampton and south-west Hampshire.
I concede that the NHS hearing aid service does not have an impressive record, as some of my colleagues have also said since 1997. That poor record was a result of under-investment that went on for too long. From the 1960s to modern times, people have been given old-fashioned hearing aids. Problems with recruitment and training of audiology staff and access to services have all contributed to a situation in which patients wait far too long for an assessment.
Let me reassure the hon. Lady that steps are being taken at a local level to address the issue. Southampton University hospital trust has a target whereby all priority patients receive a hearing test within three months of referral. Priority patients include those who are registered blind or partially sighted, war pensioners
98WH
whose pensionable conditions include hearing loss, and those in clinical need. I am pleased to report that that target is being met. It is important that we acknowledge those steps.
Discussions are continuing between the trust and local PCTs as part of the current local delivery planning process to identify ways of reducing waiting lists for all patients. Southampton City PCT has invested an additional £100,000 to recruit additional staff, as the hon. Lady said, and to reducing waiting lists for hearing assessments to 13 weeks by April 2004.
The PCT has achieved significant improvements, and waiting times for assessment have halved from 34 to 17 months over a 12-month period. It is right that we commend the Southampton PCT for that achievement, while acknowledging that it still has some way to go.
I am pleased to hear that the Eastleigh and Test Valley South PCT and the New Forest PCT are in discussions with the trust about their involvement in the modernisation process. I am sure that the hon. Lady will do all that she can to support the PCTs and the trust to move that process forward.
I acknowledge that although Southampton City PCT has made progress in that area, its neighbouring PCTs have much to do. The hon. Lady put the waiting times on record, and those times are unacceptable. However, the Government are doing all that they can through the Modernisation Agency, and I would encourage the hon. Lady to work with the neighbouring PCTs to meet the challenge. so that they are on course for moving those waiting times downwards.
Modernising the service requires investment, and I am pleased to report that in the recent three-year allocation announcements the average growth for Southampton City PCT, Eastleigh and Test Valley South PCT and New Forest PCT was 9.6 per cent., which is above the national average.
Local health economies will say to the Government that they cannot modernise without funds, but in the hon. Lady's area they have those funds. This year they are receiving record allocations from the Government.
Sandra Gidley: I cannot help challenging the Minister on that issue. He said that we have the funds in my area. The Winchester health authority, in particular, regards itself as being one of the worst-funded in the region. If the funding is adequate, why is my local hospital, which is a three-star organisation, running at such a severe deficit at present?
Mr. Lammy: The hon. Lady will know that we started from a base of under-capacity in the NHS. The Government have done all that they can to build that capacity. We have been sensible about that—we have a 10-year NHS plan, and therefore have some way to go before the end of that 10-year period.
I put on record today that the hon. Lady's area has not only had an above-inflation rise in the amount of money available to invest in the local economy, but an extra 9.6 per cent. has been announced this year. We are doing all that we can, nationally, to assist her local area.
We are proud, as a Labour Government, that we have been able to say to the public that we will put national insurance up next month to continue the year-on-year

99WH
investment in the NHS, so that we can reach the same level of investment in our health economy as our European partners. I say to the people of Southampton that we are on a journey, but that we are doing all we can.
A number of developments demonstrate the priority that is being given to audiology services in Southampton. I am pleased to say that a joint appointment for a head of audiology will be made between Winchester and Eastleigh Healthcare NHS trust and Southampton University Hospitals NHS trust. The post holder will promote best practice procedures across both areas and will help to make the best use of capacity across the system.
The NHS work force development confederation is also funding a new degree in audiology, which has been launched at the university of Southampton for 42 students. This is part of a national programme, pump-primed by the Department of Health, to address the recognised shortage of audiologists.
I acknowledge that such local action needs support at a national level, and I hope that I have outlined some of that support. The modernising hearing aid services programme is a new and exciting programme that is revolutionising the way in which audiology services are delivered. It will make digital hearing aids available for people at all NHS sites that provide hearing aid services. Up to 1.8 million people with hearing impairment, including 18,000 children, will benefit from leading-edge digital hearing aid technology. We are, therefore, moving forward from the old-style hearing aids that people were receiving until recently.
In April 2000, the Minister of State, Department of Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), announced a breakthrough in NHS hearing aid services, centred around the patient. He said that we would be testing out the benefits of providing leading-edge, high technology digital hearing aids as part of a modernised NHS. The aim of the pilot was to test new-generation hearing aids that could be adjusted to meet individual requirements, and to ensure that they were made available to those who would benefit.
The results from the original pilot, which was tested out in 20 NHS trusts, were positive. Researchers found that people with digital hearing aids were hearing better, and using their hearing aids more. The research also showed that digital hearing aids offered people a 40 per cent. improvement in hearing and quality of life.
The public can often be left with the impression that debates in the House are just words. However, a 40 per cent. improvement in a person's hearing and quality of life is important, and the fact that 1.8 million people will benefit is something of which we should all be proud.
100WH
Since that time, we have extended the new service. The target was that 50 NHS hospitals would be providing digital hearing aids in a modernised service by this month and that a further 17 would be ready to start from April 2003. We have already invested more than £30 million to support that work. To the end of February 2003, more than 72,000 digital hearing aids had been fitted since the start of the programme, benefiting more than 47,000 adults and 600 children.
We recognise that there is still a long way to go to make the new digital service available everywhere, and that that requires significant investment. That is why, last month, the Secretary of State announced an extra £94 million of investment during the next two years to ensure that those hearing aids will be available throughout England by March 2005. The plan to roll that out will mean that a further 80 sites will provide a modernised service in 2003–04, and the remaining 70 will do so in 2004–05—the aim is to achieve full roll out across the country by March 2005. That will mean that the benefits of high quality digital hearing aids will be available, free of charge, on the NHS, to everyone who needs them.
I reassure the hon. Lady that the issue of waiting times has been an important consideration for the project team and the Modernisation Agency team. Those teams are working with the NHS to help it to tackle increased demand and to keep waiting lists as low as possible.
Sandra Gidley: Why does there appear to be opposition to including audiology services in the 13-week target that applies to other outpatient services?
Mr. Lammy: I hear what the hon. Lady says. However, my Department has responsibility for optical services, pharmacy, dentists and emergency care, and groups of stakeholders in all those areas could ask the Department whether they could be included in that particular target. The threshold must be set somewhere, but there will always be those who would have preferred it to be set somewhere else.
In conclusion, I reassure the hon. Lady that the subject that she raised is a key issue for the Department, and that significant steps are being taken to improve audiology services and waiting times in Southampton and across England. We aim to ensure that everyone who has a hearing impairment has access to a top quality service regardless of where they live. The modernised services that are being rolled out will help to ensure that that becomes a reality in her area and in others.
11.29 am
Sitting suspended until Two o'clock.

Coalfield Communities (Housing)
2 pm
Mr. Kevan Jones: I am pleased to have secured this debate, Mr. Cook, as it is of great importance to many of my constituents and to many hon. Members who represent mining and former mining communities. In my maiden speech in the House on 9 July 2001, I described my constituency as rural, but with urban problems. The two main towns, Chester le Street and Stanley, and their satellite villages, were founded on coal mining and related industries. With the decline of coal mining and the closure of the north Durham coalfield, which began in the 1960s and ended in the 1980s, the economic reasons for many of those communities disappeared, sometimes overnight.
Much of the housing in north Durham villages such as Craghead, Grange Villa and South Moor, was linked to the mining industry. Consisting mainly of terraced housing for miners and their families, it was originally built by coal owners in the late 19th century and early 20th century, then taken over by the National Coal Board. With the closure of the pits, much of the housing was sold to individual tenants, in some cases in the 1970s for just a few hundred pounds. There lies the root of one of the problems that those communities face today. Over the years, the local employment base has diminished and the need for and popularity of terraced housing for families has declined. As a result, such concentrations of terraced housing present serious problems. In addition, the populations of the villages have continued to decline and to age.
Basically, Mr. Cook, the local housing market has collapsed. Properties in some of the villages change hands for only several thousand pounds, and certainly less than £10,000. That has led to an influx of private landlords, many with no local connections, who buy up properties, often at rock-bottom prices, and let them to individuals who have no links with the area—often people who find it hard to get accommodation anywhere else. We now have a further problem. Because the communities are declining, people who own their own houses find it hard to sell them. They are being targeted by private landlords who want to purchase further properties in many of these communities.
Many of the properties that are let, often for short periods, are not maintained or cared for, which leads to general dilapidation of the area. In some places, certainly in Craghead, landlords have simply abandoned properties and boarded them up. Some properties have been empty for several years, which adds to the general air of neglect and dereliction in those villages. Many of the tenants to whom landlords let their properties stay for relatively short periods. Sadly, their behaviour is often antisocial, certainly in relation to drugs. That, Mr. Cook, creates tremendous pressures—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Frank Cook): Order. I would be remiss if I were not to draw hon. Members' attention to the fact that when the House first took its decision to have sittings in Westminster Hall, it decided that the occupants of the Chair were to be referresd to as
102WH
Deputy Speaker. I was loth to interrupt the flow of the debate, but I have let the matter go three times already and I would be criticised were I to do so again.
Mr. Jones: I am sorry if I have caused offence, Mr. Cook, as you have been a friend and colleague for many years.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, these problems put tremendous pressures on local communities: a resident of South Moor told me that she felt as if she was living under siege. To try to quantify some of these problems in my constituency, last year I commissioned Northumbria university to produce a report based on Grange Villa and Craghead villages; I shall highlight some of the findings. The report stated that 42 per cent. of the residents of Grange Villa are on some form of benefit and 50 per cent. of the households have no one with any educational qualifications. Grange Villa is in the worst 3 per cent. of wards nationally for child poverty.
As part of the report, residents in the villages were interviewed. I shall quote some of their comments to the researchers. One Grange Villa resident said:
"There are drug dealers in nearly every street. It would be a nice place if we could get rid of the heroin addicts and drug dealers."
Another said:
"Drugs are taking over our village."
In Craghead, a resident said:
"A lot of the private rented houses are occupied by drug dealers."
Another resident said it was a pity that what was a very good village was being allowed to die.
The study underlined what I have come to know since I was elected as the local Member of Parliament: once-vibrant communities, with a strong sense of identity, are under pressure. I agree with the report's conclusions, that some of the communities are now close to the edge. The problems of drugs, antisocial behaviour, crime and physical deterioration are crippling these communities. As many hon. Members with rural constituencies containing former mining villages know, because they are rural communities, the true nature of the problems is masked. If the problems were in inner cities, they would be highlighted.
I have already mentioned the community spirit that exists in these communities, despite the pressures that they are under. It would be remiss of me not to mention the sterling work of the Craghead Partnership, which has resulted in a new village hall, and the continuing work of the Grange Villa action group, whose members are deeply committed to their community and want genuine improvement. In addition, proposals made last week by the Government for the registration of private landlords are welcome; sure start in Grange Villa is making a difference; and Derwentside council's use of antisocial behaviour orders in South Moor has had some effect.
The task that faces communities in north Durham and many coalfield areas needs a more strategic Government approach. I sent a copy of the report that I commissioned to the Minister, who reminded me that Derwentside was to receive extra neighbourhood renewal money of £3.3 million over the next few years. Sadly, however, my experience is that much of that

103WH
money is not going to the local community groups that need it; instead, it is being targeted at organisations for tasks that should receive mainstream funding.
Another problem in my constituency is that although it has some of the poorest housing in the region, it also has some of the wealthiest. Communities such as Grange Villa and Pelton Fell do not qualify for neighbourhood renewal funding because some of the most expensive housing in Durham lies within half a mile of them.
At the Minister's suggestion, I met Michael Laing from Wear Valley council, who is co-ordinating a strategic approach to housing in Durham. I understand that research is taking place in the south of the county to pull together a strategy. Finance is an important factor in some of the problems faced by the communities, but a clear strategic approach needs to be implemented to ensure that the Government office, One NorthEast, local authorities, housing associations, private developers and local people can put together a local housing strategy that will make a difference in the villages, covering both private sector and social housing. The issue facing my community is that much housing is in private ownership.
Jeff Ennis: I thank my hon. Friend for securing this Adjournment debate so quickly. One of the prime problems facing all former coalfield communities is the preponderance of absentee landlords. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should give local authorities more powers to deal with absentee private landlords? Currently, they have to deal with them primarily through the environmental health service or by serving a repairs notice on them. Does he think that the Government should consider a new initiative—for example, a management notice, whereby if the absentee landlords were not managing their properties properly, the local authority could appoint a housing association to take over the properties from the absentee landlords and provide a service to tenants?
Mr. Jones: I agree that registration will help some of these communities. My hon. Friend raises a pertinent point. In some areas, private landlords who have made their money out of property that was often bought at a very low price abandon it. They are determined to get as much money as possible out of the property in a short time, but when problems arise they put up the boards, or in some cases allow the local authorities to pick up the costs of doing so. I agree with my hon. Friend that we need to give local authorities more powers to take over and improve such properties.
Mr. Chris Bryant: On top of that, it is a scandal that many absentee landlords are making their money from the housing benefit system.
Mr. Jones: I refer to them as "housing benefit junkies", because that is what they are. They put little investment into the properties they buy, often at very low prices, and live off the misery of the neighbours who have to put up with it. However, I am not tarring all private landlords with the same brush. There are some, even in north Durham, who are responsible, carry out
104WH
repairs and care about and vet their tenants; however, such landlords lend to be those who live in the community.
Registration of private landlords would be welcomed in north Durham, but that will not in itself solve the fundamental problem, which is that the local housing market has collapsed. We need a regeneration strategy that includes social housing providers, local authorities, and—I have to say—the private sector. In some villages in north Durham there have been some very good schemes where private housing development has given a boost to the communities. We need to come up with similar strategies.
Will the Minister consider setting up a housing taskforce for north Durham—and the county of Durham in general—that can pull together all the agencies and come up with a strategy to deal with the severe pressures that the communities in my constituency, other Durham constituencies and other coalfield areas face? Without such a strategic approach and the establishment of a taskforce, communities will continue to decline and my constituents and I will, sadly, continue to experience a sense of frustration.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We have 45 minutes left before the commencement of the first of the wind-up speeches. I ask hon. Members to bear that in mind when making their contributions and when making and receiving interventions.
2.15 pm
John Mann: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) on having secured the debate and, even more, on the work that he has done since his election to the House. I commend his excellent report about the situation in his constituency.
The debate parallels one that my predecessor initiated in 1997. I shall not repeat what he said about the state of housing in some parts of my constituency because my hon. Friend has very eloquently spelled out the nature of the problem. On that occasion, he referred specifically to Warsop Vale and Warsop. Consultation about some parts of Warsop, specifically the royal estate, which has an even bigger problem than Warsop Vale, has been going on since 1968, when the late George Brown was Deputy Prime Minister. I look forward to raising a toast to Lord George-Brown when the current Deputy Prime Minister visits the area in the near future, as I trust he will, to launch the special purpose vehicle for housing. The Minister can put that down as a request; I am fairly certain that my hon. Friends the Members for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) and for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) will be vociferous in endorsing it. I am sure that everybody sends good wishes to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover during his stay in hospital.
I shall outline the benefits that will accrue as a result of the special purpose vehicle, which has taken up a lot of my time during the past 18 months. It brings to fruition those 34 years of consultation. The last thing that people in my community want is more consultation.

105WH
They want action on something straightforward they want to live in decent houses. They do not want every drug addict in Lincoln prison to be dumped on their doorstep—advertisements are put up in Lincoln prison suggesting which landlords to apply to, and the prisoners apply in large numbers, with the result that we get more than our share of those with problems, including repeat drug offenders. My constituents want sustainable, viable communities that are occupied not only by old people who were born there, who worked in the pit next door and who still want to live there, but by young people and children. That is the definition of a viable community.
In funding and endorsing the special purpose vehicle now being set up across the Meden vale—10 communities in Bolsover, Bassetlaw and Mansfield—the Government have, rightly, brought hope; moreover, they have set out in detail what will happen. The first principle, which I am delighted to see, is that they are not waiting for the local council to get its act together. We waited for Mansfield council to sort out the housing problems in Warsop Vale and the royal estate, and I would be lynched if I suggested that the solution to the problems is to wait for the council to act. People have been waiting for that for many years, and Mansfield has been waiting for the money to make it happen. The council is a partner, but only a junior one, with the East Midlands Development Agency, English Partnerships, the Leicester and South Yorkshire housing associations, and the private sector and financial institutions.
The principle is that no one in the communities should lose out from the changes. Empty houses will be demolished and private landlords will be removed; they will be bought out, if necessary by compulsory purchase. Those communities will have only one landlord—one of the two housing associations—and residents and tenants will participate in management so that they can get on top of the problems. In addition, the houses that remain will be refurbished to decent standards. The private sector will include the owner occupier.
Some people will have to move house, because we cannot knock down odd houses. They can be knocked down only in blocks, so some people will have to bite the bullet, but I believe that they will be willing to do so. The other element that excites everyone is that development will be based not on what planners or consultants think is relevant, but on what the market thinks is relevant. In other words, houses will be built to fit demand. If there is a demand for five-bedroom luxury houses with two bathrooms and the rest, that is what will be built; likewise if the demand is for small terrace houses or pensioner bungalows.
That is appropriate, because we cannot artificially recreate such communities. Trying to create a viable community, full of young people, in Worksop Vale is a good example. There is only one shop, and there are no other facilities. The only people who would be attracted to the place are those with cars, and they would want a traditional three or four-bedroom house with a garage.
The way forward in creating a viable community is to use a combination of social housing, community involvement and the private sector. We are confident that such a model can be rolled out—I want to see it
106WH
rolled out into other parts of my constituency—but I anticipate that there will be a demand for it in many parts of the country because it is coherent and sensible.
The Government were absolutely right to endorse that model of housing regeneration. The Minister will become a cult figure in my constituency and in the north midlands. In a sense, he is already a cult figure in Bolsover. We would welcome him there, but if he were to bring his boss along we would be even happier, because it was the Deputy Prime Minister who, in 1997, initiated the scheme in response to demand. He ought to get some of the credit for it, and we would give him a warm welcome and endorse the scheme's success.
2.22 pm
Paddy Tipping: I am happy to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann), and I am pleased to take part in this valuable debate, instigated by my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones). I agree with much of what my hon. Friends have said.
A real and pernicious problem in their areas is the private landlord—the absentee landlord who buys up properties and milks the housing benefit system. That bad practice exists also in north Nottinghamshire, where landlords have poor management practices and dubious tenancy agreements. My part of Nottinghamshire is not a former coalmining area but an area that still produces coal, and we are relatively lucky that most of the housing stock was bought by housing associations when British Coal was sold off. A great deal of hard work ensured that that happened. I am delighted that the partnership of Leicester housing association, Nottingham community housing and East Midlands housing association has taken on most of the stock.
We need to take a twin-track approach; and we need to consider carefully what private landlords are doing. I know that housing benefit fraud is high on the Government's agenda, so will the Minister give a commitment to talk to colleagues about taking on private landlord housing benefit junkies, as they have been called? Will he also consider the work and powers of local authorities? They have limited powers to intervene but they could play a greater role in dealing with private landlords if they had more power and were properly resourced? I ask him also to examine the work of housing associations because, as has been said, the communities that we are talking about are, by and large, rural and very isolated. We are not talking about big inner-city problems or problems on the outer estates of conurbations, but the problems are real and severe.
We need to look at what housing associations have been doing. They have achieved a great deal, although, in a sense, with their hands tied behind their backs. Many of my colleagues will remember the great debate about taking on that housing, and will remember that the idea was opposed by the then Secretary of State for the Environment, Nicholas Ridley, who put a moratorium on Housing Corporation money going to housing associations to allow them to improve their stock. I am delighted to say that the present Government lifted that moratorium, but the housing stock was left without investment for many years. Housing associations, such as Leicester housing association, wanted to renovate but had to carry out the

107WH
work using their own resources. The Housing Corporation is now beginning to make money available to housing associations, but it is important that they receive a greater share of the profit.
Mr. Bryant: My hon. Friend is being very generous in recognising the role of housing associations, but does he accept that they can be part of the problem, as well as part of the solution? They can be part of the problem when they are reluctant to engage in the process of enforcing tenancy agreements on antisocial tenants.
Paddy Tipping: That is right. Many of my constituents and those of my hon. Friends are hard-working, decent, honest people. Coalfield communities want an environment that is improving. Coal miners want better for their kids than they ever had. Antisocial neighbours and nuisance cannot be tolerated in coalfield communities, and housing associations, as community-based organisations, should take a more proactive role in dealing with the problem.
Of course, housing associations are trying to move away from the roles of housing renovation and management. I commend to the Minister the work of Leicester housing association, which has moved away from the role of providing housing and is now much more engaged in building communities from the bottom up, setting up village companies and encouraging enterprise. British Coal was, in a sense, paternalistic and patronising to local people. Business start-ups in coalfield communities are among the lowest in the country, but the work that housing associations can do in subcontracting work to local and community businesses can make a real difference.
My third point relates to orphaned land. When British Coal sold the housing stock to housing associations, it was done in a hurry, which meant that housing associations took on lots of land and properties in a short time. Anyone who walks around any coalfield village will find areas of social, recreational land—what I call the jitties, or alleyways, and garage sites—but no one can establish the ownership of that orphaned land, which is decaying. The housing stock is being lifted, but because no one wants to take responsibility for amenity land, it is pulling down neighbourhoods.
I ask three things of the Minister that would make him a hero and a cult figure in Nottinghamshire. First, he should talk to colleagues about tackling private landlord housing benefit fraud. Secondly, he should examine the powers and resources of local authorities to deal with private landlords. The new housing Bill will give us an opportunity to consider that. Thirdly, he should commend the good community and enterprise work that housing associations such as Leicester housing association are undertaking. He should make sure that their work is backed by fairness. That is all that coalfield communities want. I want to see a fair allocation of resources from the Housing Corporation to coalfield housing associations so that the backlog of work can be cleared. Coalfield communities have had a tough time. By investing in them we can invest in a new future.
2.30 pm
Mr. Wayne David: I shall make a few brief points in support of the arguments that have so eloquently been advanced. I shall speak in particular
108WH
about the situation in the former coalfields of south Wales. At one time, the south Wales coalfield was one of the most important coalfields not only in Britain but in the world. On the eve of the first world war, it employed 250,000 miners. Since the 1920s and 1930s and since the second world war, there has been a gradual contraction of the coalfield. Today, there is only one deep mine left in south Wales at Tower colliery in Hirwaun.
During the incredible development of the coalfields in the latter part of the 19th century there was also a fantastic acceleration in house building. It was during that period that the archetypal terraced houses clinging to the sides of the valleys were constructed. They were almost always owned by their occupants. Today, as the coal industry has contracted, we see, especially in the top ends of the valleys of south Wales, communities consisting of elderly people, young people and people without employment. In other words, we no longer have the balanced, vibrant communities that we once had.
Coal mining has, however, other legacies. One of the clearest and most tragic is that of ill health. In some wards in the upper parts of the south Wales valleys as many as one in four of the population of working age is on incapacity benefits. In communities such as Merthyr Tydfil, Blaenau Gwent, Neath, Port Talbot, Rhondda Cynon Taff and Caerphilly, which is part of the constituency that I have the privilege of representing, unprecedented numbers of people are on incapacity benefits. In those areas, one in eight of the population of working age is on such benefits.
Mr. Roger Williams: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I, too, represent a former mining community at the top of the Swansea valley. Like him, I recognise the legacy from which former coalfield communities suffer. However, does he agree that we need a comprehensive approach—investment in health, education and employment as well as in housing—if we are to deal with that legacy?
Mr. David: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I must remember not to take any more interventions from him, as that was one of the points that I was leading to. He is absolutely right: we need a rounded, integrated approach to tackle all those problems. We should not consider policy in isolation. Coal mining may be one of the main causes of ill health in the south Wales valleys, but other factors compound the situation and make it much worse, and poor housing is one of those factors.
Shelter Wales, for example, has estimated that there are 200,000 people living in homes that in its words are
"not fit for human habitation".
The greatest concentration of those people is in the south Wales valleys. Shelter Wales has also estimated that about £50 million per year in Wales is spent by the national health service on treating health conditions caused by poor housing. In other words, as well as the individual tragedy that poor housing represents, it is also a huge drain on society as a whole.
Housing in Wales is a partly devolved matter, and the National Assembly for Wales has been putting great emphasis on developing its strategy over the past couple of years. For example, there has been a somewhat different approach towards joint stock transfer of

109WH
council housing, and housing co-operatives have been encouraged. That is an innovative approach and one that will be emulated in other parts of the United Kingdom. However, it is important to stress that there are aspects of housing in Wales that must be rightly addressed at UK-level. We have already heard what is happening with housing benefit and private landlords. That is a problem in the south Wales valleys as in other parts of the UK, and the Government need to consider that issue carefully.
I want to stress a point that has already been made. We can no longer look at housing as though it is isolated from other policy areas. We need a holistic approach that links economic development, health policy, social policy and housing policy. We hear much these days about joined-up thinking and joined-up government, but here is a clear example of how rhetoric needs to be made into reality. Above all else, we need at levels of government a new commitment to developing the south Wales valleys as healthy, living communities. Over the years, the population has drained from the valleys down to Cardiff and the M4 corridor. There is evidence that the trend is beginning to reverse. Communities at the mouths of the valleys are starting to revive, but a new spirit must be spread consciously through the valleys, and having a well-defined housing policy can be part of our overall approach.
2.37 pm
Mr. Michael Clapham: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) on securing this important debate. The contributions that have been made so far show the widespread nature of the issue. It affects all mining communities from Scotland, through the north-east, Lancashire, Yorkshire, down through the midlands, into south Wales and into the south of England. I hope that when the Minister replies we can have some reassurance from him about the maintenance of some of the current schemes.
British Coal had a considerable housing stock; in some areas it dealt with the sale of that housing stock rather differently than in others. In my area, most of the housing stock was sold off to the tenants, who have done a marvellous job on some of the estates. There are two contrasting estates in my constituency. In an estate in the former mining village of Dodworth, all the housing stock was sold off to sitting tenants. As I said, those tenants have worked on and individualised those houses and they look like a credit to the community.
In contrast, on the other side of my constituency in Elsecar, which is also a small mining community in a very picturesque part of the world, part of the housing stock was sold off to tenants and the rest was sold on the stock market. That resulted in absentee landlords, and trying to trace those landlords is a nightmare. The estate has become a dumping ground for problem families, which has affected the life chances of decent people who have become trapped there. Three years ago it presented an enormous problem for the local authority, with antisocial behaviour and drug taking. Most of the decent people living on the estate wanted to leave. Unfortunately, because of the way it had been disposed of, they were trapped.
110WH
Since that time, we have dealt with the issue progressively, working with local councillors. I set up an action group of tenants on the estate, which took on a commitment to dealing with the problem, and by and large the issue has been dealt with successfully. The estate is no longer the problem that it was. The Minister will know that the coalfield taskforce set up by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister identified housing in mining communities as a major problem that needed to be tackled. It is fair to say that since my right hon. Friend's taskforce report, a great deal has been done. There has certainly been a great improvement in my constituency.
My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough (Jeff Ennis), who was in his place a short time ago, told me that the approach taken to a large estate near Grimethorpe in his constituency, which was mentioned in the taskforce report, led, by and large, to decent people remaining there. He says that resources are still needed to make some remaining houses more habitable, but that generally he is satisfied. My hon. Friend referred me particularly to the photographs in the taskforce report. The housing that was once identified with part of Grimethorpe has all gone; it has been demolished. Those streets and their housing have been improved.
Much has been done since the coalfield taskforce report. Will the Minister examine, for example, some of the work that is being done by the Coalfields Regeneration Trust, which was set up as a result of the taskforce, and which has helped to renew and rebuild communities? It is concerned with rebuilding the structure of communities and has done a great deal of work.
At present, much of the problem that I have been describing is tackled through the housing management allowance, but Barnsley has the lowest housing management allowance of any metropolitan authority, even though we perhaps have more deprivation to deal with. My hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. David) referred to the degree of disability—something that was identified in Barnsley—in a survey carried out in 1997. The survey showed that there was a disabled person in every third household. That is another legacy of mining. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will consider whether deprivation should be factored into the housing management allowance.
I should like my hon. Friend also to consider improvements to the law so that absentee landlords would have to meet their responsibilities instead of having to be chased, as has happened in Barnsley. If we can pull those elements together, in addition to what the Government have done in the past five years, we shall begin to tackle the problem of some housing estates.
2.44 pm
Matthew Green: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) on securing the debate. It is probably about six years since there was a debate on this subject, and this is a good opportunity to review the aspects of the matter in which progress has been made, and those in which it has not.
We have heard much about the problems, and I do not intend to repeat that. They are often the legacy of the policies of the Conservative Government of the 1980s.

111WH
That should not be forgotten, and I wait with interest to find out from the Conservative spokesman whether his party now regrets the policy of forcing the old National Coal Board to sell those properties off and then preventing the use of the social housing grant to renovate them. The Conservative party left an awful legacy and, to be fair. the Government have taken steps towards dealing with it.
I should like to address a couple of issues to do with housing in former coal mining areas that hon. Members have not mentioned. The problem of searching for a former mineshaft within 20 metres especially affects properties in Staffordshire that were built in areas where there was shallow mining, such as Stoke-on-Trent and Walsall. A report by Heriot-Watt university in 2001 confirmed that the presence of a mineshaft can contribute to a depressed housing market in such areas. In former coal mining areas, house purchasers routinely obtain a coal mining search report, which is generally commissioned from the Coal Authority by a conveyancing solicitor. If the report discloses the existence of a disused coal mineshaft within 20m of a property, a sale can be jeopardised and the property can be devalued. In many cases, however, mineshafts are not as much of a problem as they might appear to be to the potential purchaser, and the house owner would not pay for the restorative work anyway.
That has been a problem for some time, and I understand that about a year or 18 months ago the Government established a working group—I think that it is under the Department of Trade and Industry—that involves the Coal Authority, the Law Society, the Council of Mortgage Lenders, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and the Association of British Insurers. I should like the Minister to say what that working group has proposed to overcome that problem, which affects Staffordshire in particular.
I had a conversation with the hon. Member for North Durham just before the debate, in which he looked me in the eye and asked, "What's your area got to do with former coal mining communities?" In fact, Ludlow does have former coal mining communities. The colliery in Highley was closed about 30 years ago, and the community there has a similar history to those that we have heard. The situation is perhaps not as severe as in other areas, but Bridgnorth district council, which owns many of the properties in Highley, has its problems.
The community in Highley is somewhat detached from other communities, public transport is poor and there is not much local employment—people have to travel somewhere else. Thanks to Conservative right-to-buy policies, which led to people buying up all the council houses in attractive little villages, a disproportionate number of council houses remain in Highley. When people go on to the housing list and say that they want to be in Bridgnorth, Much Wenlock, Shifnal or Albrighton because they work there, they get put in Highley. Councils that end up with housing stock in the wrong areas have a problem, although I do not want to overstate it.
The social problems in such areas are not on the same scale as those about which the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) spoke, but my constituency has experienced such issues on a smaller scale. Bridgnorth district council is a debt-free authority, but it has not sold off its council housing. The Government will make
112WH
it difficult for the council to deal with that potential imbalance through clause 11 of the Local Government Bill, which will not make the council want to consider radical options to address the imbalance in social housing. The Government need to consider the impact that clause 11 may have before they proceed with it.
I would also like the Minister to consider how much money has gone into the regeneration of these areas. I understand that the Government have committed a total of £354 million over a three-year period for the coalfields. However, that sum is less than the sum accrued to the Treasury through the pensions of former British Coal employees. It appears that the Government could have done more with the funds. I acknowledge that they have done more than the previous Government did, and I do not denigrate the fact that they have taken some action.
Mr. Kevan Jones: The hon. Gentleman is taking up most of his time talking about problems other than the ones that most coal mining communities face. Will he say how much the Liberal Democrats would invest in coalfield communities such as north Durham?
Matthew Green: I do not have a figure to hand, but I am raising relevant issues for the Minister to address, and I hope that he will.
The Joseph Rowntree Foundation is worried about the criteria used in the allocation of the funding and that the eligibility of former coalfield areas for funding is restricted. Is the Minister aware of that concern, and will he say what might be done to deal with it?
The issue of private landlords has been mentioned. In a debate six years ago, the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford), who was the Minister responsible for housing at the time, said that the Government were considering a licensing system for houses in multiple occupation. One could argue that such a system should extend to other sorts of property. The Government made a point about the development of the HMO licensing proposals in their response to the action points listed by the taskforce. I hope that the Minister will say that those proposals will be considered under the forthcoming housing Bill as a means of dealing with the problem. We would certainly give the Government considerable support if they could address that problem.
We had the report in 1998 and the Government's response in December 1998. I have a straightforward question. The report made 29 recommendations. The Government rejected some of them, but made commitments on others. So that we may have an opportunity to review the progress that has been made, will the Minister run through which of their commitments the Government have met, which commitments they are on the way to meeting, and which ones they may have had to change along the way? We would do well to review the progress that has been made in the past four or five years.
This is a serious topic that covers a wide range of problems. As we heard, former coal mining communities throughout Britain have diverse problems that have not yet been dealt with. Again, I acknowledge

113WH
that the Government have done more than previous Governments have done, but there is still much to do.
2.54 pm
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I welcome the opportunity to catch your eye, Mr. Cook.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am loth to stop the hon. Gentleman's flow, but I would be criticised were I not to do it.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is confusing when some are Deputy Speakers and some are Chairmen. However, I am grateful to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I congratulate the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) on securing this important debate. We heard sincere speeches from him, and from the hon. Members for Bassetlaw (John Mann), for Caerphilly (Mr. David) and for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping). I am not quite sure what the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) contributed to the debate, but I suppose that the record might show something.
The debate could be usefully summed up by the former right hon. Member for Heseltine—or rather, for Henley—who said, in relation to the problems of Liverpool:
"I accepted that it was possible to prop up these communities by increasing the flow of public money, but that didn't address the fundamental issue of concentrated poverty. We needed to attack the root causes of the problem. The teenagers with the skills, the young would-be homeowners, the aspiring entrepreneurs, the strong, all those with the resources to choose, had to be persuaded to stay—even to come back, live and invest—close to the areas of deprivation. It was necessary to tackle the infrastructure's problems, to improve dramatically the quality of the public services and to create an environment to persuade people that it was in their own interests to live and work there. In other words, one had to enable these communities to compete for their place in the sun."
He put that into practice by completely regenerating the Hulme estate in the middle of Manchester, which was one of the most deprived areas in the UK. With the will and resources it can be done.
Mr. Clapham: It may be that the former right hon. Member for Henley gave some encouragement to changes in Liverpool. However, I assure the hon. Gentleman that, particularly following the second lot of pit closures in the early 1980s, few resources were given by the Conservative Government to the former coal mining communities to help them to adjust and regenerate.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham), partly because I failed to mention him in my opening remarks, and I apologise for that.
I thought that the issue of the figures would emerge, and so I asked the Library to look them up. When the Labour Government were in power in the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, 308 coal mines were closed. In that same period under Conservative Governments, 256 coal
114WH
mines were closed. We should therefore be under no illusion—during that period Labour Governments closed far more pits than Conservative Governments.
I shall quote from an interesting letter from Mr. Euan Hall to the Financial Times on 5 June 2002. It echoes the sensible words spoken today by the hon. Member for Caerphilly. Mr. Hall states:
"Housing is an important part of the regeneration jigsaw but it is by no means the only one. Communities need sustainable development plans that take into consideration the whole lives of the people who live there—homes, schools, employment, transport, leisure, services."
That is exactly what the hon. Member for Caerphilly said, and he is right. There is no point in building new houses or renovating houses in areas where no one wants to live, and which have no prospects of economic regeneration. We need to regenerate areas economically at the same time as improving the housing programme. We should increase the whole range of facilities in those areas.
The problem of deprivation in former mining communities occurs in both urban and rural areas. The predecessor of the hon. Member for Bassetlaw rightly said in an earlier debate:
"The pub in Warsop Vale has shut. The post office shut and reopened as part of a grocer's shop. Bus services are poor. Elderly people are trapped in their houses, unable to get to a supermarket. It is like a backwater of Kentucky."—[Official Report, 16 July 1997; Vol. 298, c. 330.]
We need to provide that whole range of services. It is sad that, in many rural areas, but also in urban areas, such facilities are being lost. There may be the loss of the one and only post office, perhaps due to the changes to the payment of benefits that are being made. We need to maintain such services in rural areas.
John Mann: Would the hon. Gentleman be surprised to learn that, as part of the regeneration, a new post office and health centre have been set up in Warsop Vale, which previously did not have a proper post office? The health centre is one of three planned centres to be built in my constituency this year for the many people now at work, because Bassetlaw has seen a 26 per cent. reduction in unemployment—the largest in the country by 6 per cent.—in the past 12 months.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am extremely pleased for the people of Bassetlaw and Warsop Vale that their economic regeneration is going so well, because nationally the unemployment figure has gone up by 650,000 in the six years that the Labour Government have been in power. I am delighted that things are going so well in that particular area.
I do not have much time, so I shall address a few of the points made in the debate. Several hon. Members mentioned rogue landlords, and none of us wants to see the activities that were mentioned. However, as the hon. Member for Sherwood said, we must not let the activities of some rogue landlords—no one would condone those activities—blacken the name of all private sector housing in this country. We need private sector investment in our housing, and it is vital that we get mixed communities, as I heard when I visited Liverpool and Manchester recently.
I was amused by a quotation from the right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron). Referring to the Kiveton Park estate, he said:

115WH
"One of the houses on the estate has a great history, as my case work revealed. The landlord proved to be so bad and difficult to deal with that the London solicitors who were acting as his agents eventually gave up on him. They cancelled their agreement with him and refused to deal with inquiries about the property's state of disrepair. I was told by the firm of solicitors to contact the landlord direct—he lived in Baghdad."—[Official Report, 16 July 1997; Vol. 307, c. 337.]
I do not know the name of that landlord, although one could speculate on different possibilities. However, one clearly does not condone the activities of any such landlords.
There is not much time left, so I shall move on rapidly. I want to ask the Minister one specific question. There appear to be two major current initiatives. One is the national coalfields programme, which has renovated 98 sites. It was set up by the previous Conservative Government in 1996 and has had a budget in its 10 years so far of £385 million. How does that initiative mesh with the Coalfields Regeneration Trust, which was set up through the coalfield taskforce by the Deputy Prime Minister in 1999 and has a budget of £45 million in its second round? I put that point gently to the Minister. In previous debates, I have criticised the fact that our urban regeneration has far too many schemes, some of which are underspent because no one knows what they do. I urge the Minister to consider simplifying the schemes available so that everyone knows what pot of money is available for what projects.
Will the Minister comment on the smaller but undoubtedly excellent projects funded by the Coalfields Regeneration Trust? I will give a typical example. The Kiveton Park and Wales community development trust receives—104,000 to cover 100 per cent. of the salary and associated running costs for a development worker to support existing services and develop new facilities. I am sure that that is an excellent service, but I worry about the large number of small projects funded by the Coalfields Regeneration Trust and whether they are so diversified that they are not achieving the core objective of regenerating coalfield areas. I also worry about whether the trust's management has the expertise to monitor the continuing evolvement of the small projects to ensure that they are delivering what they were supposed to deliver. Are those small projects properly audited so that no public money is lost and we can ensure value for public money?
This has been a short, but useful, debate, which has followed up on the debate that we had on 16 July 1997. I hope that we have more such debates and that the Minister will assure us that the Government are well on their way to meeting the Prime Minister's objective of everybody in this country having a decent home by 2010. I am sure that if that objective were met, most of the hon. Members who have spoken today would be very happy indeed.
3.5 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Tony McNulty): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones), not just on securing the debate, but on his lasting interest in housing, both before and after his election to this House. I do not profess, or wish, to be cult figure or hero in Derbyshire or anywhere else; neither do I have responsibility for coal, so I cannot give
116WH
assurances on existing working seams; nor am I a Minister in the Department of Trade and Industry, so I shall not comment on anything to do with the DTI. However, I congratulate my other hon. Friends on their cogent, well thought-out contributions on a very real and serious subject.
In terms of the Government's response, the subject needs to be seen in the context of the communities plan that was elaborated on on 5 February, which has at its core the survivability and sustainability of communities, and which treats the issue in the very real way that my hon. Friends have suggested. The plan is not just about housing. Many of the assorted regeneration programmes and vehicles associated across the piece with former mining communities are not just there to rehabilitate housing; they are there to do all that can be done for communities, root and branch.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) on his local press release. I have to say that he seemed to witter on about everything except housing in former coal mining communities. Throwing in a little bit at the end about the report and the taskforce did not really add up to a sustained contribution to a serious issue, and that is a matter of some regret. Usually in Adjournment debates there is at least one intelligent contribution from the Opposition and one not so intelligent. Today we have been blessed with two completely unintelligent contributions.
To mention the former Member for Heseltine—or Henley—in a coal mining debate shows that the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) has more front than Harrods. It really is quite lamentable. In the next breath he suggested that the former Member for Henley regenerated Hulme in Manchester. I have been to Hulme and I was not falling over former mining shafts in downtown Manchester. That point had nothing to do with coal mining communities. It might have been interesting if he had told us how extending the right to buy to social tenants in the registered social landlord and housing association sector would help the vibrancy of our former mining communities, but he did not.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I meant to declare my interest as a fellow of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. I also have certain property interests, which I do not think are affected by the debate.
To respond to the Minister's request, releasing funds relating to the right to buy and the registered social landlord sector would enable considerably more affordable houses to be built than the Government are building at the moment. The Government are building 21,000 affordable houses a year. When the Conservatives left office, the figure was 35,000; when they came to office in 1980, the figure was 100,000.
Mr. McNulty: We might leave it to those who live in the ex-coal mining communities to reach a judgment on a policy that is rooted in what was once described as voodoo economics. This is not the place to go into any detail about Walt Disney versions of extending the right to buy. This is a serious subject.
I am happy to acknowledge the research that my hon. Friend commissioned into issues affecting the forming mining villages of Craghead and Grange Villa, which

117WH
was published with the university of Northumberland. It was an extremely useful piece of work. One thing that the hon. Member for Ludlow said that was of value was that we talk collectively of the former coal mining communities, but in their previous histories, the working lives of those who live in them and the industry's legacies there is as much disparity as there is similarity, and that is important.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) referred to private landlords, absentee landlords, what might be termed benefit farming and the antisocial behaviour that often follows. I shall come on to talk about the housing Bill in a little more detail, but we need to consider the forthcoming housing legislation and the antisocial behaviour Bill. Elements from both will help our communities.
I am more than happy to put on record that many housing associations, landlords and registered social landlords do profoundly good work in that area, and have long since stepped out of the box to work with communities in a regenerative way, by seeing housing as an device for the wider regeneration of communities. I am also happy to register my hon. Friend's other point about the powers of councils. When we examine those two pieces of legislation we will see that in part, at least, what councils can do in that regard will be enhanced. I shall return to that point in a moment if I have time.
I cannot promise my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) that the Deputy Prime Minister is about to come riding over the hill and visit him in Bassetlaw and the Meden valley, in relation to some spurious link to the former right hon. Member for Belper, who happened to have the same title. We shall consider that and see what happens.
Many of the themes introduced by my hon. Friends were linked, albeit from the perspective of a range of disparate communities. I take full account of what my hon. Friends the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. David) and for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant) said about the legacy of the south Wales coalfields. There are elements of housing build that apply across England and Wales, and we have worked closely with the Assembly in drawing up legislation.
Mr. Clapham: As the Minister rightly points out, there are similarities but mining communities are different. However, many of the problems are similar in the sense that the social structure came under enormous strain after the local colliery closed. The one reinforcing factor was the tenacity of that structure, which the Coalfield Regeneration Trust is helping to rebuild.
Mr. McNulty: I am more than happy to recognise and endorse my hon. Friend's point. Suffice it to say that there is much that unites them, not least the fact that a single industry has been ripped away with all the tensions and pressure that puts on the community socially. Equally, I would agree that in all the areas that we are talking about there is a real durability and tenacity in the local communities, and often among the local leadership, which means that they do hold on and bounce back when appropriate. That is partly a result of some of the assistance afforded by the national coalfields programme, the Coalfield Regeneration Trust and the other assorted elements.
118WH
I was going to go into some depth on that, but I want to concentrate on where we go from here in relation to the housing Bill and some aspects of the communities plan. The communities plan marked a step change in how we ensure that people have access to decent housing in thriving communities across the country. My Department will try, through regional housing boards and similar bodies, and by working with the national coalfields programme and the Coalfield Regeneration Trust, to ensure sensitivity and responsiveness to local conditions and the regional dimension far more readily than we have until now.
At its core, as everyone has said, the vision is not simply about housing, but the spaces between in relation to housing and the economy, the creation of attractive living environments and the empowerment of local people. No penalty should be attached to living in areas where the glory of a formerly dominant industry is now in the past. People in those communities have as much right as people in any other part of the country to live in thriving sustainable communities.
Jeff Ennis: I apologise for not being present for the whole of this interesting debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Unfortunately, I was serving on a Standing Committee, which I am glad to say has now concluded. I echo the point made by my hon. Friend the Minister that the debate is not just about bricks and mortar, but about the surroundings and making coalfield communities attractive to local residents again. Will he join me in congratulating the Groundwork Trust on working closely not only with local councils in coalfield communities, but with local communities in trying to make those areas more attractive? Will he use his best endeavours to ensure that that trust operates effectively in all former coalfield villages?
Mr. McNulty: I am glad, if no one else is, that that Standing Committee is over, so that my hon. Friend can attend this debate and make his point. I have the pleasure, among other duties, of being the sponsor Minister for the Groundwork Trust, and I fully endorse his comments about the works that it carries out. If he looks at the communities plan, he will see, as others have during the past few weeks, that we have secured further funding and resources to enable the trust to do throughout the country precisely what he has described. The work done by the trust and others in terms of remediation, which goes far beyond simply making shafts safe and the scars on the land vaguely green, is very important.
I visited the Ireland colliery, among others, when I was out and about once. The scars on the land there have been flooded, and it has been turned into a community focus centre. It has become a focal point for the surrounding area and for many events, which is a pleasure to see. That is about reclaiming the land from its previous industrial use, so I happily endorse it.
We are trying to deal with the areas where the situation is most acute and there is abandonment, rather than simply low demand or an issue about the private rented sector. We have identified nine areas where there are the worst excesses of low demand and abandonment, including north Staffordshire and south Yorkshire, as two of the key ex-coal mining areas. We shall look to those pathfinder areas to generate

119WH
substantial plans and business propositions to turn round those areas. Again, that is not simply about bulldozing empty homes, as those who should know better have uncharitably characterised us as doing. I am talking about reconfiguring, reconstructing and working with local people so that those communities have a future, and we should work together to ensure that we are successful.
Not all ex-coal mining communities are in the nine pathfinder areas, but we hope that, as those areas roll out, huge lessons can be learned and read across to other areas. That is important, because in one way or another, many if not all of the ex-coalfield communities suffer from low demand, abandonment or a mixture of the two.
We are trying to sort out the landlords issue through selective licensing, and to work through solutions to low demand and abandonment. It is a pleasure to see communities considering their future in the broadest sense to see what direction they can take. In that context, we are affording English Partnerships a far more developed role. The communities plan states:
"We will tackle low demand and abandonment in former coalfield communities through continued funding and support for the work of English Partnerships on the National Coalfield Programme, the Coalfield Regeneration Trust and … the Coalfield Enterprise Fund".
It is important to understand the total extent to which former coalfield community housing suffers from market failure and low demand, before suggesting any priorities for action or possible funding sources.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. McNulty: I shall, very briefly. I hope that it will be worth while.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: Perhaps, without persisting in being rude, as he always is, the Minister will answer my question about what the three bodies that he has mentioned do, and how they mesh together.
Mr. McNulty: With respect, I would rather dwell on answering questions from hon. Members who made serious contributions.
English Partnerships will, with the full co-operation of the coalfields communities campaign, begin to map out the extent of the problem experienced in coalfield communities, to begin fulfilling the commitment that has been made. We are exploring other areas in relation to updating coalfield area research on policy issues.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If questions are raised in this House by an hon. Member and the Minister ignores them, what is the point of debates?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Chair is not responsible for a Minister's conduct. As I understand it, the Minister is trying to answer questions that were raised earlier.
Mr. McNulty: Some priority is necessary in these matters as they unfold; this is a narrow debate.
The root of much of the problem, as my hon. Friends have said, is the National Coal Board and the dismissive way in which it got rid of much of its housing stock, with
120WH
little thought and, of course, with the complete indulgence of the previous Government. That decision led, as many of my hon. Friends have said, to a flight of owner-occupiers and an influx of antisocial tenants, who had been excluded from other areas and tenures, as has been graphically described. We shall try to resolve that state of affairs, through our Bills on housing and on antisocial behaviour.
The housing Bill will help to tackle bad landlords who have helped to destroy communities. Hon. Members will have to wait a short time for it to be published in all its glory, but it will, as we have already explained, provide discretionary powers for local authorities to license private landlords in areas of low housing demand where problems arise. It will address the bad management problem in relation to privately rented properties—especially houses in multiple occupation. I thought that the hon. Member for Ludlow was going to develop the concept of licensing houses in single occupancy, but perhaps he could elaborate on that after the Committee.
The state of some houses in multiple occupation has a severe impact on already vulnerable areas. They are sometimes attractive for landlords who want to make the most money in areas of low demand and abandonment. We will require that private landlords should be fit and proper persons and that they should meet minimum management standards, as well as playing their part in dealing with antisocial tenants. They should play a part in wider measures to deal with antisocial behaviour, encourage regeneration in low housing demand areas and provide for the setting of maximum licensing fees. I advise hon. Members to read across from the housing Bill to the antisocial behaviour Bill.
John Mann: Will the Minister answer the outrageous slur on the Coalfields Regeneration Trust in the suggestion that its projects were not properly audited? Will he confirm that the trust is properly financially accountable and is an organisation of the highest financial repute?
Mr. McNulty: I am more than happy to deprecate anyone in this Chamber or elsewhere saying otherwise. The remarks in question were, in the light of their ridiculous nature, among those that I was more than happy to leave on one side. I endorse my hon. Friend's view of the matter.
Rather than waiting for the housing Bill—it is undergoing some pre-legislative scrutiny—we are working closely with five or six local authorities in low demand areas, giving them additional funding, as a pilot scheme to enable us to get to grips with how our existing portfolio of powers might enable us to tackle matters more readily now. That pilot will, at least, point towards ways in which we should build on existing arrangements as the Bill goes through Parliament. We thought it important to grab the issue by the scruff of the neck now, rather than to wait for the Bill.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: Perhaps I can make my question even simpler, so that the Minister will answer. When does he expect the housing Bill to be published in draft?
Mr. McNulty: I thought that I said it would be very shortly. I thought that the hon. Gentleman was intervening to apologise about the Coalfields Regeneration Trust, but we can carry on hoping.

121WH
Through the special vehicles, the Meden valley is a model of the way forward; it will make a significant difference in north Derbyshire. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw said, it is exactly the same as a range of other ex-coalfield areas, with dispersed pockets of housing, typically 50 to 100 properties grouped together in two or three streets. About 900 properties in 11 distinct geographical pockets have been identified for action in the partnership approach involving English Partnerships, two local authorities and the East Midlands Development Agency. I congratulate all, including Government Departments, who have come to the table to get us to the stage where the scheme is about to take off. It will make a difference; as with other things that are happening in low-demand areas, we hope that the lessons learned from the success of Meden valley will be applied to what we want to do elsewhere and to the problems outlined by hon. Members.
This has been an interesting and important debate. These issues will not go away, but if we do nothing there will be no development. A housing Bill and a Bill to tackle antisocial behaviour will help, but we are not waiting for them as work is being done with the Coalfields Regeneration Trust and others. We are shifting the resources to regional level for dispersion, and regional housing boards with significant ex-coalfield communities should work as closely as possible with the agencies suggested by my hon. Friend to get the measure of the problems in each area and how they should be tackled.
122WH
That underpins what my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham said. The only certainty is that the communities will not die. They know they have a future although they may not be sure what it is, and that is why they need assistance. We must get to grips with the matter and build on the work that has already been done by a range of bodies to assess the problems. It is possible that the solution is in the Meden valley project, although the problems may be slightly different in North Durham, Mexborough and Penistone or in a south Wales valley. However, if we work together in partnership we can get to the stage where housing is dealt with in the ex-coalfield communities in a way that it leaves lasting, sustainable, durable communities that have a much better future than they had under the ex-right hon. Member for Heseltine!
Mr. Clifton-Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As it is not yet time for the next debate to begin, and before the Minister leaves the Chamber, may I say that robust parliamentary debate is one thing, but "Erskine May" states that there are standards of behaviour for one Member towards another. I ask your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on whether the way that the Minister has behaved today complies with the rules laid down in "Erskine May" in respect of one Member's consideration of another.
Mr Deputy Speaker: It is the duty of the Chair is to see that the Standing Orders are observed and that "Erskine May" is respected. I have seen nothing yet in the conduct in the Chamber to indicate that that is not the case. Had I seen such conduct, I would have drawn to order at the time whoever was responsible.

Anaemia
3.29 pm
Mr. Dai Havard: The subject of the discussion is treating anaemia in cancer patients. I shall speak first about why the matter is important; secondly, about the current effects; thirdly, about the Department's responses; fourthly, about a survey that I have undertaken to gather further evidence; fifthly, about what should be done; and, sixthly, about what I am doing to contribute.
First, the matter is important to me because there is a high incidence of cancer in my constituency. The debate is about the processes of government and the efficient running of the health service, but it is also about people and the real effects that I see every day—it is not an academic exercise. People living in the valleys have to travel and face disruption, but they might receive better treatment in their own homes if we adopted different policies.
In 2000, a study showed that anaemia-induced fatigue is the most socially debilitating aspect of cancer care, greater than the pain and nausea associated with treatment. In its survey, the charity CancerBACUP showed that 84 per cent. of cancer patients were ignorant about the haemoglobin levels associated with fatigue. That exposed a lack of quality in the consultation between them and their clinicians: while most had discussed the fatigue, fewer than half had been told that it was related to anaemia.
A soon-to-be-published review of the literature by Professor Bosenquet of Imperial college, London, an adviser to the Select Committee on Health, will show that cancer is emerging as a chronic, long-term illness. More people will be living longer with anaemia and cancer. The prevalence has increased because survival rates are increasing. Clinicians and others are winning the fight to keep people alive, but patients are suffering the debilitating side effects of their treatment longer.
Evidence is building that treating anaemia before and during cancer care has beneficial medical as well as social effects. Patients require an overall package that includes support for carers, complementary treatments and counselling. Cancer plans across the home counties were important immediate responses to the need for improved care, but it is now clear that they need to be adjusted because cancer is changing from an acute problem to a chronic illness, and needs to be treated as such. I have evidence of that in my constituency, where the useful charity, Cancer Aid Merthyr, supports cancer patients with both complementary medicines and counselling.
Not only does the package of care need to be reformed by the health service, it needs appropriate funding. Anaemia treatment should be central to the package. Unfortunately, it is not. For example, while Birmingham Heartlands hospital recognises the importance of the principle, it has abandoned treating cancer patients for anaemia either by transfusion or by medical alternatives; patients simply do not receive that aspect of their care.
I support the principle of choice for patients. Such choices are a matter for debate between individual clinicians and patients, so I do not have a problem with
124WH
the fact that in certain parts of the country, patients with religious objections to blood transfusions receive alternatives. That is right—but it should not be the only reason for receiving alternative treatment. Professor Bosenquet's forthcoming report shows that while communication between doctors and patients is improving, there are major gaps.
I am not playing a blame game with doctors. Often, patients do not know what is available and clinicians cannot give it to them; or if a patient does know, and asks for something, the clinician is in a cleft stick and cannot provide it. The rhetoric—that is all it is—about choice becomes a sham. We need to work towards a situation in which everybody gets the right treatment, not only the articulate middle classes who can exert pressure, or those with a particular objection to a certain treatment. Will the Minister conduct an evaluation of cancer care networks, to see when and how treatment is given, and how the current policies stand up in practice? I would like a guarantee that patients who, following an educated discussion, request an alternative are able to receive the treatment that they have requested.
I raised this matter more than 12 months ago. Since then, the safety of people receiving blood transfusions could have been improved. We could have helped to protect the supply of blood, an enormous proportion of which—some 30 per cent. or more—is given to cancer patients. We could have gained a series of efficiencies in terms of releasing health service resources. We could have made quicker progress towards European standards. The quality of care of patients could have been improved. We have missed all those opportunities. The current responses are insufficient.
The appropriate use of blood working group has suggested measures that will help. I welcome the fact that precautionary principles have been applied to children under six and to other groups such as haemophiliacs, but why can precautionary principles and the better care principles not be extended to the largest group of people involved? Many clinicians tell me that the alternatives cannot be introduced because of economics, and I have sent information to the Treasury and to the Department of Health on the economics. Catalyst Health Economics carried out a study that showed that the costs of blood have increased from £250 million in 1994–95 to £898 million a year in 2000–01. There has been an enormous increase in costs, and the hospital stay element of that approaches £600 million. Information on spending and on hospital efficiency is available to show that.
Dr. Ian Gibson: I am so pleased that my hon. Friend is making the strong case for improving the quality of life. Has he in his researches come across evidence of other countries carrying out such care and looking after people to improve their quality of life? That happened in the US. I know that the US has a different system, but there were positive measurements there of the effects of investing money and resources in the care of patients suffering from cancer.
Mr. Havard: Yes is the short answer. I do not have time to itemise all the studies that I researched, but I will put a document in the Library so that hon. Members can consult it. My hon. Friend is entirely correct that better standards of care do exist and that there is good

125WH
evidence that not only does such treatment help with palliative measures, but it may help with curative aspects of care as well. There are benefits all round.
The other part of Professor Bosenquet's study that interested me was the fact that there are now additional costs that I had not seen before. A 2000 study by Curt et al shows that 75 per cent. of the people surveyed left employment, so there are considerations involving whether people are well enough to remain in employment. From being net contributors to the economy, they stop being taxpayers and become dependent on state benefits. That adds to the overall costs of treatment. I have been asking for some time for the issue to be looked at in the round rather than in compartments.
There is a suggestion that the issue be referred to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, but that is an inadequate response. In addition, the terms of reference of the referral are not clear—it is not clear how it has been prioritised or even whether it has been prioritised. My fear is that it is far too narrow a referral because it does not talk about all cancer patients, but only about those who are receiving chemotherapy. It is clear that the progress of the referral will be too slow—it will go into the ninth wave of consideration. I ask the Minister to find out whether it can be accelerated and brought into the eighth wave of consideration. Will the Minister also look at a wider referral that will include anaemia in general? I have carried out my own survey of hospitals, and it seems to me that more important than information is political will. I would like a commitment today that thought will be given to broadening the consideration to include all cancer patients and that it will be accelerated to the eighth wave.
As I said, I conducted my own survey of more than 200 trusts. To date, more than a third of them have replied to my questions about the treatment of anaemia in cancer patients and the associated economics and bed blocking. I am grateful to those that have replied. The results consistently show that funding constraints are a major issue, but in some places it is a matter of luck whether one gets treatment at all—I gave an example of that from Birmingham. Abandoning treatment for cost reasons is not acceptable.
I would like to give hon. Members a pr écis of some of the responses. Barking, Havering and Redbridge Hospitals NHS trust said that cervical cancer patients respond better the higher their haemoglobin levels. The response from Newcastle upon Tyne was that using erythropoietin, which is the drug alternative, as a default could save 150,000 bed days a year. The Brighton and Sussex cancer centre does not have enough beds and patients must wait for blood treatments. The response from Wigan was that EPO improves the quality of life better than transfusions. The response from Newham was that it looks to EPO first and only uses blood as a second resort—EPO is its default treatment. That is the policy that should be adopted.
What should be done? Over the past 12 months, I have been calling for both step change and incremental change to satisfy the pressing needs of cancer patients and their families. Unfortunately, there is a limited and confused response from the Department of Health. Given the growing body of knowledge and experience,
126WH
the Department's activities border on negligence. Doctors are being put in a position where they might find themselves the subject of legal claims, and I believe that that will happen to the Department as well. Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will know from your past experience of health and safety legislation that the test applied is that if something is in your current knowledge and experience and you do not do something about it, you may well be held accountable for it. That needs to be given serious consideration.
I am interested in achieving change, not in scoring political points. Both step changes and incremental changes need to be made. As I said earlier, I want a guarantee that, when they are requested, alternatives will be given to patients. I want a commitment today to broaden the referral that has already been made to NICE and to accelerate consideration to the eighth wave. The survey clearly shows that we are not matching European standards. There must be a political declaration and a declaration of policy and intent from the Department. We want to match not only European but other international standards. We should help to prevent and pre-empt any form of crisis in blood supply and blood safety. We should develop a patient policy that is driven by quality of care. I also want a blood policy developed for both use and supply that does not constantly respond to what are effectively short-term crises.
Out of all that, what am I doing? I have explained what I have done. I support initiatives in my local trust. Prince Charles hospital in Merthyr now has a cancer care co-ordinator. We have done many things to advance the plans and ideas that my hon. Friend the Minister shares about cancer care policy involving patients, carers and society and understanding it. Cancer Aid Merthyr, the charity that I mentioned, is part of that project. I have sponsored and will continue to help to promote iCan, a special free magazine for cancer patients and their carers, so that they understand what is available to them and how they can help and support themselves. A little agitation is needed, which will take the form of a charity-led campaign to educate people so that they know what their haemoglobin levels are and what to ask for. Hopefully, some pressure will come up from the bottom, to add to the demands for the organisation to change at the top.
I will share the information that I have. As I said earlier, I will place the information in the Library and I am quite happy to contribute in the best way that I can to any discussions that the Department might wish to broker. I will organise a discussion seminar in the House later in the year, to which I will invite all of the relevant parties and all those who express an interest. I hope that the Minister will play a role in that, so that we can work together not only to achieve early step change, but to ensure that we make the right long-term consolidated incremental changes. I will also ensure that we work together to deliver our shared objectives: to improve not only the mechanics of the health service, but patients' quality of care and their lives.
3.44 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Hazel Blears): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Havard) on securing the debate. I am well aware of

127WH
his special interest in the treatment of anaemia in cancer patients. Indeed, I answered his Adjournment debate on this subject in January last year. We have also corresponded on several occasions, and I know that he has also written to several of my colleagues. I apologise for the length of time it has taken to get those replies to him and I will personally ensure that I respond much more quickly in future.
My hon. Friend's interest in this area has been prompted by the high number of cancer patients in his constituency. I have no doubt that this is not simply a passing interest. His background work and research, and the depth to which he has explored these subjects, are testament to his absolute and overriding commitment to try to ensure that patients get the best services they can. His persistence is paying off. The treatment of anaemia and cancer patients, particularly the use of EPO, is well and truly on my radar. His constant pressing of this matter has made a difference to the way that we look at these matters.
I should first like to say a few things about the blood service, because I know that my hon. Friend is concerned about that too. Clearly it is important to maintain adequate supplies of blood. As he well knows, for some time we have been looking at ways of getting alternative uses in place, rather than simply depending on traditional blood transfusions. At present there is no prospect of any blood shortages and I am delighted that donors are continuing to donate. For the past three years not one single operation has been cancelled or postponed because of shortages of blood, but we must not be complacent. We must plan ahead for contingencies that might arise and there is pressure on us to look at alternatives.
We want to encourage the NHS to use less blood, to consider alternatives to donor blood where that is appropriate and to try to make blood as safe as possible. Blood is never without risks, but the safety of blood is paramount to us as a Department. We have been working for some time on better blood transfusion. It is essential that blood be used only when strictly necessary. In 1998 we started our better blood transfusion initiative. The UK's four chief medical officers got together and that was followed up with a major conference in 2001. New guidance was issued to the NHS last year.
We now have a national network of hospital transfusion committees: people from all the different clinical disciplines are coming together to see how we can reduce the use of blood and improve our blood transfusion practice. Their guidance should have a real impact on avoiding unnecessary blood transfusion and encouraging the use of effective alternatives to donor blood, including the use of patients' own blood, which is being explored at the moment.
Mr. Havard: May I just ask when publication is likely?
Ms Blears: Yes. I am informed by the group that publication is likely to be shortly or soon. It was originally going to be in spring, but my hon. Friend will know that the seasons in the Department of Health tend to run into one another. I have asked for clarification today and the report will be published in the next couple of months. That is about as firm as I have been able to
128WH
get it. He can rest assured that I will press to see that report on my desk within that time. I thought that that was better than saying spring or summer and I hope that my hon. Friend will be reassured by that.
Mr. Havard indicated assent.
Ms Blears: Indeed. There is a great deal of work going on right across the service in that group to try to ensure that we address these issues. The group has four main tasks. The first is minimising exposure to the risks of transfusion, particularly in relation to vCJD. I know that my hon. Friend has not mentioned that today, but it is a big concern. The second is ensuring the most effective use of an increasingly scarce resource, the available blood supply. Thirdly, and this is of particular concern to my hon. Friend, the group will consider alternatives to blood transfusion, all forms of blood substitute therapies, including correcting anaemia with appropriate vitamin and iron supplements, and the feasibility of bloodless surgical units. Such units are now beginning to develop in hospitals up and down the country. In my local hospital in Salford, two surgeons are able to operate in a virtually bloodless environment. That is a great step forward.
As I said, the report should be published in the next couple of months. I am glad to share that with my hon. Friend, who has a great deal of knowledge about this area. One issue that he emphasised today is the use of erythropoietin—it is probably best if we simply refer to EPO—in the treatment of anaemia and cancer patients. Anaemia is a common problem in people with cancer. It can be caused either by the disease itself or by treatment, especially chemotherapy. Mild anaemia is not usually a significant problem, but once it becomes more serious it can leave patients feeling exhausted, breathless, tired and fatigued. It can have a significant impact on their quality of life.
That would be a problem for any of us, but if those symptoms are considered together with the physical and emotional strains that cancer patients undergo, it is easy to see that it can be a serious problem. That is why treating anaemia can do much to benefit cancer patients and improve their quality of life during treatment. It makes them feel better, less tired and more able to cope with the strains they are facing.
I am concerned about my hon. Friend's statement about Birmingham, where he indicated that treatment for anaemia in cancer patients has been abandoned. I undertake to look into that situation, because although there are a variety of methods of treating anaemia in cancer patients, it is a matter for concern if no treatment is available in that area.
My hon. Friend said that the decision was made on grounds of cost. I am sure that he will be aware that the 10-year cancer plan adopted by the Government is backed up with significant extra resources: £407 million extra this year and £570 million extra next year. I am extremely concerned if those cancer networks are saying that anaemia in cancer patients is not a spending priority, because it is clearly a significant issue.
Mr. Havard: Can I take it therefore, as per my earlier request, that my hon. Friend will survey the cancer networks to establish how the cancer policies are running? The letter to which I referred states:

129WH
"The situation may change as blood becomes less easy to obtain and more expensive".
Ms Blears: I am happy to undertake to look into the issue raised by my hon. Friend. I would also like to see, if he is willing to share that information, the results of the survey he conducted. The comments from the commissions would be extremely useful.
Blood transfusions are currently the main means of treating anaemia, but EPO is another option. It works by stimulating the production of blood in the bone marrow. My hon. Friend has looked closely at the use of EPO and he considered it not only in terms of how it could benefit patients but the knock-on effects for future blood supplies and for the NHS more generally in potential savings in bed days. I have looked at the evidence presented by my hon. Friend in terms of the calculated projected savings that the NHS could make by introducing EPO more widely for cancer patients, compared to using blood transfusions.
At present there are significant variations within the calculations. I am told that cancer patients having transfusions does not necessarily have to be the only use of that bed day and that they can have a transfusion at the same time as chemotherapy or CT scans. If we are to make decisions, we need to obtain the best possible evidence and to drill down into some of the calculations about the number of possible bed days that could be saved to the health service.
Mr. Havard: I accept that my calculations are crude because I had only limited resources with which to compile them. Nevertheless, they show a basic trend. I am happy that more qualitative work should be carried out on the incremental long-term consolidated change. There is more than a little empirical evidence that certain immediate changes could also be supported.
Ms Blears: I am sure that my hon. Friend will continue to press on this matter. I will do my utmost to ensure that we obtain the best evidence about the implications of introducing this service.
My hon. Friend referred to the actions by NICE. As he knows, we set up the institute to obtain the best possible advice about how to get the right treatment to patients, working within available resources. As I mentioned in correspondence, I believe that NICE is the most appropriate forum to consider the use of EPO versus blood transfusions. It has the responsibility and, most importantly, the expertise to appraise the clinical issues, the cost-effectiveness of the treatment and whether it should be more widely available.
It is difficult to circumvent the processes that we have established. NICE now has a well-respected place in the NHS, ensuring that what is done is based on proper, rigorous evidence, which gives us security for the future. As my hon. Friend said, EPO is currently being considered for referral as part of NICE's ninth wave work programme. I understand his wanting to press ahead, and although I cannot promise that it will be in the eighth wave, I shall consider whether it could be included early in the ninth wave.
130WH
NICE sometimes has to take difficult decisions. There have been so many developments in cancer treatment in recent years that it must consider drugs that treat and cure cancer as well therapies, and EPO falls into that category. It is hard to differentiate between drugs that can cure and those with therapeutic benefits. Such decisions can be rather like the judgment of Solomon, but doing it properly is important.
Even in the absence of a NICE decision, it is open to the NHS and clinicians to make decisions about the clinical treatment of their patients on the basis of evidence that is already available. Therefore, nothing prevents clinicians from deciding that it would be an appropriate treatment. It is not right for Ministers to tell clinicians, from a distance, what sort of treatment they should be providing for their patients. If it is decided that a treatment is appropriate for those cancer networks, there are no barriers or hurdles to it proceeding.
I know that there are questions about costs, but significant extra investment is now being made in the system. It is for clinicians to decide whether they want to travel along that route; it is not for Ministers to usurp NICE's role or to substitute for the decisions of clinicians.
Mr. Havard: There is, of course, a disparity of practice. In certain parts of the country, clinicians may have a budget for drugs but not for blood. They will see that one commodity is free and that the other is available only at a cost, and they may therefore make different decisions than clinicians for whom both have a cost. The disparity of treatment comes from the mechanics and the process.
Ms Blears: I want to make two points. First, a number of new cancer drugs have been introduced through NICE, and the 31,000 patients who are now benefiting from those drugs would previously have been in the postcode lottery of care. Provision has clearly been made for the drugs service. Secondly, patients are integrally involved in the cancer service collaborative projects. They and their families are working side by side with clinicians. For the first time, patients have a mechanism to participate in that debate.
That brings me to what my hon. Friend said about choice, and it not being treated as rhetoric. The collaboratives give patients a significant influence on the shape and design of cancer services. Their views are not being sought as a sham, but are needed in order to change the design of those services. For the first time, patients have a real chance to influence the process.
My hon. Friend knows that we are only two years into the 10-year cancer plan, and we clearly want to make progress in several areas, but we have always said that it should be a step-by-step process. However, no one could deny that the cancer plan has already made significant improvements. Some 97 per cent. of patients are now seen within two weeks; we have extended breast screening to women over 65; and we have 800 new pieces of equipment. I know that it is not directly linked to the object of my hon. Friend's concern, but that extra investment has resulted in a significant progress in cancer treatment generally. Most cancer patients say that the service has been transformed in the past few years.

131WH
I know that that will not stop my hon. Friend from continuing to press on the matter, because he is passionate about it and committed to it in the very best way that a Member of Parliament can be. I therefore reassure him that he is making constructive suggestions. I am fully engaged in trying to ensure an early review by NICE of the process, to ensure that patients get the best services.
Mr. Havard: I agree with my hon. Friend the Minister that there have been massive improvements. As I said earlier and as Professor Bosenquet's study shows, it is because we have been successful in treatment that we now have a problem with associated fatigue.
Ms Blears: The interesting point made by my hon. Friend is that cancer is changing from an acute to a chronic, long-term disease because people are surviving for longer. That means that we need to consider our processes afresh and to feed new thought into our services, which I gladly undertake to do.

Viral Pandemic
4 pm
Mr. David Heath: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this issue in this Chamber. The debate has a somewhat off-putting title, but I hope that its content is a little more accessible. The concept of viral pandemic is well known among scientific and medical communities but less well known among the general public, although they should, perhaps, be more aware of it. One of the problems is trivialisation, because some of the prime suspects for a viral pandemic are bugs with which we think that we are familiar and which we think we understand.
The classic example is influenza. The danger is that everyone who ever has a sniffle nowadays and who does not want to go to work claims to have flu, whereas in fact, as we know, influenza is potentially a killer, especially those strains of it against which we have no protection. Indeed, three times in the past century there has been a genuine pandemic based on influenza: in 1918, 1957 and 1968–69.
It is worth noting just how serious was the disease condition associated with the biggest pandemic yet recorded, which occurred in 1918. That was the so-called Spanish influenza, although it had little to do with Spain and there was at least a suspicion that it was introduced by American servicemen from Kansas during the first world war. It caused acute illness in 25 to 30 per cent. of the world's population. The number of people who died from it is a matter of dispute. I have seen figures ranging from 20 million to 70 million, and I think that a figure of 40 million is probably about right. That is greatly in excess of the number of people who died as a consequence of the conflict in the first world war. Sadly, virologists have been predicting that we are due another pandemic, and they have been saying as much with increasing clamour since 1998.
Some of the issues associated with our defences against pandemic are the same as those that apply to our defences against bioterrorism, so the matter is currently even more salient. One of the problems with the deliberate introduction of infectious diseases, such as smallpox or anthrax, is that our population no longer has natural immunity or defences to them. Therefore, the capacity for contagion is much greater.
The world's attention at the moment is on severe acute respiratory syndrome. Whether it will turn out to be the risk that some people fear is still a contentious matter. The Minister might be able to help by giving us his Department's assessment of the situation. My figures, as of yesterday, from the World Health Organisation show that there are 487 recorded cases in 12 countries. Perhaps the Minister will update us on the precautions that he believes are appropriate. Perhaps he will also inform us of the incidence, or potential incidence, of the illness in this country and say what the implications are for air travel, which it has been suggested might be part of the background to the spread of infection.
That observation highlights one of the problems that we face as a world community. We live in a different world—one with many methods of communication. We live in a world of high mobility in which people use both air and land travel to a much greater extent than in the

133WH
past. That is coupled with food chains that condense supply routes and encourage the maximum infection, if food is the medium for infection, and we can also add bugs' increased resistance to the normal antiviral and antimicrobial agents because of overuse of those agents in health or agriculture. We live in a world in which more members of the population have impaired immune systems, either because they are living longer due to surgical or medical interventions or for other reasons. From recent experience in this country of epizootics such as foot and mouth, we also know how limited our defences can be to the rapid spread of disease.
I do not want to talk about what are rightly described as pandemics. For example, I do not want to talk about AIDS, although it is undoubtedly a huge problem across the world and would repay a great deal more attention. I do not want to talk about iatrogenic or hospital-acquired infections. The Minister knows that they are a serious problem, but that is not my main point. I do not want to talk about the several tropical diseases that have surpassed epidemic and approached pandemic proportions but are not a direct threat in this country. That is not to underestimate their importance; we are talking simply about our domestic situation. I do not want to talk about the diseases that seem to be appearing with renewed vigour, but for which treatments exist, that are a matter of containment and early diagnosis rather than an overwhelming problem, such as tuberculosis.
Science has undoubtedly changed massively since 1918, as have the precautions that we can take and the advice that we are given. The prescribed advice of the News of the World from 3 November 1918 was:
"Wash inside nose with soap and water each night and morning; force yourself to sneeze night and morning, then breathe deeply; do not wear a muffler; take sharp walks regularly and walk home from work; eat plenty of porridge."
Those may all be sound items of advice, but I suspect that we would not recommend them as an answer today to a new strain of influenza.
The problem is that we are dealing with a mutated form of the virus, and as we know, such mutations happen regularly. They usually represent a limited quantum leap from the previous infection, which means that there is scope for developing new vaccines to deal with them. Occasionally, there is a substantial leap in the antigenic qualities of the virus, which gives us a real problem. One problem is that the vaccines that we use to fight infection are normally produced using fertilised eggs. We do not yet have an adequate tissue culture method of production, so there is a serious time lag between identification and production of appropriate remedies.
We have some remedies, such as amantadine and rimantadine, but they are limited in their effectiveness against influenza. They are effective, but resistance is quickly developed. There is a new breed of drugs—neuraminidase inhibitors, including relenza and that family of drugs—which seem to be effective in their selective inhibition of the viral enzyme nuraminidase. They are not diminished by an antigenic shift, but they are sparingly available and still in their infancy.
How do we address effectively a major new epidemic or pandemic? If influenza is the enemy, we need research into new neuraminidase inhibitors that will be effective
134WH
across a wide spectrum of mutation. We need enhanced diagnostic techniques so that we can not only identify a new infection at an early stage, identify the infectivity displayed and track the progress of the disease, but ensure that treatment begins at the earliest opportunity. We should also begin to develop appropriate preventive remedies and remedies for individual patients.
One remedy on which there has been work is intranasal live attenuated vaccine. Can the Minister tell me what progress has been made on that? I have mentioned the antivirals amantadine and rimantadine. I understand why those are not broadly available. It would be absurd to introduce resistance by selling them over the counter, and that is not what I am suggesting. However, given that they have a clear effect in retarding the spread of infection, I wonder whether there is sufficient availability in reserve, as a contingency across the country, to deal with a serious outbreak. We need a step change in what is available for strain identification and in the time that it takes to move from strain identification to vaccine availability.
Therefore we need to take the threat much more seriously than it has, perhaps, been taken historically. I give credit to the Government because I know that they have been examining it seriously. I looked with care at the publication by the chief medical officer last January, "Getting Ahead of the Curve". That sets out for the first time a strategy for dealing with infectious diseases in this country, which is a very important step.
I want to put some questions to the Minister on that document's recommendations. My main query is over the proposal to establish the Health Protection Agency and the absorption of the Public Health Laboratory Service, the Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research, the National Radiological Protection Board and the national focus for chemical incidents. I do not argue that there is no need for a co-ordinated and seamless approach to such issues, but I question whether a time of enhanced risk—I think that we all accept that we are in such a period—is the right time to make massive structural changes to the organisations on which we rely to provide us with protection against such threats. I will produce evidence to support my contention.
Mr. Paul Burstow: My hon. Friend is making some very important points. Does he share my concern that in the consultation that the Department of Health undertook on establishing the Health Protection Agency, a theme that ran through the responses was concern over possible fragmentation, particularly with the transfer of the microbiological laboratories from the Public Health Laboratory Service to individual NHS trusts? There might be some loss of ability to put the pieces together and understand when a problem is arising that has more than merely local significance.
Mr. Heath: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We need only look at some of the responses to the consultation exercise to see that. I quote the response from the Carmarthenshire Public Health Laboratory Service:
"Outbreaks of infection are no respecters of political niceties, and can progress with truly terrifying speed, unless vigorous, co-ordinated, and timely action is taken to stop them in their tracks. If I were the bearer of malevolent intent to the UK, I would seek to do harm from April 2003."

135WH
April 2003 is the date for implementation of the changes that the Minister has in mind.
Cornwall health community says:
"We are increasingly concerned that this has not been thought through at all well, and there is a considerable danger of local health protection arrangements deteriorating rather than improving."
Serious doubts have been expressed that whatever the merits of having a comprehensive service, the process of getting from here to there is difficult. There will be uncertainty, threats of redundancy and, I suspect, resignations from the service of people whom we desperately need to do the work. A consequence, at least temporarily, may be to weaken rather than strengthen the service. There may be confusion about accountability at a time when we need the maximum accountability.
The proposals rely heavily on PCTs as the first line of defence. Much as I admire those who work in those trusts, I am not convinced that PCTs throughout the country will be equally prepared to take on that task. There may be holes in the protective services that we expect at a time when we can least afford them. I am not convinced that we have yet developed the necessary routes of public communication, or the internal communication that enables professionals to exchange information with one another. Professional education is a key task in providing a comprehensive and effective system. We need much more emphasis on working with the biopharmaceutical companies in this country on vaccine development, reducing delays and ensuring that vaccines are available where they are needed and in the quantities in which they are needed in those circumstances.
I hope that the Minister will reassure me on those points and that he has taken into account the disruption that the proposals will cause at a critical time. As I said, I do not disagree with what I believe will be the end result, or with the view that a protection organisation of this sort should have the widest possible remit. However, this is not the time to make such a structural reorganisation when the possibility of a viral pandemic is ever present and there is the distinct possibility of biological threat from terrorist activity. I am not criticising the Government when I say that we are still unprepared. That state of unpreparedness has existed for some time, and this country is better prepared than many others. However, we should recognise and deal with it. The paradox is that our defences may be at their weakest when the threat is greatest.
4.18 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. David Lammy): I congratulate the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) on securing this debate on a subject that is without doubt very topical. In the short time that I have to reply, it is unlikely that I will be able to address all the questions that he asked, but I shall endeavour to follow up in a letter the points that I cannot answer.
As the hon. Gentleman rightly suggested, the recent emergence in east and south-east Asia of what appears to be a new disease—severe acute respiratory syndrome, or SARS—has raised the concern that this could become a major international public health threat
136WH
similar to an influenza pandemic. There are increasing reports of possibly linked cases in other parts of the world. Those cases are being investigated, but the cause is still unknown.
A pandemic is a description for a situation in which a disease—usually infectious—reaches epidemic proportions in many regions of the world. Pandemics therefore have the potential to cause widespread disruption with regard to not only health but the general conduct of society.
As the hon. Gentleman outlined, pandemics have been few, although they have occurred throughout the centuries. There were three in the last century: the Spanish flu in 1918–19, the Asian flu in 1957–58, and the Hong Kong flu in 1968–69. It is now 35 years since the last pandemic started, but it is generally agreed that the conditions exist for a new pandemic to occur. As the chief medical officer noted in his infectious disease strategy for England, "Getting Ahead of the Curve", which was published in January 2002 and to which the hon. Gentleman referred, influenza viruses are the chameleons of the microbial world. They are constantly changing, which enables them to remain in circulation and cause outbreaks of illness each winter. Influenza viruses can also swap genetic material. Every so often that produces a new strain that has the potential to cause widespread infection in a population that has not met that virus before. Such new viruses are especially likely to emerge where animal and human influenza viruses can mix—for instance, in the far east. There are many unknowns, such as how long the virus will take to spread, how many people will fall ill, how severe the infection might be, which part of the population might be most susceptible to, or affected by, the pandemic, and how long the epidemic will last.
It is fortunate that we can get some indication of what to expect from previous pandemics. Modelling work also helps us get a clearer idea of the likely range of impact, and the critical parameters in planning an effective response.
What we can say is that should a new virus emerge and the right conditions exist for its spread—which can be rapid—the speed and volume of modern travel mean that it would also quickly hop from continent to continent. Previous pandemics have affected up to a quarter of the population. Flu normally causes most serious illness in the very young and the very old, although the ages most severely affected might be different, and the illness might be much more severe than the normal seasonal influenza that we see every winter. The emerging findings concerning the new illness suggest that it is due to a respiratory virus, but not flu. The spread of the new disease—SARS—suggests a highly transmissible infectious agent. Some 90 per cent. of the cases have been in health care workers directly involved in caring for a known case, or in close family members. The disease does not appear to spread through casual contact.
The hon. Gentleman is right that as of yesterday 487 suspected cases had been reported from 12 countries. We shall not know how many of those cases will be confirmed as part of the outbreak until we know the cause, but the situation is a timely reminder of the need to be prepared for such an international infectious disease threat, be it an influenza pandemic or a major epidemic of any other infectious disease—or, indeed, the

137WH
deliberate release of a biological agent. The threat to the UK from SARS appears to be small, but since the cause is as yet unconfirmed the UK has taken a precautionary stance.
The Department of Health and the Public Health Laboratory Service issued information and advice on management and reporting of suspected cases to all general practitioners, trusts and public health professionals through the rapid public health link system on 13 March 2003. We also issued advice about SARS to the public and to travellers to south-east Asia. Full information and advice has been kept up to date on the Public Health Laboratory Service website. The Department of Health and the Public Health Laboratory Service continue to monitor the situation.
The UK was one of the first countries to publish a national pandemic influenza contingency plan in 1997. The basic elements of that plan still apply. However, it is important that plans are kept up to date and the plan is now being updated to take account of new developments in science and medicine, organisational changes and experience gained in planning for other emergencies since the events of 11 September 2001.
The UK has a strong public health infrastructure for the control of infectious diseases. The Public Health Laboratory Service is pivotal, providing expertise, the national communicable disease surveillance centre and laboratory services. The hon. Gentleman indicated that, as of 1 April 2003, those services will become part of the new Health Protection Agency, which has been created further to strengthen our arrangements. There should be no disruption to those services during the transition. At local level, services are provided by health protection teams.
I stress that there will be no transition phase from the Public Health Laboratory Service to the Health Protection Agency. Most of the core Public Health Laboratory Service staff required to respond to such an emergency will transfer into the new Health Protection Agency, along with many of the staff who deliver the local infectious disease control functions, such as the consultants in the communicable disease control centre and their staff.
138WH
I hear what the hon. Gentleman says when he suggests that this is the right direction of travel but raises anxieties about the change taking place at this time. It is, however, an ends and means case, and it is right that we should manage that transition as we are doing. In the current environment it is right that we progress on the journey. We cannot will the means but not the ends.
A pandemic or global epidemic of a serious and easily transmitted respiratory viral infection, (such as the 1919 Spanish flu pandemic), would be both a national and international emergency. For the UK, the Department of Health would lead under the Cobra mechanism with the Health Protection Agency playing an essential supporting role.
A pandemic of a less pathogenic and/or easily transmissible virus could still be a major threat. Under its remit of responding to new or emerging threats, the Health Protection Agency would perform the main co-ordinating role for the national and local response to the threat, with the Department of Health taking the policy lead.
Specifically, the Health Protection Agency would work with the NHS and local authorities to provide a national and local health protection and infection control service. Through its communicable disease surveillance centre it would co-ordinate all relevant systems of surveillance relevant to the prevention and control of infectious diseases in order to provide, with the local and regional services division of the Health Protection Agency, up-to-date national and local situation reports. It would also draw on the best information available to provide up-to-date specialist guidance for professionals and the public, which would appear on the Health Protection Agency website.
There is already a joint generic Department of Health and Health Protection Agency plan for dealing with all national outbreaks, which leads to specific plans like the one for influenza.
The hon. Gentleman read out the plan for 1918. We are taking the issue seriously in the UK, and I am glad that he acknowledges that. We have travelled a long way since the beginning of the last century. The Department of Health takes the matter seriously because of the threats around. I believe that the new arrangements will equip us well to deal with any pandemic, should one emerge.
It being half-past four o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the sitting lapsed, without Question put.

TRANSPORT

  M1
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport for what reason and at whose expense a wooden fence is being erected adjacent to the southbound carriageway of the M1 motorway near junction 11; and what the total cost is of such work. [104582]

  Mr. Spellar
  The wooden fence is a noise barrier that will be provided next to both carriageways of the motorway through the centre of Luton.

  We announced in March 1999 a new sift criteria to be used when assessing serious noise problems on existing trunk roads together with an annual ring-fenced budget to deal with locations identified.

  The M1 at Luton qualifies as one of the sites under the criteria. The cost of the works is met from the ring-fenced budget which is managed by the Highways Agency. The first phase of the works at Luton will cost £2.6 million. A later phase will extend the barriers on the southern and northern sides of the town. This phase is planned to be undertaken in 2004–05 and will cost a further £2 million.

WALES

  Coal Health Claims Monitoring Group
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the work of the Welsh Sub Group of the Coal Health Claims Monitoring Group chaired by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary. [103376]

  Mr. Touhig
  On the most recent figures I have available, in Wales we have paid £197 million under the respiratory disease scheme and £83 million under the Vibration White Finger Scheme, with full and final payments having been made to 13,762 and 8,632 claimants respectively. In Bridgend over £1.5 million has been paid out in respiratory disease payments and over £760,000 has been paid to Vibration White Finger claimants.

  Despite this significant and welcome progress, much remains to be done. The Government intends to keep up the pressure to get justice for our miners, their widows and their families, and I will continue to make every effort as part of this process. The Welsh Sub Group has seen the major stakeholders in the process working together in a highly constructive way, identifying real improvements to the system which have speeded up payments to miners in Wales and across the UK. It has also provided a model for similar groups across the UK.

  Energy Review
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the impact on Wales of the work of the Advisory Board of the Performance and Innovation Unit's Energy Review in the last three years. [103368]

  Peter Hain
  The Performance and Innovation Unit (PIU) Energy Review had a Sponsor Minister and Advisory Group. The Wales Office was represented on this group by my ho n. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales.

  The PIU (now the Strategy Unit) published its energy review in February 2002. This was a key input into the development of the Government's Energy White Paper, which was published last month. The Wales Office was represented at both Ministerial and official level in the production of this key Government statement on the future of Britain's energy policy.

  The Energy White Paper sets out a strategic vision for the development of energy policy across the UK as a whole. It clearly has important implications for Wales, as for other parts of the UK.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry made an excellent statement to launch the White Paper on 24 February which was very clear on the implications for the UK as a whole.

  That said, it is clearly crucial that key players in Wales engage in the delivery of the White Paper objectives. In particular, the White Paper welcomes the development by the National Assembly for Wales of a strategic approach to energy policy as it applies in Wales.

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list internal flights made by Ministers in his Department in 2002, including in each case the(a) cost, (b) departure location and (c) destination; and of these how many were (i) first class, (ii) business class and (iii) economy class. [103595]

  Peter Hain
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Minister of State, Cabinet Office on 22 January 2003 Official Report 334W.

  Scotland
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many times he has visited Scotland on official duties each year since 2000: and what meetings were held on each occasion. [103598]

  Peter Hain
  Since my appointment as Secretary of State for Wales in October 2002, I have visited Scotland once, in February 2003.

  In line with exemptions 2 and 7 of the "Code of Practice on Access to Government Information", it is not the normal practice of Governments to release details of specific meetings or their content, as some of these discussions may have taken place on a confidential basis.
  217W
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans Ministers in the Department have to(a) visit Scotland on official business, (b) announce public appointments and (c) make ministerial announcements in April. [103663]

  Peter Hain
  My Department's business during the campaign period preceding elections to the Scottish Parliament will be conducted in accordance with the Guidance on Conduct for Civil Servants in UK Departments in respect of elections to the Scottish Parliament and National Assembly for Wales, published by the Cabinet Office on 10 March.

  Tidal Energy
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what appraisal he has made of plans to use tidal lagoons to generate electricity in(a) the Severn estuary and (b) off the north Wales coast; and if he will make a statement. [103530]

  Peter Hain
  I have made no such appraisal, since such matters rest with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

  However, my hon. Friend will know that I am a keen enthusiast for renewable energy. The Severn estuary barrage was one of the issues that the Government examined during its consideration of the Energy White Paper. It is hugely expensive, but there are other opportunities for utilising tidal and wave power. The Welsh coast and the Severn estuary may represent such opportunities.

  Wales Office (Complaints)
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many formal complaints he has received about the Wales Office since April 2002. [103374]

  Peter Hain
  No formal complaints have been received.

DEFENCE

  Armed Forces Act 1955
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to amend the Armed Forces Act 1955. [104716]

  Mr. Ingram
  There is no Armed Forces Act 1955. The Army and Air Force Acts of that year and the Naval Discipline Act 1957 have a finite life, and Parliament considers their renewal every five years in the form of an Armed Forces Bill. This is also the main vehicle for amending the 1955 and 1957 Acts. The Armed Forces Act was last renewed in 2001.

  All the procedures covered by the Service Acts are kept under review and it is envisaged that any proposals for further change that may be considered necessary would be included in the Armed Forces Bill due for introduction in the 2005–06 session. We intend to introduce legislation to bring the three separate Acts together into one tri-Service Act, but whether it will be possible to include this in the 2005–06 Bill will depend on the availability of parliamentary time.

  Army Recruits
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence at what phase in Army training a recruit is permitted to handle weapons containing live rounds without supervision; what(a) age and (b) other restrictions limit troops' access to lethal weapons; and in what circumstances an armourer may exercise discretion to refuse the issue of a weapon to a member of Her Majesty's forces. [104898]

  Dr. Moonie
  No recruits in initial training are allowed to handle weapons containing live rounds without supervision. As part of their training, all recruits have access to lethal weapons from the start of phase 1 training; the age limit is therefore effectively 16. However, all such recruits are fully supervised whilst handling such weapons. Within the Army, an Arms Storeman will refuse the issue of a weapon to a soldier if he or she is unaccompanied by a supervising NCO or if the weapon has not been ordered for training.

  European Defence Co-operation
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to work with other European nations on the development of an unmanned aerial vehicle; and if he will make a statement. [104231]

  Mr. Ingram
  United Kingdom unmanned aerial vehicles are being pursued through two programmes: Watchkeeper, which plans to deliver a tactical UAV in 2006; and the Future Offensive Air System (FOAS) programme within which we are assessing the feasibility of UAVs contributing to our future strike capability from about 2020 onwards. There are no plans to work with other European nations on the development of Watchkeeper, although we do share information regarding the acquisition, operation and support of UAV systems with a number of European countries. The FOAS programme plans to carry out some technology demonstration work within a six-nation collaborative European Technology Acquisition Programme comprising France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom.

  External Reports
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list(a) the title and subject, (b) the total cost to his Department and (c) the commissioned author or organisation of each external report commissioned by his Department in each year since 1997. [103713]

  Dr. Moonie
  The information requested is not held centrally and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Iraq
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the Halo Mk2 will be ready for use in war in Iraq; how the re-engineered hardware and new software for the Mk2 will improve its capability; how much the improvements have cost; whether this was within original estimates; and if he will make a statement. [104226]
  219W
  Mr. Ingram
  The Halo Mk2 sound ranging system, procured to meet the Army's Advanced Sound Ranging Programme requirement, is deployed with British Forces in the Gulf. The Mk2 system is more capable than the Mk1 in a number of ways, including: improved accuracy in locating potential targets; a faster response time and more robust hardware. The cost of this programme was around £17 million which was within the original approval limit.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many UK forces and which regiments have been sent to the Gulf. [104610]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 24 March 2003]: Around 45,000 United Kingdom Servicemen and women from the Royal Navy, Royal Marines, Army and Royal Air Force have been deployed in the Gulf and Middle East region. Statements regarding the composition of the UK Forces deployed to the region were made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence on 7 January 2003, Official Report, columns 23–39, 20 January 2003, Official Report, columns 34–35, 6 February 2003, Official Report, columns 455–66 and 13 March 2003, Official Report, column 20WS.

  The composition of the Land Forces was described in my letter D/Min(AF)/AI PQ 1093N/03/C of February 2003, in response to a written Parliamentary Question from the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), Official Report, column 860W, regarding UK military forces' Gulf deployment, a copy of which was placed in the Library of the House. Since this time, the 1st Battalion The Duke of Wellington's Regiment and 202 Field Hospital (Volunteer) have been added to the complement.

  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures are in place to enable British armed forces to provide humanitarian aid to Iraq if the situation is too insecure for civilian agencies to operate. [104875]

  Mr. Ingram
  United Kingdom forces, as part of the coalition, will, where they are able, deliver emergency humanitarian assistance to the people of Iraq until the post-conflict security situation stabilises sufficiently for civilian agencies to deploy. Such assistance would include provision of drinking water, food, shelter, and medical supplies. Preparations for this role have taken place with the assistance of experts from the Department for International Development.

  Maritime Training
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which Royal Navy vessels are available for maritime training; and if he will make a statement on the effect of Operation Fresco on the availability of vessels. [105128]

  Mr. Ingram
  As at week commencing 24 March there are nine Destroyers and Frigates and one submarine programmed to undertake maritime training. This includes Operational Sea Training, Syllabus training and Weapon training.

  The firefighters' dispute has slightly reduced the throughput of Naval vessels through Collective Sea Training and this will result in an increased demand for collective training in 2003.

  Middle East
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with the United States on the use of British forces in a peace keeping role under NATO as part of the road map for peace in the Middle East. [104668]

  Mr. Hoon
  I have had no such discussions.

  Procurement
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects the next stage of the Watchkeeper programme to be completed; and if he expects the programme to remain within the estimated budget. [104334]

  Mr. Ingram
  The next stage of the Watchkeeper programme, the Systems Integration and Assurance Phase, is estimated to be completed before the end of January 2004. One of the outputs of this phase will be to refine the level of funding required to procure the Watchkeeper capability. We currently expect the programme to remain affordable.

  Radar Capabilities
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what shortfalls he has identified in the UK's radar capabilities; and what plans he has to(a) replace and (b) increase the radar capabilities. [104340]

  Mr. Ingram
  We plan to replace existing Type 93 air defence radars with more modern equipment when they reach the end of their service lives around the middle of this decade. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced in the White Paper on the SDR new chapter in July last year, we are taking forward a range of enhancements to our air defence radar systems to improve our air defence capability. I am withholding details under Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Reservoir Security
  Sir Michael Spicer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to use HM forces to ensure the security of water reservoirs against the threat of terrorist attack. [105038]

  Mr. Ingram
  There is no specific threat to reservoirs from terrorist. Were there to be, it would be managed by The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs who have policy responsibility for water supplies and the police who are responsible for public safety and security in the United Kingdom. The Ministry of Defence will provide support to the police should they require it.

  Satellite Communications
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects the new satellite communications radomes to enter service; if they will enter service within the Ministry of Defence's proposed timetable; and if he expects the radomes to remain within the estimated budget. [104335]
  221W
  Mr. Ingram
  Fifteen new satellite communications radomes were delivered in January 2003 and are now in service. The cost of the radomes is within budget.

  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent increases have taken place in the UK's satcom capabilities; and what further increases he has planned. [104336]

  Mr. Ingram
  A range of mobile and portable satcom terminal equipment has been deployed recently to improve the capacity of available communications to deployed units on operations.

  As regards further increases, I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 12 February 2003, Official Report, column 748W, outlining the significant increase in our satellite communications capability that Skynet 5 will provide.

  VX Gas
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the shelf life of VX gas is; and what the rate is of natural degradation of VX gas where VX-stabiliser is used. [103973]

  Dr. Moonie
  The stability of VX depends very much on its initial purity, the use of the appropriate stabilisers and the precise storage conditions utilised. Its shelf life as a chemical warfare agent can range from a few months to several tens of years. It should be noted that even partially degraded material may still pose a significant hazard.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  British Energy
  Richard Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to her answer of 18 March 2003,Official Report, column 685, on British Energy, whether any of the credit facility announced in her written statement of 7 March 2003, Official Report, column 89WS, can be used to finance the cost of installing flue gas de-sulphurisation at Eggborough Power Station. [104884]

  Mr. Wilson
  The extended and amended credit facility is provided to British Energy on a contingency basis in respect of its working capital requirements and cash collateral for its trading activities. Specific contracts are a commercial matter for the company. Any application for drawing on the facility would be assessed on its merits subject to meeting the purposes for which funding can be made available from the credit facility.

  Broadband
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the likely economic impact on rural small businesses that are unable to access broadband in the next three years. [104837]

  Mr. Timms
  No such assessment has been made.
  222W
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the economic impact of broadband access for small businesses in Suffolk. [104838]

  Mr. Timms
  No such assessment has been made within the Department.

  Export Credits Guarantee Department
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate she has made of the outstanding contingent liabilities of the Export Credits Guarantee Department; and if she will make a statement. [104426]

  Ms Hewitt
  As at the end of February 2003, ECGD had outstanding contingent liabilities of £14,576 million.

  Generic Drugs
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights (TRIPS) negotiations on access to generic drugs for developing countries; and if she will make a statement on the Government's position on current TRIPS negotiations. [104850]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 25 March 2003]: The Government is working, with its EU partners, towards agreement in the WTO on an effective solution to the problems faced by developing countries with no or insufficient manufacturing capacity in the pharmaceutical sector in making effective use of compulsory licensing under the TRIPS Agreement.

  Within the EU, we have taken a flexible and constructive approach to the current TRIPS negotiations and public health. Our aim has always been to find a solution that responds to the need for countries to have recourse when necessary to compulsory licensing, while not undermining the wider intellectual property framework that is essential for research into new medicines. Discussions came close to agreement late last year on the basis of a compromise text circulated before Christmas. We are working to secure agreement before the next WTO Ministerial meeting in Cancun in September.

  Pharmacies
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the recent Office of Fair Trading report containing proposals to abolish the control of entry regulations for pharmacies. [104240]

  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of possible losses to the small business sector arising from the Office of Fair Trading report on pharmacies. [104443]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 24 March 2003]: The Government is committed to ensuring all sectors are responsive to consumer needs, getting rid of unnecessary regulations that inhibit innovation. The Enterprise Act will strengthen the role of the competition authorities in tackling markets that do not work well for consumers and business. The OFT report

  223W
  provided a useful analysis of the market impact of the current control of entry regulations on consumers and competition and highlights the need for the present regime governing pharmacies to be updated. We have already taken steps to open up the pharmacy market by allowing for mail order and internet pharmacies. At the same time, the Government wants to see an increased role for community pharmacists in providing services to NHS patients and we are currently developing a new contractual framework to make that happen.

  The Government needs to take into account wider policy objectives in responding to the OFT report. It argues for abolition of entry controls on the grounds that there would be consequent benefits for consumers in terms of reduced prices, improved quality of services and better access. We strongly support these objectives. We want to improve access and choice (including improving out-of-hours access for NHS patients) so that more NHS patients can use the skills of community pharmacists, who are trained clinicians, for advice, information and services. The OFT report also noted that in a more competitive environment problems could arise through the possible effect of deregulation on the ability of patients in some areas to access high quality pharmacy services, and that these problems could be addressed through targeted measures. It was not in the OFT's remit to examine how mechanisms such as the Essential Small Pharmacies Scheme could be developed to address a more competitive environment, and we therefore propose to examine these issues further before reaching a final decision on a balanced package which most effectively promotes competition, new entry and increased choice alongside our wider social and health objectives.

  We therefore favour change to open up the market and improve quality and access without diminishing the crucial role that pharmacies play, especially in poorer and rural areas. The Government intends to come forward with proposals before the summer recess and will publish a progress report at the end of June. All changes will then be the subject of a full consultation.

  The OFT report raises particular issues for the devolved administrations and they are making their own announcements today regarding their responses to the OFT recommendations.

  The OFT's work on this area has taken forward our understanding of the impact on quality, innovation and consumer choice of the existing entry controls. Their regulatory challenge function is an important one. We look forward to receiving further reports on markets where regulation may be distorting competition.

  As part of our work moving forward we will consider the impact of any changes on all sectors of the pharmacy market, including small businesses.

  Post Office
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make it her policy to require all proposals by the Post Office for branch closures which are opposed by Postwatch to be referred to Ministers before a final decision is taken. [104848]
  224W
  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 25 March 2003]: Decisions on post office closures and relocations are an operational matter for the company. It would be inappropriate for the Government to intervene in determining individual closures. That has been the policy of successive Governments since 1969 when the Post Office was established as a statutory public corporation.

  In accordance with the existing Code of Practice on Post Office Closures and Relocations—agreed between Postwatch and Post Office Ltd—Postwatch are consulted on every post office closure proposal before a decision can be made.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will require the Post Office to comply with the request of Postwatch to publish the full plans for the future of post office outlets in Christchurch and Plymouth. [104849]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 25 March 2003]: There is no predetermined list or arithmetical formula being used to determine how many offices will close in any given area.

  In accordance with the existing Code of Practice on Post Office Closures and Relocations—agreed between Postwatch and Post Office Ltd—Postwatch are consulted on every post office closure proposal before a decision can be made. It is for Post Office Ltd and Postwatch to consider whether any wider background information relevant to closure proposals under the urban reinvention programme could be provided.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Batteries (Recycling)
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what percentage of batteries were recycled in each year since 1997. [104547]

  Mr. Meacher
  At present precise data demonstrating a yearly percentage of batteries recycled in the UK is unavailable, although it is estimated that approximately 90 per cent. of automotive batteries, 25 per cent. of nickel cadmium industrial batteries, 90 per cent. of lead acid industrial batteries and less than 1 per cent. of household batteries are recycled.

  There is data available on the tonnages on batteries collected for recycling by local authorities, as reported in the Department's Annual Municipal Waste Management Survey (MWMS). However, the percentage of batteries recycled cannot be measured, as the tonnages of disposed batteries are unknown.

  It should be noted that MWMS has only reported on batteries that surveyed Local Authorities collect for recycling, and it is known that there is a considerable amount of private recycling undertaken, especially car batteries, that is not recorded.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent assessment she has made of the environmental consequences of the disposal of batteries. [104548]
  225W
  Mr. Meacher
  No specific assessment has been undertaken in the UK on the environmental consequences of battery disposal. However, the European Commission recently published a consultation document, on the proposed Batteries Directive, stating that 'batteries were an important source of emissions of heavy metals which cause environmental damage.'

  A Government study (November 2000) 'Analysis of the Environmental Impact and Financial Costs of a Possible New European Directive on Batteries' concluded that as collection and recycling rates increase, heavy metals in batteries are progressively diverted from the municipal waste stream, thus preventing leaching of hazardous substances into the environment.

  Biofuels
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions have been held between her Department and the Treasury regarding the impact of duty on the use of biofuels. [103960]

  Mr. Meacher
  The reduction in the duty rate for biodiesel, introduced last July, has already brought forward production from recycled vegetable oil. Around 100 filling stations in the UK are already retailing biodiesel. The Government have also indicated they will reduce the duty rate for bioethanol and that they intend to announce the implementation date in the Budget. We continue to have discussions with the Treasury about these matters.

  Civil Contingency Planning
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on her Department's(a) responsibilities and (b) assets with regard to civil contingency planning; what funds are committed; what action she is taking within her Department to improve such planning; and what action she is taking in collaboration with other departments. [102626]

  Alun Michael
  The information is as follows:

  (a) I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr. Alexander) on 21 March 2003, Official Report, columns 957–58W.

  (b) Defra is heavily engaged in the central Government programme to improve civil contingency planning, especially in areas relating to our Departmental responsibilities. Planning is developed and agreed with stakeholders, both in government and industry, to ensure that the UK's resilience to emergencies of all kinds is improved. It is not possible to identify separately the funds committed to civil contingency planning which is seen as part of normal business.

  Civil Service Travel
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what grades in the Civil Service in her Department are allowed to travel by air(a) first class and (b) business class at public expense when on official duties. [104972]
  226W
  Alun Michael
  An individual's entitlement to a particular class of travel is currently denoted by their grade and the length of the given flight. However, in keeping with the Civil Service Management Code, staff must use the most efficient and economic means of travel taking into account any management benefit or the needs of staff with disabilities. Within this framework the main entitlements are:

  Directors and above: may travel first class if the journey is over 2.5 hours where there is no business class available. All other journeys should be undertaken at business class.

  Other staff: may travel business class for journeys over 2.5 hours. For journeys under 2.5 hours individuals should travel economy class.

  Coastal Erosion
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent discussions her Department has had with North Norfolk District Council about coastal erosion and coastal defence. [103777]

  Margaret Beckett
  The Department's Regional Engineer at Lincoln has discussions with North Norfolk District Council as and when required about the Council's plans for flood and coastal Defence works and studies, and other local coastal issues.

  Departmental Website
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the total cost of her Department's website was in the last 12 months; and how many hits it received in the same period. [104189]

  Alun Michael
  The Defra website (www.defra.gov.uk) is hosted internally. Annual operating costs for hosting the site over the last 12 months were £297,000.

  Staff costs for the central team responsible for updating and maintaining the content of the site for the last 12 months were £326,000.

  Figures for web traffic on www.defra.gov.uk are given in the following table:

  12 month period March 2002 to February 2003

  Number

  Total hits

  132,335,901

  Page impressions

  52,982,067

  Unique visits

  1,529,486

  Energy Efficiency
  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how her Department proposes to implement the European Directive on the energy performance of buildings with reference to domestic properties; what guidance will be issued to private and social landlords on complying with the requirements of the directive; and what contribution the directive will make to achieving the Government's objective of ending fuel poverty by 2016. [99619]
  227W
  Mr. McNulty
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister intends that where homes are marketed for sale with a home information pack, the Directive will be implemented by requiring that the pack includes an energy report that complies with the requirements for an energy performance certificate. We are considering what legal instruments and guidance are required to ensure that private and social landlords comply with the Directive. Improving the energy performance of our housing stock will complement the activities already under way to tackle fuel poverty and make a positive contribution to our objective of ending fuel poverty by 2016.

  Environment Council
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the position she adopted in respect of GMOs at the meeting of the Environment Council on 4 March, with particular reference to separation distances. [103826]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 19 March 2003]: The Government agrees with the European Commission that there is a need to address at Community level the issue of co-existence between GM and non-GM crops, including the possible use of separation distances.

  Envirowise
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what funding her Department provides for Envirowise. [105051]

  Mr. Meacher
  In the current financial year the Department is providing £2.7 million towards the Envirowise programme, which promotes advice and best practice to business to prevent waste, reduce pollution and make the most effective use of resources. The programme is jointly sponsored with the Department of Trade and Industry: total funding for the current financial year is £5.4 million.

  GM Foodstuffs
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which Minister has responsibility for genetically modified food products. [103084]

  Mr. Meacher
  Within Defra Lord Whitty is the Minister responsible for sustainable farming and the food industry. The Food Standards Agency (FSA) is the responsible UK authority for evaluating GM foods and food products derived from GMOs under the relevant European Union legislation. The FSA are accountable to Parliament through health ministers and to the Devolved Administrations.

  My responsibilities relate to the environmental aspects of the deliberate release of GM organisms into the environment, including licensing of GMOs.

  Mineral Water Bottles
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her 228W
  estimate is of the percentage of (a) plastic and (b) glass bottles which have contained mineral water which have been recycled in each year since 1992. [99274]

  Mr. Meacher
  The information requested is not held by the Department at present. However, we have contacted the British Soft Drinks Association (BSDA) and I will write to the hon. Member shortly.

  Nuclear Power
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the future of Nirex. [104005]

  Mr. Meacher
  The long-term future of Nirex will be settled as part of the process of making decisions on managing the UK's radioactive waste and the wider nuclear legacy. We are discussing with colleagues how these issues, including the future status of Nirex or a successor organisation, can be best determined.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what developments have taken place towards the creation of the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management; what steps have been made to engage stakeholders in the preparatory process: and whether the terms of reference for the Committee have been finalised; [104006]

  (2) what criteria were used in choosing those invited to the meeting held in Manchester in March to discuss the way forward for the new Committee on Radioactive Waste Management; which consultants were used to organise the meeting; and whether the consultants were chosen by competitive tender. [104007]

  Mr. Meacher
  We shall be advertising in the press from today to seek applications from people willing to serve on the new Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM), which will be responsible for delivering recommendations to UK Government and the devolved administrations on the best means of managing the UK's radioactive wastes over the longer term under the "Managing Radioactive Waste Safely" programme. CoRWM's terms of reference have been finalised and are as follows.

  Terms of Reference for the Members of the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM)

  Objectives

  1. CoRWM is appointed jointly by Ministers of the UK Government and devolved administrations of Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, to oversee a review of options for managing solid radioactive waste in the UK and to recommend the option, or combination of options, that can provide a long-term solution, providing protection for people and the environment. This follows the announcement by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to the UK Parliament, and by devolved administrations, on 29 July 2002.

  2. CoRWM must ensure that this review of options is carried out in an open, transparent and inclusive manner. The process of review must engage members of the UK public, and provide them with the opportunity to express their views. Other key stakeholder groups with interests in radioactive waste management, must also be provided with opportunity to participate. The

  229W
  objective of CoRWM's programme is to arrive at recommendations which can inspire public confidence and are practicable in securing the long-term safety of the UK's radioactive wastes. It must therefore listen to what people say during the course of its work, and address the concerns that they raise.

  3. CoRWM will have a corporate responsibility to deliver its recommendations to sponsoring Ministers in accordance with agreed work plans. It must aim to supply recommendations to them no later than the end of 2005, and sooner if possible. It will be for Ministers, with appropriate reference to their respective Parliaments and Assemblies to decide future policy for the long-term management of the UK's solid radioactive waste and to make arrangements for its implementation.

  Committee characteristics

  4. Size of the Committee. CoRWM will consist of a Chair, and 12 Members which w Al include a Deputy Chair.

  5. Composition of the Committee. CoRWM will include people with a range of expertise: people with a perspective of environmental, health, social or ethical issues, as well as people with technical experience and expertise in radioactive waste matters. Ministers hope to find these skills and perspectives: radioactive waste, nuclear materials and how they can be managed; regulation of UK processes that give rise to radioactive waste; public engagement, consensus building and resolving conflict on contentious issues; applying ethical principles to scientific and technical decision-making; national and international environmental law; scientific and technical issues such as earth science, materials and their properties, and civil engineering; radiation protection principles and their implementation; radionuclides and how they affect the environment; environmental, health and safety issues and how they interact and conflict.

  6. All members will need to be effective team workers, with good analytical skills and good judgment besides a strong interest in the process of decision-making on difficult issues. A number of them will need experience of managing complex projects, drawing on public and stakeholder group involvement and discussion, excellent drafting and communication skills, or business experience and knowledge of economics.

  7. The Chair, in addition, will be capable of successfully and objectively leading committee-based projects, grasping complex technical issues, managing a diverse organisation effectively and delivering substantial results, presenting progress and outcomes in public, a person with appropriate stature and credibility.

  8. Access to other sources of expertise. CoRWM itself will have to decide how best to secure access to other appropriate sources of expert input during the course of its work. Within this, it will have the option of setting up expert sub-groups containing both Members of CoRWM itself and other appropriate co-opted persons. A member of CoRWM will chair any sub-group of this nature and ensure its effective operation, as well as provide a clear line of responsibility and accountability
  230W
  to the main Committee, and hence to Ministers. This approach will enable them to draw on a broad range of expertise in the UK and elsewhere.

  9. The number of such sub-groups will be kept to the minimum necessary. Their role will be that of providing advice for the main Committee to consider and assess as it sees fit, and managing any activity which CoRWM delegates to them. It will be for the main Committee to assess and decide upon the advice it receives from such sub-groups. CoRWM may also utilise other appropriate means of securing expert input, such as sponsored meetings and seminars. The Chair will ensure that subgroup work and all other activities are closely integrated with the Committee and with one another.

  10. Length of appointment. Initial appointments will be for three years. Sponsoring Ministers retain the right to terminate appointments at any time in light of individual members' performance appraisal, changes in CoRWM's work requirements, or completion of the work required of CoRWM.

  Programme of work

  11. CoRWM's objective is to recommend to Ministers the best option, or combination of options for managing the UK's solid radioactive waste that can provide a long-term solution, providing protection for people and the environment. The UK's waste inventory contains, or will contain, a wide range of high and low activity, short and long lived wastes. CoRWM's priority task is to recommend what should be done with the wastes for which no long-term management strategy currently exists—that is, high and intermediate level waste now in storage or likely to arise over the next century or two, and some low level waste unsuitable for disposal at Drigg. However, for some of these wastes, the Nirex "Letter of Comfort" system has provided a framework which has enabled helpful progress to be made on conditioning and packaging. (Ministers have other sources of advice on other wastes for which a long term management strategy already exists but where there may be long or shorter term issues needing attention. CoRWM may wish to offer advice on these issues but this should not divert it from its priority task set out above.)

  12. CoRWM will take a strategic approach to the review and assessment of options for the long term management of radioactive waste. It will start by gathering information and familiarising itself with the issues, including meetings and presentations as appropriate. The outline framework within which CoRWM is then expected to complete its work is:
  (i) setting the framework for the review through identification, on the basis of sounding public and stakeholder views, of:
  the inventory of materials to be covered (this will include not only the materials currently classified as waste liable to arise over the next century or so but also materials which may have to be managed as waste during that period, such as some plutonium and uranium as well as certain quantities of spent nuclear fuel);
  the options for the long-term management of the various waste materials; and
  the criteria against which each of the options being carried forward to the main assessment are to be assessed. (These criteria are likely to be wide-ranging, reflecting among other things, the potential risks involved, concerns been expressed by the public and stakeholders, and practicability of implementing each option.)

  231W
  CoRWM should take the earliest possible opportunity to identify those options which have no realistic prospect of being implemented within the reasonably foreseeable future, so that the main effort during the assessment stage can be focused on those which are practicable.
  (ii) implementation of the review. This will involve evaluation of each of the remaining options, for each of the wastes concerned, against the agreed set of criteria. The assessment will take account of existing information and any new research that CoRWM judges necessary. An initial assessment report will be produced by CoRWM and subjected to appropriate soundings of public and stakeholder group views. A final version will then be produced taking due account of the views expressed.
  (iii) formulation of recommendations. The final assessment report will be used to formulate Committee recommendations to its sponsoring Ministers. We also anticipate that, during the course of its work, CoRWM will have acquired views relevant to subsequent stages of the policy programme. For example, the assessment of options will not consider potential radioactive waste sites; but it will raise sitting issues—including whether local communities should have a veto or be encouraged to volunteer, and whether they should be offered incentives. CoRWM will need to consider these issues, and may want to make recommendations to Ministers on them.

  Formulation and agreement of work programme

  13. CoRWM will prepare a detailed draft work programme, within this outline framework, that will enable it to deliver its recommendation to Ministers within the required timescales. The programme will include any proposed sub-groups or other activities or events that are likely to involve significant time and effort by the Committee. CoRWM will send this draft work programme to its sponsoring Ministers for discussion and agreement at an appropriate early stage of its work. Such discussion may lead to appropriate adjustment and refinement. In considering this programme, CoRWM and sponsoring departments and Ministers will be able to take account of the parallel work with Government in this area.

  14. In familiarising itself with the relevant background and issues, CoRWM will make itself aware of the UK Radioactive Waste Inventory and the nature of current and expected future UK holdings of plutonium, uranium and spent nuclear fuel. It will take account of existing technical assessments and research into radioactive waste management, and reports arising out of the Defra and devolved administrations public consultation on radioactive waste. It will work closely with Nirex and other organisations with relevant experience and expertise. CoRWM is also recommended to meet and take presentations from appropriate key-player organisations and to visit a selection of key UK and, possibly, other European nuclear sites. It will also take a account of other relevant policy developments, including the UK energy review. In particular, it is recognised that CoRWM will need to engage with the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) and it's predecessor, the Liabilities Management Unit, given that the former's output will directly impinge on the long-term responsibilities of the NDA.

  15. CoRWM is recommended to aim to complete its first phase (familiarisation work and proposals for the waste inventory, the waste management options, and the criteria to be used in their assessment) after about a year from the date of its appointment. It is thereafter
  232W
  recommended to aim for completion and reporting of the assessment work itself (the second phase) after about a further year. Provision of recommendations to sponsoring Ministers would follow as soon as possible after that.

  16. CoRWM should indicate the timing proposed for its work in the draft work programme sent for discussion with sponsoring Ministers. The intent is that CoRWM's recommendations should be delivered around the end of 2005. If the Chair anticipates that CoRWM will be late in completing any current phase or overall delivery of its work programme, he or she should inform the sponsoring Ministers as soon as possible, together with an indication of whether and how the committee can catch up during any subsequent phases of its programme. CoRWM will agree with Ministers how to proceed so as to be able to carry its programme forward.

  Public engagement

  17. CoRWM must inspire public confidence in the way in which it works, in order to secure such confidence in its eventual recommendations. Hence, its work should be characterised by:
  a transparency policy,
  an active programme af public and relevant stake holder group debate, using innovative appropriate techniques to ensure public involvement and support;
  encouraging people to ask questions or make their views known, listening to their concerns, ensuring that they are addressed and that people get a response;
  public meetings and other consultative processes, well advertised in advance and involving a variety of interested stakeholders including members of the public;
  holding a significant number of its own meetings in public;
  clear communications including the use of plain English;
  making information accessible to as many people as possible, including use of the internet, as well as ways of reaching people who do not use the internet; and
  providing opportunities for people to challenge information, for example by giving them access to alternative sources of information and points of view.

  Chair

  18. The Chair will be responsible for supervising the work of CoRWM and ensuring that its objectives are achieved. He or she will be the main point of contact with the public and the media, in presenting progress and answering questions. The Chair will meet Ministers on appointment, and then six-monthly to report progress. Notes of these meetings will be published. The Chair will provide an annual written report to Ministers, by 1 December, which he/she may be required to present to Parliament or Assembly representatives as appropriate. The report will set out, among other things, CoRWM's work programme, progress made, and costs incurred. Ministers will also appoint a Deputy Chair who can assist the Chair as the latter sees fit.

  Members

  19. Members will work, under the Chair's supervision, to the programme agreed with sponsoring Ministers so as to ensure its satisfactory delivery. Members will have a collective responsibility to ensure achievement of CoRWM's overall mission. It is not envisaged that Committee Members themselves will be responsible for day-to-day work activities but rather in

  233W
  deciding what these should be, overseeing their delivery, and reviewing and being responsible for the reports and other output delivered under CoRWM's name. Individual Members may be appointed by the Chair to undertake specific, active roles, for example chairing sub-groups or in representing CoRWM in meetings with the public, organisations who are contributing to the work, or the media. All Members will be subject to individual performance appraisal as laid down by the Cabinet Office guide (see next paragraph).

  Standards

  20. CoRWM is set up by, and answerable to Ministers and is funded by the taxpayer. It must therefore comply with the Cabinet Office guide "Non-Departmental Public Bodies—a Guide for Departments".

  21. These and other relevant procedural requirements, including working to standards laid down by the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments, are set out in the "Code of practice for members of the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management" to which Members will agree prior to appointment.

  Resources

  22. Sponsoring Ministers will provide CoRWM with resources—both staff and financial—to enable it to carry out its agreed programme of work. These will include a secretariat which will help CoRWM carry out its programme including, at the outset, providing reading material and arranging for further briefings and visits. The Chair and Members will have a collective responsibility for delivering the work programme within the agreed budget, although the Chair may request sponsoring Ministers for adjustment to this budget should this be considered necessary.

  Payments

  23. The Chair and Members will be paid for their work for CoRWM. They will also be fully reimbursed for all reasonable travel and subsistence costs incurred during the course of their work.

  These terms of reference and other relevant information concerning CoRWM will be included in information packs for prospective applicants. Copies of this material will also be published on the Defra website and placed in the Library of the House.

  Under its terms of reference, CoRWM will be required to engage the public and stakeholder groups widely in the formulation of its recommendations. The Committee will itself decide how best to do this. However, to provide some initial ideas for CoRWM to consider, a workshop involving about 50 persons with relevant expertise of public and stakeholder engagement processes was held in Manchester on 10–11 March 2003. University College London were appointed on a single tender basis to run the workshop. Their report of the workshop and its outcome will be published.

  Waste Arisings
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she is taking(a) to reduce waste arisings and (b) to facilitate the re-use of such arisings from the (i) agriculture, (ii) mining and quarrying, (iii) commercial and (iv) demolition and construction sectors. [104546]
  234W
  Mr. Meacher
  Government are taking a number of steps aimed at reducing waste arisings and increasing re-use.

  In agriculture, we have set up the Agricultural Waste Stakeholders' Forum to inform the development of the Regulations for applying the Waste Framework Directive to agricultural waste. The Forum's terms of reference include identifying and encouraging opportunities to reduce the production of agricultural waste and are available at http://www.defra.qov.uk/environment/waste/aqforum/index.htm

  Re-use of construction and demolition waste, and some types of mineral waste that can be substituted for newly won aggregates, will be encouraged through exemption from the Aggregates Levy which was introduced on 1 April 2002 at a rate of £1.60 per tonne for virgin aggregates. The Levy also encourages economy of use and less waste of aggregates at construction sites. Some funding from the Levy has also been set aside to fund projects which aim to minimise the demand for primary aggregates.

  On commercial waste, Defra jointly with DTI, funds the Envirowise programme which provides free independent help and advice on environmental issues, resource efficiency and sustainable business solutions to UK companies. Waste minimisation and effective resource management are central to its aims. It is based on the principle that good environmental sense makes good business sense, and that companies can save money through resource efficiencies. Launched in 1994, Envirowise delivers its messages principally via a freephone national Helpline; On-site Resource Efficiency visits to small and medium sized enterprises by a Helpline advisor; training events; a website; and the dissemination of case studies and good practice guides. The Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP) also includes removing the barriers to waste minimisation and re-use as part of its mission.

  The Strategy Unit's report 'Waste Not, Want Not' made a number of recommendations on waste minimisation and re-use. The government is considering its response to these recommendations, which it aims to publish around the time of the Budget.

  Written Questions
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many named day written questions were tabled to the Department between 15 October 2002 and 24 February 2003; how many that received a holding answer were given a substantive answer(a) within three days, (b) within seven days, (c) within 14 days, (d) within 28 days and (e) over 28 days later; and what procedures the Department has in place to monitor performance on answering (i) parliamentary questions and (ii) ministerial letters. [99433]

  Alun Michael
  The information on Named Day questions for the period 15 October 2002 to 24 February 2003 is as follows.
  235W

  Number

  Total number of Named Day questions

  524

  Number of questions answered:

  on the Named Day

  181

  within three business days

  193

  within seven business days

  94

  within 14 business days

  19

  within 28 business days

  2

  over 28 business days

  0

  Number of questions wrongly tabled to Defra and transferred to other departments for answer

  35

  The Departments' PQ Database allows us to track the progress of questions from the time they are received in the Department until they are answered.

  The Cabinet office, on an annual basis, publishes a report to Parliament on performance of Departments in replying to ministerial correspondence. The report for 2001 was published on 24 May 2002, Official Report, column 674W. The report for 2002 will be published in due course.

PRIME MINISTER

  Iraq
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister, if he will make a statement on the situation in Iraq. [104865]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer my hon. Friend to the statement I made in the House on 24 March, and the answers I gave at Prime Minister's Questions today.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister pursuant to his statement of 18 March 2003,Official Report, columns 761–62, on the information provided by Hussein Kamal on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, if he will place in the Library the text of the interview. [104714]

  The Prime Minister
  Following his defection, Hussein Kamal was interviewed by UNSCOM and by a number of other agencies. Details concerning the interviews were made available to us on a confidential basis. The UK was not provided with transcripts of the interviews.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister what steps the Government has taken to(a) minimise environmental damage and (b) enable the repair of environmental damage caused by the war in Iraq. [104841]

  The Prime Minister
  One of the Government's military campaign objectives is to secure the economic infrastructure of Iraq from sabotage and wilful destruction by the Iraqi regime. The securing of the southern oilfields so early in the military campaign is a significant achievement, preventing Saddam from repeating the environmental pollution he caused in 1991.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Iraq
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Solicitor-General, pursuant to her answer of 17 March 2003,Official Report, columns 515–16, on Iraq, whether the Attorney-General
  236W
  provided the information contained in paragraphs 1 to 7 on his legal note on "Iraq: Legal Basis for the Use of Force", to the United Kingdom Ambassador to the United Nations in advance of Sir Jeremy Greenstock's remarks to the United Nations Security Council on UNSC Resolution 1441 (2002) on 8 November 2002. [104715]

  The Solicitor-General
  There is a longstanding convention observed by successive Government that the fact of and substance of advice which the Law Officers may have given to Government is not publicly disclosed. This enables the Government, like everyone else, to obtain frank and full legal advice in confidence. The Attorney General gave a written answer on 17 March in the House of Lords which set out his view of the legal basis for the use of force against Iraq. However, the convention against disclosure of Law Officers' advice still applies in relation to advice which the Law Officers give within Government.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Iraq
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the use of NGOs to distribute British aid in the reconstruction of Iraq. [104781]

  Clare Short
  The humanitarian strategy for Iraq is firstly to ensure that the military are able to provide support in the areas they occupy then, as quickly as possible, to ensure that, the UN system returns and that Oil for Food is re-established.

  The reinstatement of Oil for Food is crucial since 16 million Iraqis rely on it. The traditional role of NGOs in post-conflict situations is to help deliver emergency services at community level using supplies provided by the UN system. There are strong Iraqi organisations delivering services for the Oil for Food programme. International NGOs will have a role to play but obviously it is better to employ Iraqi organisations wherever possible.

  Kevin Brennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on humanitarian relief for Iraq. [104782]

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on her contingency plans to work with UK and international NGOs to help relieve the humanitarian situation in Iraq. [104786]

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the humanitarian situation in Iraq. [104787]

  Clare Short
  I refer hon. Members to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) earlier today (PQ 104781).

  A daily situation report on the humanitarian situation will be placed in the Libraries of the House every weekday.
  237W
  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what estimates her Department has made with the(a) Ministry of Defence, (b) Foreign and Commonwealth Office and (c) Treasury on the possible costs of humanitarian assistance in the event of conflict in Iraq; [104354]

  (2) what additional contingency funds and expertise her Department has been granted to support the direct delivery of impartial humanitarian assistance by the international humanitarian community; [104357]

  (3) what proportion of the humanitarian response needed for Iraq in the event of any conflict she estimates will be covered by the sums provided by her Department to the (a) UNCHR, (b) UNICEF, (c) WFP, (d) WHO and (e) UNSECOORD. [104363]

  Clare Short
  There are too many possible scenarios to make a reliable estimate of the cost of humanitarian assistance in Iraq. For this reason it is also difficult at this stage to estimate the proportion of needs which will be met by the UK. We expect a UN Inter-Agency Appeal to be launched very shortly. This will include a breakdown of costs anticipated by the UN.

  My Department has thus far committed £50 million and earmarked a further £40 million for humanitarian assistance in Iraq. This has been drawn from DFID budgets and the DFID contingency reserve. Funds from existing spending DFID programmes will not be diverted to fund our assistance to Iraq.

  Tony Baldry: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what discussions her Department has had with the Ministry of Defence on how military strategy can minimise and mitigate the risks of conflict to the Iraqi people; [104355]

  (2) what advice her Department has given the Ministry of Defence and the armed forces on how best to discharge their humanitarian responsibilities under the (a) Hague and (b) Geneva Conventions. [104356]

  Clare Short
  My Department has been in close discussion with the Ministry of Defence over many months working to minimise the humanitarian impact of any conflict; both to minimise the risks to the Iraqi population and the infrastructure on which they depend, and to ensure that UK forces meet their obligations under the Hague and Geneva conventions governing armed conflict. We have seconded two humanitarian specialists to work with the armed forces (UK 1 Division) and to advise on relief activities.

  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what additional funding her Department has allocated for the use of military quick impact projects in the period immediately after conflict in Iraq. [104358]

  Clare Short
  My Department has not allocated funds for military quick impact projects in Iraq. The Ministry of Defence has received £30 million from HM Treasury to help the UK military provide relief as part of its obligations under the Geneva and Hague conventions.

  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what responsibilities the military will have for the initial deli very of humanitarian assistance in the event of conflict with Iraq. [104359]
  238W
  Clare Short
  Humanitarian agencies cannot operate until a permissive security environment has been established. In the interim, the military will have responsibility to deliver humanitarian assistance in the territory they occupy in accordance with the Geneva and Hague conventions.

  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development whom her Department has seconded as full time Civil-Military Humanitarian Adviser to the Headquarters of UK 1 Division in Kuwait. [104360]

  Clare Short
  We have seconded two humanitarian advisors to UK 1 division in Kuwait. For security reasons, it would be inappropriate to divulge their names (see exemption 1 (Security) of the Ministerial Code of Practice).

  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what advice her Department has given the National Component Headquarters in Qatar on the humanitarian consequences of an Iraq conflict. [104361]

  Clare Short
  DFID has been reviewing and advising on military plans to address humanitarian needs.

  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what secondments her Department is making to support the UN Joint Logistic Centre in the event of war with Iraq. [104364]

  Clare Short
  DFID has received a request for an individual to join the UN Joint Logistics centre (UNJLC). We are working with the World Food Programme and the UNJLC to provide an individual at the earliest opportunity.

  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development to which governments (1) her Department has made representations on contingency planning for the event of war in Iraq; [104366]

  (2) what funding her Department will provide to the UN Office for the coordination of humanitarian affairs in the event of war in Iraq. [104365]

  Clare Short
  We are in discussion with many partners on the planning of humanitarian assistance. It is essential that international plans are co-ordinated. This is the role of the UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA). We have provided £150,000 to support their Iraq co-ordination centre in Cyprus and have seconded a member of staff.

  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development which(a) governments and (b) international organisations her Department expects will contribute immediate humanitarian assistance in Iraq in the event of war. [104367]

  Clare Short
  DFID has committed £50 million to support preparations by humanitarian agencies and non-governmental organisations in Iraq and the region. We have set aside a further £40 million for the immediate humanitarian response and will consider further assistance as needs are identified.
  239W
  On 21 March the College of European Commissioners proposed to release an additional 79 million euros from the Emergency Aid Reserve, increasing their total commitment to 100 million euros. This funding is still to be approved by the Council.

  USAID has so far announced $154 million for humanitarian relief, food distribution, reconstruction and transition initiatives. We anticipate that other governments will contribute to the humanitarian relief effort and hope that they will generously support the anticipated UN Inter-agency flash appeal.

  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what effort her Department is making with(a) international financial institutions and (b) the international community to ensure that there is a suitable UN mandate in place to provide legal authority for the reconstruction effort in Iraq in the event of conflict. [104368]

  Clare Short
  I visited New York and Washington on 19–20 March to meet the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund, the World bank and the US Administration to try to ensure that proper preparations are being made for reconstruction in Iraq. My officials are also in regular contact with these and other partners.

  A UN mandate for the reconstruction effort is a precondition for the engagement of the World bank, the International Monetary Fund and many countries. Their engagement is key to the reforms that are needed to move the economy forward and to secure an agreement on debt rescheduling and a reparations strategy that will enable the Iraqi economy to recover and grow. I held detailed talks last week with officials of the UN and the US Administration about how that might be achieved and I am hopeful that we will soon make progress in line with the agreements reached between the Prime Minister and President Bush in the Azores.

  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many metric tonnes of food her Department estimates will be needed by the end of March for the Iraqi population; and how many metric tonnes of food she estimates will be available by the end of March. [104369]

  Clare Short
  WFP has positioned sufficient supplies to feed two million people for one month. This is intended to cover the initial phase of the ongoing conflict, during which WFP will support refugees and the malnourished and vulnerable inside Iraq. WFP believes that most Iraqis1 food reserves will last up to six weeks.

  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what preparations her Department has made to allow non-governmental organisations safe access to endangered populations in Iraq in the event of conflict. [104370]

  Clare Short
  Humanitarian agencies cannot operate until a permissive security environment has been established. The military will discharge their humanitarian obligations under the Geneva and Hague 240W
  conventions in order to provide relief in the interim. Once the situation allows, NGOs will need to undertake their own security assessments before engaging.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she has had with EU member states concerning collective involvement in the reconstruction of post-war Iraq. [104376]

  Clare Short
  The first step is to secure a strong UN mandate for reconstruction. The European Council on 20 and 21 March agreed that the UN Security Council should give the UN such a mandate for post-conflict Iraq and make sure that the new Iraqi administration is one that is representative, respects the human rights of the Iraqi people, and allows the people of Iraq to live in peace internally and with their neighbours.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps her Department intends to take in order to ensure that food distribution in post-war Iraq remains apolitical. [104378]

  Clare Short
  The UK is committed to humanitarian assistance being provided by civilian agencies wherever possible, on the basis of need, and not as part of a military strategy. We are supporting the role of UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) in co-ordinating humanitarian assistance.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) if she will make a statement on the nomination of an Iraqi national to administer Iraq's aid programme, with special reference to the oil for food programme; [104379]

  (2) what representations she has received concerning the protection of food supplies to Iraq in the event of discontinuation of the UN Oil for Food programme during military action in Iraq; [104381]

  (3) whether a relief programme will come under the Prime Minister's plans for an oil revenue trust fund for the Iraqi people; [104383]

  (4) what representations she has received concerning the expansion of the Oil for Food programme to pay for reconstruction costs in Iraq; [104389]

  (5) what the current total volume is of unspent oil revenues in the escrow account of the UN Oil for Food programme; and what representations she has received concerning its distribution in the coming months; [104393]

  (6) what steps she plans and is taking to ensure that there is a satisfactory level of independent auditing of Iraq's Oil for Food programme in the aftermath of conflict; 1104386)

  (7) what evaluation she has made of the impact of the suspension of the UN Oil for Food programme on civilians' food needs in Iraq; [104380]

  (8) what steps are being taken by her Department to ensure the protection of food supplies to Iraq in the event of discontinuation of the UN Oil for Food programme during military action in Iraq. [104382]

  Clare Short
  60 per cent. of the people of Iraq—around 16 million people—are currently dependent on the UN Oil for Food programme (OFF).
  241W
  The UK has been in discussion with the UN humanitarian agencies, Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement and international NGOs to determine what resources they require to procure food to cover any temporary gap in the OFF programme. The UN is currently planning on a medium case scenario under which up to 10 million people may require food assistance during and immediately after conflict. We have committed £50 million to support the contingency preparations of these partners (covering food and other relief). This includes £8 million for the World Food programme. We have set aside a further £40 million for the immediate humanitarian response and are considering further assistance in line with emerging humanitarian needs.

  DFID also provides 19 per cent. of EC funding for Iraq. On 21 March the College of European Commissioners proposed to release an additional €79 million from the Emergency Aid Reserve, increasing their total commitment to €100 million. This funding is still to be approved by the Council.

  We have had many representations and discussions on the continuation of the OFF programme with the UN Secretariat, Security Council members and others. Preparations are in hand for a new Security Council Resolution to allow the UN Secretary General to take charge of the Oil for Food (OFF) programme. A draft resolution will be tabled very soon.

  The first priority for oil revenues post-conflict must be to get the OFF programme back up and running. There are substantial unspent oil revenues in the escrow account. We are in discussions with partners about the level of funds which could be released for new commitments under OFF and how this might be done.

  We are also in discussions with our partners over arrangements for the post-war administration of Iraq. A UN mandate will be required to provide legal authority to a new transitional government in Iraq. We are holding ongoing discussions with key partners to ensure such a mandate is put in place.

  OFF accounts are prepared by the UN and audited by their independent auditors.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans she has and steps she is taking to ensure that Iraq does not develop a long-term dependency on aid. [104384]

  Clare Short
  Iraq is an oil rich country. It has the resources to ensure it does not become aid dependant. It will however need support to reform its economy to create an enabling environment to encourage economic growth.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what: representations she has received concerning the return of external investors to Iraq after the end of any military campaign. [104385]

  Clare Short
  I have had discussions with the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund, the World bank and the US Administration to try to ensure that proper preparations are being ma de for reconstruction in Iraq. A UN mandate will be required to provide legal authority for the reconstruction effort, and to make possible the engagement of the International Financial 242W
  Institutions and the wider international community. The Government are holding discussions with others to ensure such a mandate is put in place.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what measures her Department will take to publish audited accounts in relation to the administration of aid funds in post-war Iraq; [104387]

  (2) what steps her Department intends to take to monitor the activities of the aid community in post-war Iraq. [104377]

  Clare Short
  Use of DFID funds in post-war Iraq will be subject to usual Government audit procedures.

  The monitoring of international assistance to post-conflict Iraq will initially be the responsibility of the UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA). We have provided £150,000 to support their Iraq co-ordination centre in Cyprus and have seconded a member of staff.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she has had with HM Treasury concerning Britain's financial burden in Iraq in the event that war-related infrastructure damage causes a significant reduction in oil revenue. [104388]

  Clare Short
  I am in on-going discussions with HM Treasury. It is presently too soon to say with any certainty what the cost of humanitarian and reconstruction work will be.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what representations she has received from the non-governmental organisations regarding her Department's assistance with the provision of humanitarian relief in post conflict Iraq. [104390]

  Clare Short
  My Department is in regular discussion with NGOs both in London and in the countries surrounding Iraq. We have received a substantial number of applications for NGO funding. We are urgently assessing these and will be making decisions on them shortly.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Defence and the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs concerning the co-ordination of the military and humanitarian strategy in the event of military action in Iraq. [104391]

  Clare Short
  My Department has been in close discussion with the Ministry of Defence for many months to minimise the humanitarian impact of any conflict; both to minimise the risks to the Iraqi population and the infrastructure on which they depend, and to ensure that UK forces meet their obligations under the Hague and Geneva conventions governing armed conflict. We have seconded two humanitarian specialists to work with the armed forces (UK 1 Division) and to advise on relief activities.

  We are also working in close collaboration with the Foreign and Commonwealth office on relevant issues.
  243W
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Defence concerning the protection of Iraqi oil production facilities in the event of military action in Iraq. [104392]

  Clare Short
  My Department has been in close contact with the Ministry of Defence to seek to minimise the impact of conflict on the infrastructure on which the people of Iraq depend.

  Mr. Roger Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) how much her Department has allocated for the agricultural reconstruction of post-war Iraq, broken down by type of activity; [104660]

  (2) what estimate she has made of the total value of the Iraqi economy given over to agriculture in (a) 1989, (b) 1996 and (c) 2003, broken down by type. [104661]

  Clare Short
  My Department does not keep data on the Iraqi agriculture in the form requested. The latest Economist Intelligence Unit Iraq Country Profile has useful background on the Iraqi economy and agricultural sector.

  It is too soon to allocate funds for the post-war reconstruction of Iraqi agriculture. The first priority is to secure a UN mandate which will be required to provide legal authority for the reconstruction effort, and to make possible the engagement of the International Financial Institutions and the wider international community. The Government is holding ongoing discussions with key partners to ensure such a mandate is put in place.

  Mr. Roger Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) how much foodstuff is available for relief work in Iraq by(a) the UK, (b) the EU, (c) the US and (d) other states, broken down by type; and what proportion of those foodstuffs are derived from genetically modified materials, broken down by type; [104713]

  (2) what (a) recent discussions she has had with and (b) representations she has received from (i) the United States, (ii) the United Nations, (iii) aid charities and (iv) other groups and individuals on the distribution of genetically modified foodstuffs for (A) refugees and (B) displaced persons in Iraq as a consequence of any conflict; and if she will make a statement. [104659]

  Clare Short
  The UK, EU, US and others are supporting the humanitarian effort through their partners: UN agencies, the Red Cross movement, NGOs and others. DFID has so far committed £8 million to the World Food. DFID believes that food aid recipients should make their own decisions about acceptance of genetically modified materials.

  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment her Department has made of the number of Iraqi civilians likely to die from hunger and disease as a result of military conflict. [104371]

  Clare Short
  There are a number of possible humanitarian scenarios. The UN is currently planning on a 'medium case' scenario. This assumes severe disruption to critical infrastructure and the Iraqi 244W
  Government's capacity to deliver basic food and relief. Disruption to fuel and power supplies could shut down water and sewage treatment plants. Up to half the population could be without access to potable water and up to 10 million people may require food assistance during and immediately after conflict.

  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development whether costs incurred by the United Kingdom in providing emergency, reconstruction and other forms of aid in post-conflict Iraq will be met by diverting funds from existing spending programmes within the budget of the Department for International Development. [104681]

  Clare Short
  Funds from existing spending DFID programmes will not be diverted to fund our assistance to Iraq.

  Eritrea
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she has had with the UN co-ordinator for Eritrea regarding food shortages. [104783]

  Clare Short
  Eritrea has requested food aid for 60 per cent. of its population. Many donors fear this is larger than need and could damage agricultural production. We haw provided £3.35 million towards the appeal and are monitoring the situation closely.

  Aid Policy
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the Government's health priorities are within their development aid policies. [104784]

  Clare Short
  Our paper "Better Health for Poor People" sets out our strategy.

  DFID's four main priorities are:

  (i) Addressing the priority health problems of poor people by improving access to care, services and products. This includes reproductive and maternal health and support for the prevention of communicable diseases, particularly TB and malaria.

  (ii) Investing in strong. efficient and effective health systems.

  (iii) Promoting a more effective global response to HIV/AIDS.

  (iv) Creating the social, political and physical environments to improve health and increasing access to clean water and sanitation.

  Afghanistan
  Paddy Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent assessment she has made of the effectiveness of aid operations in Afghanistan. [104785]

  Clare Short
  The Afghanistan Transitional Administration has just hosted the first Afghanistan Development Forum in Kabul, to present its budget to donors for the next three years. The collective assessment of the Administration and donors there was that tremendous progress has been made since the fall of the Taliban in November 2001 but that great challenges remain. 2003 will be a critical year for Afghanistan—improving security beyond Kabul, extending the writ of
  245W
  the central Administration, increasing domestic revenue collection, agreeing a new constitution, preparing for elections, stimulating private sector growth, creating sustainable livelihoods and providing essential services for people, reintegrating more returning refugees and disarming, demobilising and reintegrating militias. To achieve this, Afghanistan will require very effective international support. Donors and the Administration agreed at the Development Forum that this meant that donors must focus their aid on the priorities set out by the Administration in their budget. This assistance should be channelled through a blend of the most effective instruments, reflecting the limited absorptive capacity of each of them: direct funding of the Government through multi-donor trust funds, funding of UN programmes, and direct funding of NGOs and private sector contractors.

  Zimbabwe
  Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what overseas aid projects she is supporting in Zimbabwe in the forthcoming financial year. [104788]

  Clare Short
  DFID's current feeding programmes for Zimbabwe extend until June 2003. It is already evident that the crisis in food production will persist for a third year, as the structural causes of agricultural decline have not been addressed. Detailed assessments and the plans of the Zimbabwe government arc awaited; from there we will develop specific programmes. We expect to maintain support for humanitarian needs for a further year along similar lines to our activities during the last year, working with the UN and non-governmental agencies.

  DFID's on-going £26 million programme of support to help address HIV/AIDS and to increase access to health care for vulnerable people in Zimbabwe also continues until 2005.

  Millennium Development Goals
  Roger Casale
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps she is taking to use the international finance facility to meet the millennium development goals. [104789]

  Clare Short
  The Chancellor and I have launched proposals for an international finance facility, designed specifically to help meet the internationally agreed millennium development goals. We are working with international partners, the business community and civil society to develop this proposal and to build support.

  Bangladesh
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development for what reasons aid to Bangladesh decreased between 2000–01 and 2001–02; and whether it will be increased to the 2000–01 level in 2003–04. [104643]

  Clare Short
  Total DFID expenditure in Bangladesh in 2001–02 was reported as £62 million. However an additional £10 million which was spent in that year will be included in the figures for 2002–03 due to changes in DFID's end of year accounting procedures.
  246W
  Statistics on DFID's programmes are based on our internal accounting and management information systems. In accordance with government policy, DFID has moved to Resource Accounting and the figures for 2001–02 were the first to be produced from the new system. For 2001–02 onwards, all payments are counted in the year in which they are made whereas in previous years, during a limited period of time, payments relating to the previous year were attributed to the earlier year. The figures for 2001–02 are therefore "light" by the amount of these prior year payments.

  It is estimated that total expenditure on development assistance in 2001–02 was understated by around £140 million. This is a global aggregate which cannot be broken down by country, but includes the £10 million mentioned above for Bangladesh. Hence some individual country expenditure may appear to have dropped in that year. It is anticipated that the figures for Bangladesh will return to their earlier level of over £70 million in 2002–03, increasing to around £80 million for the next three years.

  Departmental Catering Services
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the cost was of(a) the in-house canteen and (b) other catering services provided by the Department in 2002. [104255]

  Clare Short
  The information is as follows:

  (a) The cost of the in-house canteens for the period January-December 2002 for DFID are as follows:

  Abercrombie House: £30,122

  Palace Street: £72,349

  (b) The cost of additional refreshments and other services provided by the caterers and which are not covered by the respective contracts:

  Abercrombie House: £13,080

  Palace Street: £141,000

  Departmental Creche Facilities
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what crèche facilities are provided by her Department; and at what cost. [104291]

  Clare Short
  My Department does not provide crèche facilities. We do provide holiday playschemes for staff in our offices in London and East Kilbride. The costs of the holiday playschemes are as follows:

  East Kilbride
  £10 annual registration fee for first child and £5 for each additional family member plus £9 per child per day, paid wholly by the parents.

  London
  £30 per child per day (as at December 2002) of which the parent and DFID pay £15 each.
  £26 per child per day (for the remainder of 2002) of which the parent and DFID pay £13 each.
  For 2002, the cost to DFID for subsidising DFID parents' use of the Whitehall Holiday Playscheme was £2,256.

  Departmental Events
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the
  247W
  (a) conferences, (b) seminars, (c) workshops, (d) exhibitions and (e) press conferences which have been sponsored by her Department and which took place on non-departmental premises in the last 12 months, broken down by title, purpose, date and cost. [104286]

  Clare Short
  This information is not held centrally and it would incur a disproportionate cost to provide it.

  EU Development Assistance
  James Purnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps she is taking to increase the effectiveness of the targeting at poverty reduction of EU development assistance. [104573]

  Clare Short
  In 2003–04 I expect my Department to spend over £1 billion on EC development assistance, which, with some exceptions, under performs both in effectiveness and targeting on poverty reduction. The Commission spent only 43 per cent. of its official development assistance in 2001 in low-income countries and although an improvement from 38 per cent. in the previous year. The Government's aim is to ensure the Commission seeks to spend 70 per cent. of the development budget in low-income countries by 2006.

  We have been working since 1997 to improve the effectiveness and poverty focus of EC development assistance. We welcome the positive steps that were taken by the Commission to reform the management of external assistance and are pressing the EC to continue and deepen the reforms. Prioritisation needs radical overhaul. Allocation decisions too often reflect the political consensus by the Council of Ministers and European Parliament to maintain spending at historical levels in middle-income regions, which reflect domestic or foreign policy considerations. We want to see the pledge, explicit in the EC's Development Policy Statement of November 2000, to focus on poverty reduction reflected in annual decisions over resource transfers.

  We will continue to push for basing allocations on developmental needs of the poorest countries through all the channels available to us including the annual budget negotiations, the revision of the Asia and Latin America Regulation, the mid-term review of MEDA and the country strategy paper process which determines individual allocations. We have had some initial success eg in 2002 securing additional €100 million from the EC's External Actions Budget for Asia and a commitment of €1 billion for the rehabilitation of Afghanistan.

  In the longer term the discussions of the Convention debate on the Future of Europe and forthcoming debates on the EU budget ceilings for the period 2007–13 offer opportunities to reinforce the poverty efforts of the EC's external actions. I believe the EC should focus efforts on where they will be effective and can add value in their impact on economic growth and poverty reduction. Otherwise the EC should cut back its activities.

  Pensions
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the(a) funded
  248W
  and (b) un-funded public sector pension schemes for which her Department, its agencies and its non-departmental public bodies are responsible; when the last actuarial valuation was of each scheme; what the value was of the assets at the last actuarial valuation of each scheme; what deficit is disclosed by the last actuarial valuation of each scheme; and if she will make a statement. [104928]

  Clare Short
  The following table shows the funded and un-funded public sector pension schemes managed by the Department of International Development. The Overseas Service Pensions Scheme 1985 is the only funded pension scheme. The last actuarial valuation of the 1985 Scheme was carried out as at 30 September 2001. The market value of the Scheme's assets at that time was £13.17 million. The valuation showed a surplus of £1.8 million. The un-funded schemes are exempt from the formal valuations required by the Pensions Act 1995 and subsequent regulations.

  Funded Pension Schemes

  The Overseas Service Pensions Scheme 1985

  Unfunded Pension Schemes

  The Barbados Public Officers' Pensions (United Kingdom) Scheme 1985

  The Belize Public Officers' Pensions (United Kingdom) Scheme 1982

  The Botswana Public Officers' Pensions (United Kingdom) Scheme 1976

  The Burma Public Officers' Pensions (United Kingdom) Scheme 1974

  The Cyprus Public Officers' Pensions (United Kingdom) Scheme 1979

  The Dominica Public Officers' Pensions (United Kingdom) Scheme 1975

  The East African Community Public Officers' Pensions (United Kingdom) Scheme 1979–82

  The Fiji Public Officers' Pensions (United Kingdom) Scheme 1975

  The Gambia Public Officers' Pensions (United Kingdom) Scheme 1974

  The Ghana Public Officers' Pensions (United Kingdom) Scheme 1976

  The Gilbert Islands Public Officers' Pensions (United Kingdom) Scheme 1976

  The Grenada Public Officers' Pensions (United Kingdom) Scheme 1975

  The Guyana Public Officers' Pensions (United Kingdom) Scheme 1978

  The India Public Officers' Pensions (United Kingdom) Scheme 1986

  The Jamaica Public Officers' Pensions (United Kingdom) Scheme 1976

  The Kenya Public Officers' Pensions (United Kingdom) Scheme 1977

  The Lesotho Public Officers' Pensions (United Kingdom) Scheme 1975

  The Malawi Public Officers' Pensions (United Kingdom) Scheme 1975

  The Malaysia Public Officers' Pensions (United Kingdom) Scheme 1979

  The Malta Public Officers' Pensions (United Kingdom) Scheme 1976

  The Mauritius Public Officers' Pensions (United Kingdom) Scheme 1975

  249W

  The Nigeria Public Officers' Pens ions (United Kingdom) Scheme 1979

  The Pakistan Public Officers' Pensions (United Kingdom) Scheme 1986

  The Seychelles Public Officers' Pensions (United Kingdom) Scheme 1976

  The Sierra Leone Public Officers' Pensions (United Kingdom) Scheme 1976

  The Singapore Public Officers' Pensions (United Kingdom) Scheme 1977

  The Solomon Islands Public Officers' Pensions (United Kingdom) Scheme 1976

  The Sri Lanka Public Officers' Pensions (United Kingdom) Scheme 1979

  The St Christopher, Nevis and Anguilla Public Officers' Pensions (United Kingdom) Scheme 1975

  The St Lucia Public Officers' Pensions (United Kingdom) Scheme 1975

  The St Vincent Public Officers' Pensions (United Kingdom) Scheme 1975

  The Sudan Public Officers' Pensions (United Kingdom) Scheme 1973

  The Swaziland Public Officers' Pensions (United Kingdom) Scheme 1975

  The Tanzania Public Officers' Pensions (United Kingdom) Scheme 1976

  The Trinidad & Tobago Public Officers' Pensions (United Kingdom) Scheme 1986

  The Uganda Public Officers' Pensions (United Kingdom) Scheme 1985

  The Zambia Public Officers' Pensions (United Kingdom) Scheme 1985

  The Colonial Service Pensions Addition for War Service (United Kingdom) Scheme 1989

  The Overseas Service (Allocation of Pension) (Amendment) Scheme 1991

  The Barbados Public Officers' Widows' and Orphans' Pensions (United Kingdom) Scheme 1985

  The Belize Public Officers' Widows' and Orphans' Pensions (United Kingdom) Scheme 1982

  The Joint (Botswana, Lesotho And Swaziland) Public Officers' Widows' and Orphans' Pensions De-fended (United Kingdom) Scheme 1986

  The Cyprus Public Officers' Widows' and Orphans' Pensions (United Kingdom) Scheme 1979

  The East African Community (East African Scheme) Public Officers' Widows' and Orphans' Pensions (United Kingdom) Scheme 1979

  The East African Community (Railways & Harbours Corporation) Public Officers' Widows' and Orphans' Pensions (United Kingdom) Scheme 1979

  The Fiji Public Officers' Widows' and Orphans' Pensions (United Kingdom) Scheme 1975

  The Gambia Public Officers' Widows' and Orphans' Pensions (United Kingdom) Scheme 1974

  The Ghana Public Officers' Widows' and Orphans' Pensions (De-funded) (United Kingdom) Scheme 1986

  The Guyana Public Officers' Widows' and Orphans' (United Kingdom) Scheme 1978

  The Jamaica Public Officers' Widows' and Orphans' Pensions (United Kingdom) Scheme 1976

  250W

  The Kenya Asiatic Public Officers' Widows' and Orphans' (United Kingdom) Scheme 1977

  The Kenya Public Officers' Widows' and Orphans' Pensions (De-funded) (United Kingdom) Scheme 1990

  The Malawi Public Officers' Widows' and Orphans' Pensions (United Kingdom) Scheme 1975

  The Malaysia (Peninsular Malaysia) Public Officers' Widows' and Orphans' Pensions (United Kingdom) Scheme 1979

  The Malaysia (Sabah) (British North Borneo Company) Public Officers' Widows' and Orphans' Pensions (United Kingdom) Scheme 1979

  The Malaysia (Sabah) Public Officers' Widows' and Orphans' Pensions (De-funded) (United Kingdom) Scheme 1986

  The Malaysia (Sarawak) Public Officers' Widows' and Orphans' Pensions (De-funded) (United Kingdom) Scheme 1986

  The Malta Public Officers' Widows' and Orphans' Pensions (United Kingdom) Scheme 1976

  The Mauritius Public Officers' Widows' and Orphans' Pensions (United Kingdom) Scheme 1975

  The Nigeria Public Officers' Widows' and Orphans' Pensions (United Kingdom) Scheme 1979

  The Seychelles Public Officers' Widows' and Orphans' Pensions (De-funded) (United Kingdom) Scheme 1986

  The Sierra Leone Public Officers' Widows' and Orphans' (De-funded) (United Kingdom) Scheme 1986

  The Singapore Public Officers' Widows' and Orphans' Pensions (United Kingdom) Scheme 1977

  The Sri Lanka Public Officers' Widows' and Orphans' Pensions (United Kingdom) Scheme 1979

  The Tanzania (Tanganyika) Public Officers' Widows' and Orphans' Pensions (United Kingdom) Scheme 1976

  The Tanzania (Zanzibar Asiatic Officers)) Public Officers' Widows' and Orphans' Pensions (United Kingdom) Scheme 1976

  The Tanzania (Zanzibar) Public Officers' Widows' and Orphans' Pensions (United Kingdom) Scheme 1976

  The Trinidad And Tobago Public Officers' Widows' and Orphans' Pensions (United Kingdom) Scheme 1986

  The Uganda (European Officers) Public Officers' Widows' and Orphans' Pensions (United Kingdom) Scheme 1985

  The Zambia Public Officers' Widows' and Orphans' Pensions (De-funded) (United Kingdom) Scheme 1985

  The Zambia Public Officers' Widows' and Orphans' Pensions (United Kingdom) Scheme 1985

  The Zambia Transferred Federal Officers' (Dependants) Pensions (United Kingdom) Scheme 1985

  The Barbados Public Officers' Widows' and Children's Pensions (United Kingdom) Scheme 1986

  The Mauritius Public Officers' Widows' and Children's Pensions (United Kingdom) Scheme 1975

  The Seychelles Public Officers' Widows' and Children's Pensions (United Kingdom) Scheme 1976

  The Indian Family Pensions (Transferred) (United Kingdom) Scheme 1985

  The Governors Pensions Scheme 1979

  The Oversea Superannuation (De-funded) Scheme 1991

  Section 4 of The Aden, Perim and Kuria Muria Islands Act 1967

  Section 5 of The Superannuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1967

  251W

  The Pensions (India, Pakistan And Burma) Act 1955

  The Central Office of the Overseas Audit Department Pension Scheme

  The Governors Pensions Act 1957

  Sections 2 and 4 of The Overseas Pensions Act 1958

  The Police Pension Scheme 1987

  The Police Pension Scheme ("Old Cases")

  The Firemen's Pension Scheme 1992

  The Overseas Service (Pension Supplement) Regulations 1995

  The Increase of Pensions (India, Pakistan and Burma) Regulations 1972

  The Increase of Pensions (Overseas Service Pensions (Scheme and Fund)) Regulations 1973

TREASURY

  Landfill Tax
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to the written statement of 3 February 2003,Official Report, column 5WS, on the Landfill Tax Credit Scheme, whether the Scheme in Northern Ireland will remain unaltered following the coming budget. [103908]

  John Healey
  As the 2002 pre Budget report made clear, from April 2003, around two thirds of the funding currently going through the landfill tax credit scheme will be allocated to additional public spending on sustainable waste management; the devolved administrations will have responsibility for spending within their countries. The PBR also set out that the remaining third will continue to be made available through a UK-wide reformed tax credit scheme, focusing on local community environmental projects. Our plans for reform of this successor tax credit scheme will be set out on a Budget timetable. My written statement of 3 February set out transition funding arrangements for waste management and recycling projects in England. The Devolved administrations are, as my statement made clear, responsible for their own transition arrangements.

  Aggregates Levy
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effect of the aggregates levy on(a) companies in the extraction industries, (b) the environment in the vicinity of quarries and (c) the quantity of recycled building materials being used. [104544]

  John Healey
  The aggregates levy has only been operational since 1 April 2002. Although Customs and Excise, who have responsibility for administering the levy, are monitoring its economic and environmental impacts, it is too early for an assessment to be made. Customs' monitoring takes account of data from specific research as well as information from business organisations, individual companies and environmental organisations.

  Customs Staff
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has that will affect the disposition of customs staff presently based in Devon and Cornwall; and if he will make a statement. [104872]

  John Healey
  I wrote to my hon. Friend on 6 March about Customs business plans for 2003–04 to 2005–06. For Customs to achieve their agreed public commitments on drugs, tobacco and VAT, they will deploy their resources differently by refocusing them in ways to produce the highest impact and outcomes.

  In the Falmouth area, Customs are proposing a shift from fixed-location staffing to more flexible deployment in teams which will tackle fraud and smuggling in Falmouth and more widely across the south.

  Domestic Abuse
  Margaret Moran
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has and what steps he has taken since 2001 to provide finance for public programmes that aim to raise awareness of domestic abuse and to provide services for those victims. [97742]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) on 17 March 2003, Official Report, column 580W.

  ECOFIN Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the outcome was of the ECOFIN Council held on 19 March; what the Government's stance was on the issues discussed, including its voting record; and if he will make a statement. [104559]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I attended the ECOFIN meeting on 19 March in my capacity as Chair of the Code of Conduct Group. The UK Permanent Representative and Jon Cunliffe represented the UK.

  ECOFIN considered the tax package and all member states but one reached political agreement on the text of the Savings Directive, the text of the Interest and Royalties Directive and the results of the Code of Conduct Group. ECOFIN reaffirmed their commitment formally to adopt the tax package as soon as possible.

  At ECOFIN all delegations except Austria reached political agreement or the taxation of energy, based on proposals for an energy products directive put to the council to the 11 December 2002 ECOFIN meeting. At an informal Finance Ministers meeting on 20 March in the margins of the European Council, Austria agreed to lift their reservation. ECOFIN will adopt the energy products directive once consultation with the European Parliament and with accession countries has been completed. The energy products directive will, from 1 January 2004, increase the existing Community minimum rates of duty on oils (with a second increase in the minimum rate of duty on diesel from 1 January 2010), and provide a Community framework, with minimum rates of duty, for the taxation of other energy products: electricity, natural gas, coal and other solid fuels.
  253W
  The directive meets all of the UK's main interests. In particular, the directive preserves the UK's right to exempt domestic and charity non-business use of energy from the climate change levy.

  The Council heard a request from the Italian delegation concerning the application of article 88(2) to measures to compensate farmers for milk quotas fines in Italy.

  No votes were taken at the meeting.

  Economic Cycle
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what assumptions were made concerning when the current economic cycle will end when making the conclusions of paragraph 2.54 of the pre-Budget report 2002; [105324]

  (2) when he expects that the current economic cycle will end. [105350]

  Ruth Kelly
  As set out in paragraph B6 of the pre-Budget report November 2002 (Cm5664), the current economic cycle is projected to end in 2005–06.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the most recent discussion between government officials and representatives of Gibraltar take place. [104796]

  Mr. MacShane
  I have been asked to reply.

  Officials in a number of Government Departments have regular discussions with representatives of Gibraltar.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what estimate he has made of the(a) value, (b) percentage and (c) numbers of national insurance contributions that were received by the Inland Revenue but remained unrecorded on an individual's national insurance record, in each of the last 10 years; [102603]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the number of occasions in each of the last 10 years where national insurance contributions were deducted by employers and passed to the Government but not allocated to individual national insurance records; and if he will make a statement. [102608]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue estimate that around 50 million end of year contribution returns are received each year. Around 4 per cent. of these contain incomplete or incorrect identifying details and cannot be allocated to an individual national insurance account without further information. Most of these non-matching items have no or little impact on people's benefit entitlements. The Inland Revenue works with employers to trace and match contributions, concentrating on cases where they are likely to have a significant impact on entitlement. Information about the value of these and number of contributions received 254W
  but which remain unrecorded on individual's national insurance records for each of the last 10 years would be available only at disproportionate cost.

  Public Finances
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what reasonable assumptions are referred to in paragraph 2.67 of the pre-Budget report 2002, on which the judgment that the public finances are sustainable in the longer term was based. [105329]

  Ruth Kelly
  The assumptions are presented in Chapter 5 of the Long-term Public Finance Report, which was published alongside the pre-Budget report in November 2002.

  Student Debt
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many errors in the repayment of student loans have been lodged with the Inland Revenue Department by(a) members of the public and (b) hon. Members in each of the last three years. [105206]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue does not keep this information. Errors should normally be notified to the Student Loan Company (which is responsible for notifying the Revenue when borrowers leave higher education) or the employer (who is responsible for making the right deductions from pay).

  VAT
  David Davis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what notice was given of changes to VAT exemption for welfare services; [104529]

  (2) what measures he has introduced to compensate private welfare agencies for the loss of input VAT recovery as a result of changes to VAT exemption; [104531]

  (3) what plans he has to treat the provision of welfare services as being zero rated for VAT purposes rather than exempt. [104530]

  John Healey
  The Government's introduction of VAT exemption for welfare services provided by state-regulated private welfare agencies means that the 60,000 sick, elderly or disabled people who pay for home care services will no longer have to pay VAT on these services and we estimate that they could see a reduction in costs of up to 13 per cent.

  I announced that this exemption would be available from 31 January 2003 in a written Ministerial statement on 19 December 2002, Official Report, column 8OWS. Independent fostering agencies, whose supplies are to local authorities, may choose to postpone changing the VAT treatment of their supplies until 1 April while they make the contractual and financial arrangements that are necessary for them to implement the change. Other commercial welfare agencies are required to implement the change when they become state-regulated, the earliest date for which is 1 April 2003.

  It is a fundamental principle of the VAT system that businesses may only recover VAT relating to taxable supplies. Commercial providers of VAT-exempt

  255W
  services will take a range of commercial factors, including overheads such as irrecoverable VAT, into account when setting their prices.

  There are no plans to introduce a zero rate of VAT for commercially provided welfare services, since we are prevented from doing so by long-standing formal agreements with our European Union partners.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many cases of VAT evasion in the building repairs and maintenance industry Customs and Excise have(a) investigated and (b) secured additional VAT payments from in the last three financial years. [104726]

  John Healey
  The information requested is not kept by HM Customs and Excise.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what pilots he has conducted under the European Directive on VAT reduction tested; what the results were; and how these results compare with similar pilots in other EU states. [104727]

  John Healey
  We have conducted no pilots under the EC experiment to apply reduced VAT rates to certain `labour intensive services', believing that there are currently more effective, better-targeted ways of increasing employment in the United Kingdom. An evaluation of the experiment is due to take place during 2003 in the context of the European Commission's planned review of the provisions governing the use of VAT reduced rates in the EU.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  European Constitution
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish a White Paper on the legal and constitutional implications of his policy of acceding to a European constitution [104983]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Government will continue to ensure full opportunity for the involvement of Parliament in considering the draft Treaty articles being produced by the Convention and which will be considered in the next Intergovernmental Conference.

  We are considering further how best to do this as the Convention approaches its conclusion before the IGC begins.

  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the legal basis upon which Her Majesty's Government will give legal effect to(a) the principle of a Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms and (b) the European Constitution. [104985]

  Mr. MacShane
  The product of the Convention on the Future of Europe will be a draft Treaty. The draft, including any reference in it to the Charter of Fundamental Rights, will require the agreement of all Member States in the next Intergovernmental Conference. The Government has put forward its views in detail on the draft text produced by the Convention so far. These have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
  256W
  Any new restructured treaty, or amendments to the existing treaties, will need to be ratified according to the individual constitutional requirements of all Member States. In the UK, as with the Nice Treaty, and all other treaties amending the original treaty structure, any new amendments would have to stand up to vigorous scrutiny by Parliament before the UK would ratify.

  Chechnya
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to, and what responses he has received from, Russia on human rights in Chechnya on the accountability of the police and army for their actions. [104747]

  Mr. MacShane
  The question of the accountability of military and police actions in Chechnya is one which is regularly raised with the Russian government. Most recently, during human rights talks at senior official level, with the Russia n government earlier this month, we stressed that all allegations of human rights violations should be thoroughly and transparently investigated, and those responsible punished. We added that the vigorous protection of the human rights of the civil population was an essential precursor to a lasting political solution to the conflict in Chechnya.

  On this occasion, senior Russian officials acknowledged that violations had been committed and that action needed to be taken to prevent further abuses. Their aim was to increase the protection of the civil population's human rights through the introduction of a new constitution for Chechnya, the phased withdrawal of Federal troops and the transfer of their security duties to the Chechen Interior Ministry.

  China
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's position with reference to the Chinese Government's response to the human rights demonstrations held in XUAR on 5 February. [104745]

  Mr. Rammell
  Marches by Uighurs protesting about the banning of meshreps (a traditional form of social gathering) took place in Gulja, in the Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region (XUAR) on 5 February 1997.

  We regularly raise our concerns about the human rights situation in Xinjiang through the biannual UK/ China Human Rights Dialogue and continue to stress to the Chinese authorities that the international fight against terrorism must not be used as an excuse to repress people who engage in non-violent political activity or hold unauthorised religious beliefs.

  Civil Service Travel
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what grades in the Civil Service in his Department are allowed to travel by air(a) first class and (b) business class at public expense when on official duties. [104971]
  257W
  Mr. Rammell
  In flights of less than three hours duration, all staff travel economy class except officers in the Senior Management Structure with Job Evaluation Senior Posts (JESP) weightings of 13 or higher who travel business class.

  In flights of more than three hours duration, all staff travel business class except officers in the Senior Management Structure with job weightings of JESP 22 or higher who travel first class. If no business class is available, officers in the Senior Management Structure with job weightings of JESP 13 and above travel first class and other officers travel economy class.

  Exceptions can be made sparingly on a case by case basis for the following reasons:
  Urgent or unforeseen journeys when no lower class seats are available
  Political or protocol reasons
  Operational reasons when a junior officer is accompanying a senior officer
  Cost effective reasons when it is cheaper to upgrade (e.g. to save excess baggage charges).

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for what reason he has not replied to the letter to him dated 28 January from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mrs. J. Meah. [103744]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary responded to my right hon. Friend's letter on 17 March. A copy of the letter was faxed to my right hon. Friend's parliamentary office on 18 March.

  Cyprus
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he is having with the Greek government on resolving the conflict in Cyprus; and if he will make a statement. [104634]

  Mr. MacShane
  Cyprus was discussed by EU Heads of Government, including, Greece at the European Council on 20–21 March. I regularly discuss Cyprus in bilateral contacts with representatives of the Greek government.

  The UN Secretary-General has made it clear that he remains at the disposal of the parties should they ask for UN assistance in negotiations based on the UN proposals. We strongly support. the UN Secretary-General in this approach.

  Departmental Events
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the(a) conferences, (b) seminars, (c) workshops, (d) exhibitions and (e) press conferences which have been sponsored by his Department and which took place on non-departmental premises in the last 12 months, broken down by title, purpose, date and cost. [104276]

  Mr. Rammell
  The information requested is not held centrally by any one department in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and could be collected only at disproportionate cost.
  258W
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the occasions on which(a) his Department, (b) agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department failed to pay valid invoices within 30 days or after the agreed credit period in the financial year 2001–02. [104321]

  Mr. Rammell
  In 2001–02 the Foreign and Commonwealth Office paid 97 per cent. of invoices within 30 days of receipt or the agreed contract terms where these differ.

  Kosovo
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the landmine clearance programme in Kosovo has been completed. [104633]

  Mr. Rammell
  Programmed mine clearance in Kosovo was completed during 2001, and the responsibility for any further demining transferred from the now defunct UN Mine Action Co-ordination Centre (UNMACC) to the UN Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK).

  A much reduced threat from unexploded ordnance (UXO), including landmines, continues to exist in certain areas of the province. UNMIK tackles this on a response basis, working with NGOs and the indigenous Kosovo Protection Corps as necessary.

  Liberia
  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the role of revenue from the Liberian timber industry in supporting the Government of Mr. Charles Taylor. [104140]

  Mr. Rammell
  The Government shares the concern of the UN Panel of Experts that the revenues from timber sales in Liberia are being used to fund arms purchases in breach of UN sanctions. United Nations Security Council Resolution 1408(2002) called on the Government of Liberia to undertake a credible audit of shipping and timber revenues and to use the revenues from the timber trade for social, development and humanitarian purposes.

  We support the Africa Forest Law Enforcement and Governance (AFLEG) process, which calls on all African governments and trading partners to take actions to control illegal activities in the forestry sector and associated trade. A conference to push this process forward is planned in April 2003.

  Middle East
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the United States on the use of NATO peacekeepers as part of the road map for peace in the Middle East. [104669]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  None. But we believe that third-party monitoring, accepted by both parties, would serve the interests of Israel and the Palestinian Authority in
  259W
  their search for peace. The Quartet roadmap contains provisions for establishing such a mechanism. We stand ready to help in any way we can.

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the state of the peace settlement in Sierra Leone; and if he will make a statement. [104141]

  Mr. Rammell
  This year Sierra Leone celebrated its first year of peace in over a decade. Disarmament was completed and the war declared over in January 2002. Credible and peaceful elections were held in May. But, much remains to be done to consolidate peace. The UN peacekeeping mission, UNAMSIL, remains deployed throughout the country. It has begun to withdraw, in a phased process, which should last 18 to 20 months.

  On 10 March the Special Court for Sierra Leone indicted seven people suspected of war crimes. Five are now in custody. This action represents an important step forward for the Court and signals Sierra Leone's determination to end impunity. At the same time, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) is making good progress with statement-taking. Over 4,700 statements have been recorded to date. We welcome the TRC Chairman's recent announcement that donors have pledged an additional $3.7 million (US) in support of its work.

  The UK continues to play a leading role in building a lasting peace. This month a deployment of Gurkhas undertook joint exercises with the Sierra Leone armed forces as a demonstration of the UK's support for the settlement process. Key post-conflict challenges include helping the Government of Sierra Leone to:
  reform the security sector;
  train and strengthen the capacity of the armed forces and police; reintegrate former combatants, returning refugees and the internally displaced;
  tackle corruption;
  promote justice (including through the establishment of the Sierra Leone Special Court) and reconciliation (through the Truth and Reconciliation Commission);
  introduce policies for managing and securing the diamond fields;
  strengthen democratic institutions and civil society;
  put in place effective public administration and management of public finances, rebuild the country's basic infrastructure and services; and
  develop industry and the economy.

  The UK is committing over £120 million of development assistance, including substantial budgetary support, to Sierra Leone over the next three years. This is in addition to our ongoing commitment of over 100 UK military personnel to the UK-led International Military and Advisory Training Team (IMATT). We continue to provide substantial support to humanitarian agencies.

  The ongoing conflict in Liberia and President Taylor's regime, which has not yet met the demands of the Security Council and continues to breach UN sanctions, remain a threat to the peace in Sierra Leone. Through the Liberia Contact Group and other mechanisms we are seeking a peaceful solution and real reform in Liberia.

  Taiwan
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if it is his policy to support a request by Taiwan to be given observer status at the World Health Organisation; and if he will make a statement. [104635]

  Mr. Rammell
  There are difficulties over Taiwanese involvement in a UN forum where statehood is a prerequisite for full membership. We would consider with our EU partners any proposal for Taiwanese involvement in the World Health Organisation (WHO) which took account of these difficulties.

  Turkey
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the Turkish Government on human rights in Turkey; and which cases were discussed. [104631]

  Mr. MacShane
  When my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary met Turkish leaders at the Copenhagen Europe an Council in December, and in subsequent telephone conversations, he raised the importance of implementing the substantial packages of human rights reforms passed by the Turkish Parliament and encouraged the Turkish Government to take the further steps necessary to meet the Copenhagen political criteria. He did not raise any specific cases.

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials closely follow a number of individual cases.

  UN Commission for Compensation
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about his policy on the future of the UN Commission for Compensation; how much the outstanding claims are; and whether they will be paid. [104533]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The UK has supported the work of the United Nations Commission for Compensation (UNCC) since its creation in 1991. 25 per cent. of Oil for Food funds continue to be paid to the UNCC. The UNCC has received about 2.6 million claims seeking compensation in excess of US $300 billion for losses arising out of the illegal invasion of Kuwait by Iraq in 1991, the majority of which have been resolved. The Commission is continuing its work on outstanding claims.

  Visa Applications
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when his Department began electronic compilation of statistics in relation to family visitor visa applications, decisions and appeals. [105028]

  Mr. Rammell
  We started compiling statistical information electronically on Family visitor visa applications, decision and appeals on Monday 2 October 2000.

  War Crimes Tribunal
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many(a) men and (b) women have (i) appeared, (ii) been convicted and (iii) been sentenced at the war crimes tribunal in The Hague, broken down by nationality. [104630]

  Mr. Rammell
  Information about the indictees of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) can be found on the ICTY website at: www.un.org/icty together with details about the progress of trial proceedings and sentences.

  Westminster Foundation for Democracy
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his estimate is of his Department's total net spending on the Westminster Foundation for Democracy in each year from 1990–91 to 2005–06 (planned); and if he will make a statement. [98436]

  Mr. Rammell
  The Westminster Foundation for Democracy was not set up until 1992. Details of the FCO's total net spending on WFD for each of the financial year's 1992–93 to 2002–03 are as follows:

  £

  Grant in Aid

  Additional Project Funding

  2002–03

  4,162,577

  296,161

  2001–02

  4,156,000

  422,876

  2000–01

  4,155,000

  221,240

  1999–2000

  4,427,818

  —

  1998–99

  3,000,000

  —

  1997–98

  2,713,650

  —

  1996–97

  2,500,000

  —

  1995–96

  2,500,000

  —

  1994–95

  2,200,000

  —

  1993–94

  2,000,000

  —

  1992–93 (13 months)

  1,192,600

  —

  For the next three financial years, the details have yet to be worked out. The Grant in Aid is expected to remain reasonably constant at around £4 million per year.

  The increase from £2.7 million in 1997–98 to over £4 million in 1999–2000 was a result of Resource Allocation Round (RAR) 2000, when WFD bid for an uplift in funding to match the increased number of projects spanning two or more financial years and the general increase in pressure on existing resources.

  Zimbabwe
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to the answer of 5 December 2002,Official Report, column 962W, on Zimbabwe, if he will make a statement on the results of further investigations into contacts between Andrew Smith and Government officials. [103466]

  Mr. Rammell
  Further investigations since our 5 December reply have revealed that Andrew Smith telephoned the British High Commission in Freetown, Sierra Leone, on one occasion towards the end of 2002. He spoke briefly to the Defence Attache about his 262W
  legitimate business interests connected with a case he has against Sierra National Airlines (SNA). We are not aware of any further contact with Foreign Office officials in London or overseas.

  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to the answer of 18 November 2002,Official Report, columns 9–10W, on Zimbabwe, whether further relevant information has been received on contacts between John Bredenkamp and officials in African countries. [103467]

  Mr. Rammell
  John Bredenkamp wrote to the Foreign Secretary on 3 February 2003 about the 8 October 2002 report of the UN Experts Panel on the Illegal Exploitation of Natural Resources and Other Forms of Wealth of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The Foreign Office replied on 21 February 2003.

  Mr Bredenkamp telephoned the High Commission in Harare on 13 January, but there have been no meetings with him.

  As far as we aware, there has been no other contact between John Bredenkamp and UK officials in London or overseas.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether Wellington in Somerset falls within the cluster area of Taunton and Bridgwater with respect to the housing of asylum seekers by the National Asylum Support Service. [104698]

  Beverley Hughes
  The town of Wellington in Somerset falls within the National Asylum Support Service cluster area of Taunton and Bridgwater.

  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to the answer of 18 March 2003,Official Report, column 697W, on asylum seekers, whether it is a rule or a guideline that accommodation must be located within the defined area of a cluster. [104702]

  Beverley Hughes
  It is a rule that accommodation for asylum seekers is located within a cluster area. Accommodation providers are advised by the National Asylum Support Service (NASS) that property supplied to house asylum seekers must be located within the designated cluster area. Any properties offered to NASS. which fall outside a designated cluster area will be refused.

  Community Cohesion
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to ensure that Government efforts to encourage community cohesion in the UK are not endangered by the current international situation. [104099]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 24 March 2003]: I refer my hon. Friend to the statement by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on 20 March 2003, Official Report, column 51WS, providing information

  263W
  to the public about the threat of terrorism. In that statement he said that the Home Office is working with the police and other local agencies to ensure that tension levels within our communities are monitored on a daily basis. Within local areas agencies are working together—and with local communities—to provide reassurance and to ensure that there are arrangements in place to deal with any potentially difficult situations that might emerge. At this stage the assessments provided give us no reason to believe that there is a serious risk of a disturbance, and we are countering the close monitoring.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give a substantive reply to the letter from the hon. Member for North Shropshire dated 4 March concerning Mrs. Judith Acun. [101664]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 10 March 2003]: I wrote to the hon. Member on 25 March 2003.

  Kate Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Immigration and Nationality Directorate will reply to letters from the hon. Member for Vauxhall dated 28 January and 7 March about a constituent, ref. G306128. [104070]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Immigration and Nationality Directorate wrote to my hon. Friend on 13 March and 19 March in reply to her letters of 28 January and 7 March about her constituent.

  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department why he has not replied to the letter to him dated 28 January from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Nariman Rave Salih. [104876]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I wrote to my right hon. Friend on 20 March 2003.

  Data Protection
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the terms of reference given to the privacy experts consulted in relation to the draft Code of Practice concerning access to communications data; what the cost was of this consultation; whether these experts were consulted in relation to the draft Code of Practice concerning the retention of communications data; and if he will make a statement. [104406]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The terms of reference of the independent experts who assisted the preparation of the consultation paper "Access to communications data—respecting privacy and protecting the public from crime" have been:

  1. To advise on the terms of, and process for, a public consultation paper on the addition of public authorities to the access to communications data provisions of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) to ensure: clarity, accessibility, credibility and balance of consultation paper; effective dissemination to a wide audience, and that concerns expressed over original draft RIPA Order are seen to be addressed.

  2. To advise on the scope of a wider review on the balance between privacy and protecting the public and the terms in which such a review is proposed in the consultation on the
  264W
  RIPA access to communications data order, taking into account, amongst other issues: the Performance and Innovation Unit (PIU) study "Privacy and data sharing", and the views of other Government Departments (including the Lord Chancellor's Department, the Office of the e-Envoy and others as appropriate).

  3. To attend meetings, provide written or oral advice and to prepare reports as required.

  To date, the cost of engaging the independent experts' time and their consultancy advice has been £49,547. Although the experts were engaged to assist with preparation of the consultation paper on access to communications, we asked one of the experts to review the draft consultation paper and draft code of practice for voluntary retention of communications data.

  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many staff the Interception of Communications Commissioner will have to supervise those who have access to communications data under the draft Code of Practice; and if he will make a statement. [104407]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The Interception of Communications Commissioner has a statutory duty to keep under review the exercise of powers and duties by persons who will obtain and disclose communications data under Part I Chapter II of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, when it is implemented. The number of staff the Commissioner has to assist him fulfil this duty will depend on how the legislation is implemented and what additional role, or roles, he may have in safeguarding the use of powers to access communications data.

  The consultation paper "Access to communications data—respecting privacy and protecting the public from crime", published on 11 March, invites views on these matters. We are also discussing with the Commissioner how he envisages his role and the resources he may require.

CABINET OFFICE

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many(a) civil servants and (b) special advisors have been employed by (i) the Strategy Unit, (ii) the Prime Minister's Delivery Unit, (iii) the Office of the e-Envoy, (iv) the Office of Public Services Reform and (v) the Prime Minister's Policy Unit in each year since their creation. [103063]

  Mr. Alexander
  Figures regarding how many civil servants have been employed by units since they were created can be found in the following table. All figures have been rounded to full time equivalents (FTE). There have been no special advisers working in the units.

  For the Prime Minister's Policy Directorate figures I refer the hon. Member to the answer the Prime Minister gave to the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) on 25 March 2003, Official Report, column 125W.
  265W

  FTE staff numbers for 3 February:

  Unit

  Date Unit Created

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  Strategy Unit

  July 2002

  —

  —

  —

  90

  The Prime Minister' s Delivery Unit

  June 2001

  —

  —

  18

  34

  The Office of the E-Envoy

  September 1999

  51

  71

  145

  141

  The Office of Public Services Reform

  June 2001

  —

  —

  30

  143

  1 The Office of Public Services Reform figure for 3 February 2003 includes The Charter Mark and Beacon Unit which merged with the unit on 1 September 2002.

  Ministerial Statements
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office for what reason it is not normal practice to define the territorial extent of the effect of parliamentary ministerial statements. [103665]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I have been asked to reply.

  The territorial extent of UK ministerial responsibilities is largely defined by the devolution legislation. In most cases the territorial extent of a ministerial statement is clear from the context.

  Public Appointments
  Rob Marris
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what steps Government departments are taking to encourage an increase in the number and profile of public appointments to local and national decision-making bodies for members of the British Sikh Community. [104734]

  Mr. Alexander
  Work is currently under way in my Department on a new website which will enable people to get details of current and prospective public appointment vacancies across Government Departments. This new website will enable people to search on the basis of topic, department and location of the body and will be linked through to further information about each vacancy including how to apply. The new website will be complemented by a bi-annual newsletter, so that access to the internet is not a barrier. The website and newsletter will be launched shortly.

  By developing this new website, we will be providing greater access to information about public appointments, encouraging a far wider audience to participate in public life.

HEALTH

  Beds
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many acute beds there are per 1,000 residents in(a) Buckinghamshire, (b) Berkshire and (c) Oxfordshire. [103768]

  Ms Blears
  The information requested is not collected centrally. Bed numbers are collected by national health service trust and can not be aggregated to county boundaries. Information on bed numbers for NHS trusts are published annually on the Department of Health website at www.doh.gov.uk/hospitalactivity.

  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the bed occupancy rates for(a) all beds, (b) general and acute beds, (c) acute beds,
  266W
  (d) mental health beds, (e) learning disability beds and (f) maternity beds in (i) 1979 and (ii) each year since 1990. [100852]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information on bed occupancy was collected from 1996–97 and is published annually on the Department of Health website at http:///www.doh.gov.uk/hospitalactivity.

  Homoeopathic Treatments
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what incentives his Department provides to increase the numbers of homoeopathic practitioners that are professionally registered. [99921]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 3 March 2003]: The Department provides no direct incentives to individual homeopaths to encourage them to join professional registers. However, national health service organisations take into account whether complementary and alternative medicine practitioners are members of an appropriate voluntary regulatory scheme when deciding whether to commission their services.

  The Department is still awaiting reports from the two regulatory working groups that have been established to develop proposals specifically on the statutory regulation of herbalists and acupuncturists. When we have consulted on their recommendations, we will be in a position to consider whether there is a case for the statutory regulation of homeopaths and any other complementary and alternative medicine professions.

  NHS Funding
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the last three(a) full and (b) interim collections of brokerage figures for each NHS trust in respect of cash brokerage requirement and projected outturn against budget were, broken down by NHS Region and Strategic Health Authority. [100709]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 5 March 2003]: Details of national health service trusts' cash brokerage in 2001–02 has been placed in the Library. For details of NHS trusts' cash brokerage for the financial years 1996–97 to 2000–01, I refer the hon. Member to the response I gave the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) on 17 April 2002, Official Report, columns 1013–14W.

  Cash brokerage between NHS organisations occurs throughout the financial year. The Department does not therefore make full or interim collections of brokerage data. Brokerage is self-financing, so there is no outturn against a brokerage budget.

  Patients Advice and Liaison Service
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the NHS trusts and primary care trusts which have established a patients' advice and liaison service; how many staff each trust employs in each service; and if he will make a statement. [103325]

  Mr. Lammy
  96 per cent. of trusts provide a patient advice and liaison service. A list of patient advice and liaison services is available at: http://www.doh.gov.uk/patientadviceandliaisonservices/.

  The Department does not hold details of the number of staff working within patient advice and liaison services. Trusts are responsible for establishing and staffing their own services.

  Smallpox
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether smallpox vaccination is available on the NHS through family doctors. [102512]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 12 March 2003]: Smallpox vaccination is not available on the national health service through family doctors. General practitioners do not hold stocks of the vaccine. It is not required because the disease was declared eradicated in 1980. The Department holds a strategic stock for use in

  Average council tax for every band in Suffolk since 1996–97

  £

  Band A

  Band B

  Band C

  Band D

  Band E

  Band F

  Band G

  Band H

  1996–97

  407

  475

  543

  610

  746

  882

  1,017

  1,221

  1997–98

  434

  507

  579

  651

  796

  941

  1,086

  1,303

  1998–99

  471

  549

  628

  706

  863

  1,020

  1,177

  1,413

  1999–2000

  507

  592

  677

  761

  930

  1,100

  1,269

  1,522

  2000–01

  544

  635

  726

  816

  998

  1,179

  1,360

  1,632

  2001–02

  582

  679

  776

  873

  1,067

  1,261

  1,455

  1,747

  2002–03

  654

  764

  873

  982

  1,200

  1,418

  1,636

  1,963

  2003–04

  776

  905

  1,034

  1,164

  1,422

  1,681

  1,939

  2,327

  The following table shows the average council tax for every band in England since 1996–97.

  Average council tax for every band in England since 1996–97

  £

  Band A

  Band B

  Band C

  Band D

  Band E

  Band F

  Band G

  Band H

  1996–97

  431

  502

  574

  646

  790

  933

  1,077

  1,292

  1997–98

  459

  535

  612

  688

  841

  994

  1,147

  1,376

  1998–99

  498

  581

  664

  747

  913

  1,079

  1,245

  1,494

  1999–2000

  532

  621

  709

  798

  975

  1,153

  1,330

  1,596

  2000–01

  565

  659

  753

  847

  1,035

  1,223

  1,412

  1,694

  2001–02

  601

  701

  801

  901

  1,101

  1,301

  1,502

  1,802

  2002–03

  651

  759

  868

  976

  1,193

  1,410

  1,627

  1,952

  2003–04

  735

  857

  979

  1,102

  1.347

  1,591

  1,836

  2.204

  Green Belt (South Bedfordshire)
  Andrew Selous
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether the existing green-belt land in South Bedfordshire district council will be maintained as1jysuch. [104540]

  Mr. McNulty
  The future development strategy for Bedfordshire, including whether existing green belt boundaries are altered, will be considered through the
  268W
  an emergency which can be disseminated quickly in the event of a bio-terrorism incident involving smallpox. The situation is being kept under the most careful review. The Government is following World Health Organisation guidance on the best approach in protecting the public against smallpox.

  We have already announced that a small number of key frontline health service staff and military personnel are being vaccinated. These front line personnel would provide the first response in the event of a confirmed, suspected or threatened release of smallpox.

  Our contingency plans for dealing with smallpox are detailed in the draft guidelines on smallpox available on http://www.doh.gov.uk/epcu/cbr/biol/smallpoxplan.htm.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Council Tax
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the average council tax was for every band in(a) Suffolk and (b) England in each year since 1996–97. [104806]

  Mr. Leslie
  The following table shows the average council tax for every band in Suffolk since 1996–97.

  regional, sub-regional and local development planning processes, as required by Planning Policy Guidance note 2: Green Belts.

  Local Authority Allocations
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister pursuant to his Answer of 13 March 2003,Official Report, columns 424–25W, what the value is of the allocation to each authority. [105003]
  269W
  Mr. Raynsford
  The table shows the Formula Spending Shares (FSS) allocation as a result of coastline for each authority. The allocation is zero for all other authorities.

  £

  Authority

  Coastline allocations

  Merseyside

  655,329

  Tyne and Wear

  367,787

  Isles of Scilly

  387,848

  Cornwall

  4,433,500

  Cumbria

  1,638,322

  Lincolnshire

  1,297,284

  Norfolk

  1,364,154

  Northumberland

  1,404,276

  Somerset

  682,077

  Suffolk

  635,268

  West Sussex

  528,275

  Isle of Wight Council

  896,062

  In addition the following authorities as part of combined fire authorities:

  £

  Authority

  Allocation

  Total for combined fire authority

  Bath and North East

  112,750

  —

  Somerset

  —

  —

  Bristol

  216,853

  —

  South Gloucestershire

  153,484

  —

  North Somerset

  125,432

  —

  As part of Avon Fire Authority

  —

  608,520

  Hartlepool

  66,193

  —

  Middlesbrough

  97,979

  —

  Redcar and Cleveland

  104,237

  —

  Stockton-on-Tees

  139,500

  —

  As part of Cleveland Fire Authority

  —

  407,909

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  576,576

  —

  Kingston upon Hull

  352,831

  —

  North East Lincolnshire

  241,057

  —

  North Lincolnshire

  247,186

  —

  As part of Humberside Fire Authority

  —

  1,417,650

  York

  165,230

  —

  North Yorkshire

  563,657

  —

  As part of North Yorkshire Fire Authority

  —

  728,886

  Bournemouth

  252,249

  —

  Poole

  227,947

  —

  Dorset

  676,660

  —

  As part of Dorset Fire Authority

  —

  1,156,856

  Darlington

  23,850

  —

  Durham

  109,891

  —

  As part of Durham Fire Authority

  —

  133,741

  Brighton and Hove

  221,504

  —

  East Sussex

  480,634

  —

  As part of East Sussex Fire Authority

  —

  702,138

  Portsmouth

  61,293

  —

  Southampton

  67,604

  —

  Hampshire

  506,371

  —

  As part of Hampshire Fire Authority

  —

  635,268

  Plymouth

  591,031

  —

  Torbay

  371,694

  —

  Devon

  2,146,744

  —

  As part of Devon Fire Authority

  —

  3,109,469

  Southend-on-Sea

  182,882

  —

  Thurrock

  148,079

  —

  Essex

  1,541,407

  —

  As part of Essex Fire Authority

  —

  1,872,368

  Medway

  173,033

  —

  Kent

  1,050,693

  —

  As part of Kent Fire Authority

  —

  1,223,726

  Blackburn with Darwen

  41,712

  —

  Blackpool

  48,372

  —

  Lancashire

  398,069

  —

  As part of Essex Fire Authority

  —

  488,153

  270W
  The allocation in combined fire authorities has been split in relation to taxbase and does not reflect the length of coastline in constituent authorities.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister pursuant to his answer of 14 March 2003,Official Report, column 438W, on local government finance, which local authorities in Devon have suffered a cut in real terms in central Government funding as a result of increased national insurance contributions from 1 April and the proposals and initiatives within the new burdens principle; and whether the increase in national insurance is included in the new burdens principle. [105036]

  Mr. Raynsford
  A new burden is defined as any policy or initiative which increase the cost of providing local authority services. Under the new burdens arrangement Government Departments are responsible for fully funding the costs of their policies which impact on local authorities. The new burdens requirement does not apply to policies which apply the same rules to councils and to private sector bodies (for example a change in the rate of employers' national insurance contributions) except where those policies apply disproportionately to local government. The Government have however guaranteed an increase in grant of at least above the rate of inflation for all local authorities. The increases announced in SR2002 took into account all pressures, including the increase in national insurance contributions, along with the ability of local authorities to make savings. As a result total Government grant to local authorities has increased by £3.8 billion in 2003–04. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister estimates the change in national insurance contributions will increase local authorities' pay costs on average by 0.7 per cent. or some £250 million.

  Public Service Agreements (East Riding)
  David Davis
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what PSA targets there are for the East Riding of Yorkshire council. [105238]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Government concluded a local PSA with East Riding of Yorkshire council in November 2001. The agreement set out the council's commitment to making specified improvements in the following areas:

  Increasing educational attainment at GCSE

  Increasing educational attainment of looked after children

  Increasing bus usage

  Increasing cost effectiveness

  Reducing domestic burglary

  Increasing employment of over 50-year-olds

  Reducing levels of unauthorised pupil absence

  Promoting the independence of older people

  Developing e-government

  Increasing the number of decent homes

  Speeding up benefits processing

  Improving the street scene

  271W
  A copy of the agreement was deposited in the Library of the House, and both the agreement and a summary of the agreement are available on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister website (http://www.localregions.odpm.gov.uk/lpsa).

  Water Sprinklers
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what guidance he has given to local authorities about requiring new houses to be equipped with water sprinklers; [103676]

  (2) what tests have been carried out, monitored by his Department, in the effectiveness of water sprinklers in reducing the spread of fires; [103675]

  (3) how many deaths have occurred as a result of house fires in each of the past five years in houses (a) fitted and (b) not fitted with water sprinklers. [103672]

  Mr. Leslie
  Guidance for local authorities and others on measures that will meet the fire safety requirements of the Building Regulations is given in Approved Document B (Fire safety). This currently does not suggest that new dwellings should be provided with residential sprinklers. However, the Building Regulations are kept under review and in April 2001 research was commissioned into the effectiveness of sprinklers in residential properties. This work is addressing a number of areas, including the undertaking of a series of experimental tests, which should assist with the identification of the potential effectiveness of such sprinkler systems. To date the tests that have been undertaken include 25 benchmark fire tests to evaluate the draft British Standard specification for residential sprinklers, BS DD 252, and eight fires staged in a converted three-bedroomed detached house as part of an experimental programme using realistic fires. Preparation for the final stage of this experimental programme is currently under way. The final results and conclusions from this work should be available around the end of the year.

  The following table shows dwelling fires and associated deaths in fires attended by local authority fire brigades in the United Kingdom for the past five years for which data are available.

  Dwellings

  Fatal casualties

  Fires1 attended by Fire brigade

  1997

  Water sprinkler present

  0

  95

  Water sprinkler absent

  562

  72,397

  1998

  Water sprinkler present

  0

  116

  Water sprinkler absent

  513

  70,961

  1999

  Water sprinkler present

  0

  115

  Water sprinkler absent

  463

  72,113

  20002

  Water sprinkler present

  0

  117

  Water sprinkler absent

  445

  70,780

  20013

  Water sprinkler present

  0

  60

  Water sprinkler absent

  482

  68,916

  272W

  Dwellings

  Fatal casualties

  Fires1 attended by Fire brigade

  All years

  Water sprinkler present

  0

  503

  Water sprinkler absent

  2,465

  335,167

  1 Figures are based on sample data weighted to brigade totals.

  2 Provisional.

  3 Estimated.

  Care should be taken in drawing conclusions about the number of fatal casualties in dwelling fires attended by the fire brigade with water sprinklers present due to the very small number of sprinklered homes in the UK.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what consultation has taken place with the Irish Government regarding the property assets and bank deposits held in the Republic of Ireland by Michael McKevitt and Liam Campbell. [96804]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  I have been asked to reply.

  I am not aware of any consultations with the Irish Government on the subject of assets held by McKevitt and Campbell. I would anticipate that the Assets Recovery Agency and the Criminal Assets Bureau will work closely together on such matters. It would not however be appropriate for me to indicate whether an investigation is being carried out by the Assets Recovery Agency in respect of any particular individual.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will seek co-operation from the Government of the Republic of Ireland to obtain a full list of assets held by Michael McKevitt and Liam Campbell in order to establish their eligibility for legal aid in Northern Ireland. [96805]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Legal Aid Department of the Law Society has a Fraud Investigation Unit, which will investigate any information that has been passed to them.

  If anyone has information to suggest that an applicant for legal aid may not have made a full declaration of their assets, I would encourage them to share that information with the Legal Aid Department and the Police Service of Northern Ireland.

  The Government do not however comment on, or intervene in decisions made about the grant or refusal of legal aid in individual cases.

  Although the Lord Chancellor has ministerial responsibility for legal aid in Northern Ireland, the Law Society of Northern Ireland, through its Legal Aid Committee and the Legal Aid Department, makes decisions on applications for civil legal aid in accordance with statutory principles. It is important that decisions on the merits of individual cases are, and are seen to be, free from political influence.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Departmental Catering Services
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the cost was of(a) in-house canteen and (b) other catering services provided by the Department in 2002. [104265]

  Dr. Howells
  The cost of the staff restaurant was £44,567 and refreshments for meetings, provided when participants from outside the Department were involved was £22,864. A new contract starting in April 2003 on a fixed cost basis will reduce the cost of the staff restaurant to the Department.

  Arts Council England: Admin costs etc 1999–2003

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–031

  Total Admin cost for Arts Council England (National Office)

  19,537,177

  22,517,000

  22,776,000

  26,814,000

  Change costs (excluded from above)

  0

  0

  2,152,000

  5,543,000

  Creative Partnerships (excluded from above)

  0

  0

  0

  2,654,000

  Total GIA for Arts Council England

  228,250,000

  237,155,000

  251,455,000

  297,500,000

  Total Regional Admin costs

  14,340,694

  18,194,370

  18,836,934

  19,686,326

  Total Regional GIA

  71,015,823

  103,785,000

  120,522,933

  130,280,589

  1 2002–03 unaudited figures

  Source:

  The information has been supplied by, the Arts Council of England on behalf of themselves and the regional arts boards (as they were prior to the recent restructuring of the arts funding system).

  Departmental Spending
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the percentage spending by her Department per person was in(a) the Chorley constituency, (b) Lancashire and (c) England in the last year for which figures are available; and which constituency received the highest spend per person. [104073]

  Dr. Howells
  As the Department for Culture, Media and Sport allocates funding on a regional and national level it is not possible to give the figures requested. In 2001–02 the Department for Culture, Media and Sport's total direct spend on the North West region was £42,890.73. This funding was allocated on a region wide basis to the North West Regional Cultural Consortium. Spending on the North West Regional Cultural Consortium represented 21 per cent. of total spend (£205,493.46) on Regional Cultural Consortiums in England.

  Film Industry
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on Government support for the UK film industry. [104249]

  Dr. Howells
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave her on 12 March 2003,Official Report, columns 316–17W.

  Lottery
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much was in the National Lottery Distribution Fund Reserve in each month since the inception of the National Lottery. [105014]
  274W

  Arts Council of England
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport pursuant to the answer of 17 March 2003,Official Report, column 516W, on the Arts Council of England, what the (a) total administrative cost, (b) total grant in aid allocation, (c) regional administrative cost and (d) regional grant in aid allocation has been in each financial year since 1999–2000. [104700]

  Dr. Howells
  The information requested is shown in the following table.

  Mr. Caborn
  The information requested is not available in the requested format over the entire period in question. Up to and including 1996–97, the figure for the size of the NLDF balance was collated only at the end of the 3rd and 4th quarters of the financial year. The following table gives these figures and the monthly totals from 1997–98 onwards.

  £

  December 1994

  82,605,591.04

  March 1995

  287,507,542.46

  December 1995

  1,331,034,983.87

  March 1996

  1,634,720,318.09

  December 1996

  2,482,533,141.13

  March 1997

  2,679,446,118.77

  April 1997

  2,760,284,924.32

  May 1997

  2,825,836,637.78

  June 1997

  2,887,503,891.07

  July 1997

  3,091,908,110.15

  August 1997

  3,114,487,001.11

  September 1997

  3,156,630,166.19

  October 1997

  3,241,042,171.63

  November 1997

  3,295,406,525.97

  December 1997

  3,371,239,929.20

  January 1998

  3,424,963,487.28

  February 1998

  3,494,001,941.80

  March 1998

  3,566,283,713.30

  April 1998

  3,581,838,932.34

  May 1998

  3,621,730,875.87

  June 1998

  3,662,868,840.06

  July 1998

  3,622,683,546.71

  August 1998

  3,600,176,763.97

  September 1998

  3,625,856,354.41

  October 1998

  3,643,996,449.17

  November 1998

  3,675,922,548.68

  December 1998

  3,699,779,063.21

  January 1999

  3,720,622,264.14

  275W

  £

  February 1999

  3,690,763,913.84

  March 1999

  3,674,391,090.15

  April 1999

  3,654,442,148.07

  May 1999

  3,597,958,305.41

  June 1999

  3,643,790,501.90

  July 1999

  3,727,414,149.14

  August 1999

  3,674,846,254.87

  September 1999

  3,633,431,060.18

  October 1999

  3,577,737,855.16

  November 1999

  3,548,123,450.81

  December 1999

  3,555,159,915.31

  January 2000

  3,606,015,365.13

  February 2000

  3,538,843,961.44

  March 2000

  3,517,510,239.64

  April 2000

  3,462,415,574.15

  May 2000

  3,462,758,465.63

  June 2000

  3,452,278,233.27

  July 2000

  3,520,071,826.26

  August 2000

  3,491,337,593.36

  September 2000

  3,456,847,824.90

  October 2000

  3,454,308,810.66

  November 2000

  3,453,248,857.59

  December 2000

  3,438,497,209.13

  January 2001

  3,449,489,057.76

  February 2001

  3,443,899,778.83

  March 2001

  3,451,862,081.15

  April 2001

  3,379,873,503.36

  May 2001

  3,383,786,659.14

  June 2001

  3,343,002,675.78

  July 2001

  3,429,428,995.28

  August 2001

  3,442,375,361.70

  September 2001

  3,444,322,283.25

  October 2001

  3,588,850,753.73

  November 2001

  3,585,150,158.17

  December 2001

  3,529,771,471.42

  January 2002

  3,600,098,349.99

  February 2002

  3,583,110,195.02

  March 2002

  3,558,834,694.00

  April 2002

  3,530,051,013.43

  May 2002

  3,506,452,712.10

  June 2002

  3,526,563,657.73

  July 2002

  3,521,439,929.16

  August 2002

  3,515,822,531.26

  September 2002

  3,516,289,993.61

  October 2002

  3,491,224,948.82

  November 2002

  3,459,295,723.29

  December 2002

  3,449,453,228.79

  January 2003

  3,464,925,469.44

  February 2003

  3,239,330,222.51

  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what measures she is taking to reduce the amount on the National Lottery Distribution Fund Reserve. [105015]

  Mr. Caborn
  At the end of February 2003, the overall National Lottery Distribution Fund (NLDF) balance stood at £3.24 billion, the lowest end of month total since October 1997. In addition, at the end of December 2002, the distributors collectively had made commitments totalling £3.74 billion, significantly in excess of the amount held in the fund. This level of over commitment shows that the money resident in the NLDF does not constitute a 'reserve'.

  DCMS is actively working with the distributing bodies to further reduce the amount of money held in the NLDF. It is revising the Financial Directions issued
  276W
  to distributing bodies to allow the more rapid transfer of grants to their recipients. It also plans to issue guidance to all distributors about balance management, asking distributing bodies to publish their own NLDF balance management policies, with targets for future balance levels.

  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what has been the total amount paid in interest on the National Lottery Distribution Fund Reserve in each of the last five years; and how this money has been spent. [105016]

  Mr. Caborn
  The information requested is shown, for the past five completed years, in the following table.

  £000

  2001–02

  182,948

  2000–01

  220,166

  1999–2000

  185,857

  1998–99

  245,189

  1997–98

  212,556

  Section 32 of the National Lottery etc Act 1993 governs the investment of the National Lottery Distribution Fund balance. The balance is invested by the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt, and the interest earned is added in proportion to the totals available for allocation by each of the distributing bodies. The Exchequer does not benefit in any way from these investments.

  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what proportion of National Lottery grants were awarded in(a) Bury St. Edmunds, (b) Suffolk and (c) the East of England. [104802]

  Mr. Caborn
  According to the information supplied to us by the distributing bodies for the National Lottery awards database, the Bury St. Edmunds constituency has been awarded 0.17 per cent. of the total amount of Lottery funding since the Lottery's inception. Suffolk has received 0.70 per cent. and the East of England has received 4.31 per cent. of Lottery funding during the same period.

  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the spending per head of population for National Lottery grants was in(a) Bury St. Edmunds, (c) Suffolk and (c) the East of England in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [104803]

  Mr. Caborn
  According to the information supplied to us by the distributing bodies for the National Lottery awards database, the Bury St. Edmunds constituencyhas been awarded £19.03 per Capita between 1 March 2002 and 28 February 2003. As we do not hold population details for all Counties or Regions we are unable to provide per Capita data for these areas. However, Suffolk has been awarded £5,099,745 in Lottery funding and the East of England £55,560,282 between 1 March 2002 and 28 February 2003.

  Physical Activity
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what estimate she has
  277W
  made of the average time spent on sport and physical activity by those aged five to 16 in each of the last five years. [105012]

  Mr. Caborn
  A recent Sport England research study, conducted by MORI, "Young People and Sport in England: Trends in participation 1994–2002", revealed that seven out of 10 young people considered themselves to be a "sporty type of person" and are now inclined to participate in sport or exercise for an average of 8.1 hours a week outside school lessons, compared with 7.5 hours in 1999. The study also provided details of the average time spent in PE lessons, by years 2 (aged 7)—11 (aged 16), per week. The information covered the years 1994, 1999 and 2002, and is set out in the following table:

  Percentage

  1994

  1999

  2002

  Yrs 2–11

  Yrs 2–11

  Yrs 2–11

  Less than 30 mins

  —

  —

  1

  30 to 59 mins

  5

  18

  6

  1 hr to 1 hr 29 mins

  22

  22

  20

  1 hr 30 to 1 hr 59 mins

  27

  26

  25

  2 hrs to 2 hrs 29 mins

  34

  22

  38

  2 hrs 30 to 2 hrs 59 mins

  6

  5

  7

  3 hrs or more

  6

  5

  4

  2 hrs or more

  46

  33

  49

  Public Libraries
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what percentage of public libraries have internet access. [105011]

  Dr. Howells
  The £100 million lottery funded people's network programme has enabled £4,085 libraries in the UK to be connected to the internet, including all the libraries in Essex. This represents 99 per cent. of libraries in England, 95 per cent. in Scotland, and 100 per cent. in Wales and Northern Ireland. Only 39 English and 30 Scottish libraries, have still to be connected and we expect all but two of these to be online by summer 2003. This is a very significant achievement.

  Tourism
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much was spent by overseas tourists in the UK in each of the last 10 years, broken down by country of origin. [103848]

  Dr. Howells
  Data from the Office for National Statistics shows that expenditure by overseas tourists to the UK in last 10 years, broken down into areas of the world, is as follows.

  Expenditure by overseas visitors

  £ billion

  North America

  Western Europe

  Other areas

  Total world

  1993

  2.1

  4.3

  3.1

  9.5

  1994

  2.0

  4.3

  3.5

  9.8

  1995

  2.3

  5.5

  4.0

  11.8

  1996

  2.3

  6.1

  3.9

  12.3

  1997

  2.5

  5.7

  4.0

  12.2

  1998

  2.8

  5.8

  4.1

  12.7

  1999

  2.9

  5.6

  4.0

  12.5

  2000

  3.2

  5.3

  4.3

  12.8

  278W

  Expenditure by overseas visitors

  £ billion

  North America

  Western Europe

  Other areas

  Total world

  2001

  2.7

  4.7

  3.9

  11.3

  20021

  2.8

  5.1

  3.9

  11.8

  1 Figures for 2002 are provisional.

  Data relating to individual countries are available in the national statistics publication "Travel Trends", copies of which are available from the Library of the House.

  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the top 20 tourist attractions visited in the UK were in each of the last 10 years; and if she will break down the visitors by country of origin, on a proportional basis. [103849]

  Dr. Howells
  A table showing the top 20 tourist attractions by visit in the UK is available for each year from 1999 to 2001. Prior to 1999 figures are collated for admission charging attractions only. The figures are taken from the English Tourism Council's (ETC) publication 'Sightseeing in the UK'. These figures are compiled from operators who have responded to the (ETC) survey and have authorised publication. Data on visitors to attractions by country of origin are not collected.

  Number of visits

  Top 20 attractions in 2001

  Blackpool Pleasure Beach, Blackpool

  6,500,000

  National Gallery, London

  4,918,985

  British Museum, London

  4,800,938

  London Eye, London

  3,850,000

  Tate Museum, London

  3,551,885

  Pleasureland Theme Park, Southport

  2,100,000

  Tower of London, London

  2,019,210

  Clacton Pier, Clacton-on-Sea

  1,750,000

  Eden Project, St. Austell

  1,700,000

  Natural History Museum, London

  1,696,176

  Legoland, Windsor

  1,632,000

  York Minster, York

  1,600,000

  Pleasure Beach, Great Yarmouth

  1,500,000

  Victoria and Albert Museum, London

  1,446,344

  Science Museum, London

  1,352,649

  Flamingo Land, Kirby Misperton

  1,322,000

  National Portrait Gallery, London

  1,269,819

  Windermere Lake Cruises, Ambleside

  1,241,918

  Canterbury Cathedral, Canterbury

  1,151,099

  Edinburgh Castle, Edinburgh

  1,127,389

  Top 20 attractions in 2000

  Blackpool Pleasure Beach, Blackpool

  6,800,000

  Millennium Dome

  6,516,874

  British Museum, London

  5,466,246

  National Gallery, London

  4,897,690

  Tate Modern, London

  3,873,887

  London Eye, London

  3,300,000

  Pleasureland Theme Park, Southport

  2,600,000

  Adventure Island, Southend-on-Sea

  2,500,000

  Alton Towers

  2,450,000

  Madame Tussaud's, London

  2,388,000

  Tower of London, London

  2,303,167

  York Minster, York

  1,750,000

  Natural History Museum, London

  1,577,044

  Chessington World of Adventure

  1,500,000

  Pleasure Beach, Great Yarmouth

  1,500,000

  Legoland, Windsor

  1,490,000

  279W

  Number of visits

  Victoria and Albert Museum, London

  1,344,113

  Science Museum, London

  1,337,432

  Flamingo Land, Kirby Misperton

  1,301,000

  Canterbury Cathedral, Canterbury

  1,263,140

  Top 20 attractions in 1999

  Blackpool Pleasure Beach, Blackpool

  7,100,000

  British Museum, London

  5,460,537

  National Gallery, London

  4,964,879

  Alton Towers

  2,650,000

  Madame Tussaud's, London

  2,640,000

  Pleasureland Theme Park, Southport

  2,500,000

  Tower of London, London

  2,428,603

  Adventure Island, Southend-on-Sea

  2,000,000

  York Minster, York

  1,900,000

  Tate Britain, London

  1,822,428

  Natural History Museum, London

  1,696,725

  Legoland, Windsor

  1,620,000

  Chessington World of Adventure

  1,550,000

  Pleasure Beach, Great Yarmouth

  1,500,000

  Science Museum. London

  1,483,234

  Canterbury Cathedral, Canterbury

  1,318,065

  Windsor Castle, Windsor

  1,280,000

  Westminster Abbey, London

  1,260,000

  Victoria and Albert Museum, London

  1,251,396

  Edinburgh Castle, Edinburgh

  1,219,720

  Top 20 admission charging attractions in 1998

  Alton Towers

  2,782,000

  Madame Tussaud's, London

  2,772,500

  Tower of London, London

  2,551,459

  Natural History Museum, London

  1,904,539

  Chessington World of Adventure

  1,650,000

  Science Museum, London

  1,599,817

  Legoland, Windsor

  1,510,363

  Canterbury Cathedral, Canterbury

  1,500,000

  Windsor Castle, Windsor

  1,495,465

  Edinburgh Castle, Edinburgh

  1,219,055

  Victoria and Albert Museum, London

  1,110,396

  Flamingo Land, Kirby Misperton

  1,105,000

  St. Paul's Cathedral, London

  1,095,299

  London Zoo

  1,052,000

  Drayton Manor Park, Staffs.

  1,003,802

  Kew Gardens, London

  1,000,000

  Windermere Lake Cruises, Cumbria

  950,000

  Chester Zoo

  920,000

  Royal Academy, London

  912,714

  Roman Baths & Pump Room, Bath

  905,426

  Top 20 admission charging attractions in 1997

  Madame Tussaud's, London

  2,798,801

  Alton Towers

  2,701,945

  Tower of London, London

  2,615,170

  Natural History Museum, London

  1,793,400

  Chessington World of Adventure

  1,750,000

  Canterbury Cathedral, Canterbury

  1,613,000

  Science Museum, London

  1,537,151

  Legoland, Windsor

  1,297,818

  Edinburgh Castle, Edinburgh

  1,238,140

  Blackpool Tower

  1,200,000

  Windermere Lake Cruises, Cumbria

  1,131,932

  Windsor Castle, Windsor

  1,129,629

  Flamingo Land, Kirby Misperton

  1,103,000

  London Zoo

  1,097,637

  Victoria and Albert Museum, London

  1,040,750

  Drayton Manor Park, Staffs.

  1,002,100

  St. Paul's Cathedral, London

  964,737

  Kew Gardens, London

  937,017

  Roman Baths & Pump Room, Bath

  933,489

  Thorpe Park, Chertsey

  912,000

  280W

  Number of visits

  Top 20 admission charging attractions in 1996

  Alton Towers

  2,749,000

  Madame Tussaud's, London

  2,715,000

  Tower of London, London

  2,539,272

  Canterbury Cathedral, Canterbury

  1,700,000

  Chessington World of Adventure

  1,700,000

  Natural History Museum, London

  1,607,255

  Science Museum, London

  1,548,286

  Legoland, Windsor

  1,420,511

  Windsor Castle, Windsor

  1,215,631

  Blackpool Tower

  1,200,000

  Edinburgh Castle, Edinburgh

  1,165,132

  Flamingo Land, Kirby Misperton

  1,161,000

  Thorpe Park, Chertsey

  1,139,680

  Windermere Lake Cruises, Cumbria

  1,034,188

  London Zoo

  1,002,104

  St. Paul's Cathedral, London

  1,002,000

  Kew Gardens, London

  993,527

  Drayton Manor Park, Staffs.

  937,296

  Roman Baths & Pump Room, Bath

  902,186

  Chester Zoo

  869,222

  Top 20 admission charging attractions in 1995

  Alton Towers

  2,707,000

  Madame Tussaud's, London

  2,703,283

  Tower of London, London

  2,536,680

  Canterbury Cathedral, Canterbury

  1,900,000

  Chessington World of Adventure

  1,770,000

  Science Museum, London

  1,556,368

  St. Paul's Cathedral, London

  1,500,000

  Windsor Castle, Windsor

  1,212,305

  Blackpool Tower

  1,205,000

  Thorpe Park, Chertsey

  1,166,000

  Natural History Museum, London

  1,064,273

  Kew Gardens, London

  1,060,000

  Windermere Lake Cruises, Cumbria

  1,054,414

  London Zoo

  1,042,701

  Edinburgh Castle, Edinburgh

  1,037,788

  Drayton Manor Park, Staffs.

  1,000,000

  Royal Academy, London

  881,000

  Roman Baths & Pump Room, Bath

  872,915

  Warwick Castle

  803,000

  Chester Zoo

  760,580

  Top 20 admission charging attractions in 1994

  Alton Towers

  3,011,000

  Madame Tussaud's, London

  2,631,538

  Tower of London, London

  2,407,115

  St. Paul's Cathedral, London

  1,900,000

  Natural History Museum, London

  1,625,000

  Chessington World of Adventure

  1,614,000

  Blackpool Tower

  1,305,000

  Science Museum, London

  1,268,839

  Thorpe Park, Chertsey

  1,235,000

  Drayton Manor Park, Staffs.

  1,004,000

  Windsor Castle, Windsor

  1,090,668

  London Zoo

  1,046,888

  Edinburgh Castle, Edinburgh

  992,078

  Kew Gardens, London

  988,801

  Royal Academy, London

  952,472

  Roman Baths & Pump Room, Bath

  871,308

  Chester Zoo

  773,554

  Warwick Castle

  755,670

  American Adventure, Ilkeston

  723,000

  Stonehenge, Wiltshire

  696,605

  Top 20 admission charging attractions in 1993

  Alton Towers

  2,618,365

  Madame Tussaud's, London

  2,449,627

  Tower of London, London

  2,332,468

  St. Paul's Cathedral, London

  1,900,000

  281W

  Number of visits

  Natural History Museum, London

  1,700,000

  Chessington World of Adventure

  1,495,000

  Thorpe Park, Chertsey

  1,327,000

  Science Museum, London

  1,277,417

  Blackpool Tower

  1,250,000

  Drayton Manor Park, Staffs.

  1,060,000

  Edinburgh Castle, Edinburgh

  1,049,693

  Flamingo Land, Kirby Misperton

  958,000

  Kew Gardens, London

  940,035

  Royal Academy, London

  922,135

  Roman Baths & Pump Room, Bath

  898,142

  London Zoo

  863,352

  Chester Zoo

  814,883

  Windsor Castle, Windsor

  813,059

  American Adventure, Ilkeston

  800,000

  Jorvik Viking Centre, York

  752,586

  Top 20 admission charging attractions in IC92

  Alton Towers

  2,501,379

  Madame Tussaud's, London

  2,263,994

  Tower of London, London

  2,235,199

  Natural History Museum, London

  1,700,000

  St. Paul's Cathedral, London

  1,400,000

  Tower World, Blackpool

  1,300,000

  Science Museum, London

  1,212,504

  Chessington World of Adventure

  1,170,000

  Thorpe Park, Chertsey

  1,026,000

  Royal Academy, London

  1,018,114

  Flamingo Land, Kirby Misperton

  991,000

  Edinburgh Castle, Edinburgh

  986,305

  Kew Gardens, London

  953,250

  Drayton Manor Park, Staffs.

  950,000

  London Zoo

  939,597

  Roman Baths & Pump Room, Bath

  885,948

  American Adventure, Ilkeston

  860,000

  Jorvik Viking Centre, York

  785,028

  Windsor Castle, Windsor

  769,298

  Chester Zoo

  768,100

  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what research her Department has undertaken regarding the estimated cost to the UK tourist industry as a result of the international crisis in the Middle East, broken down by(a) number of visitors by region of the world, (b) amount spent on goods and services and (c) value to the Exchequer; and if she will place a copy of the research in the Library. [103850]

  Dr. Howells
  DCMS is monitoring the statistics available, such as the ONS International Passenger Survey, but no research has been undertaken. It is not possible to make accurate predictions about the impact on the UK tourism industry of a conflict in the Gulf. Some overseas visitors might be more reluctant to travel, but more British people might choose to holiday in the UK.

  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many tourists from overseas there were in the UK in each of the last 10 years, broken down by country of origin. [103788]

  Dr. Howells
  Data from the Office for National Statistics shows that the number or visits by overseas tourists to the UK in last 10 years, broken down into areas of the world, is as follows.
  282W

  Visits by overseas residents

  Million

  North America

  Western Europe

  Other areas

  Total World

  1993

  3.4

  12.8

  3.6

  19.9

  1994

  3.5

  13.2

  4.1

  20.8

  1995

  3.8

  15.1

  4.6

  23.5

  1996

  3.7

  16.8

  4.7

  25.2

  1997

  4.1

  16.7

  4.7

  25.5

  1998

  4.6

  16.6

  4.6

  25.7

  1999

  4.6

  16.1

  4.7

  25.4

  2000

  4.9

  15.4

  5.0

  25.2

  2001

  4.2

  14.1

  4.5

  22.8

  20021

  4.3

  15.3

  4.5

  24.2

  1. Figures for 2002 are provisional

  Data relating to individual countries are available in the National statistics publication "Travel Trends", copies of which are available from the Library of the House.

  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what estimate she has made of the impact of(a) foot and mouth disease, (b) events on 11 September 2001 and (c) the possibility of war in Iraq upon (i) the number of visitors to the UK from overseas, (ii) revenues from tourism and (iii) publicly funded support, broken down by region. [103855]

  Dr. Howells
  It is not possible to assess separately the impact on the UK tourism industry of the outbreak of foot and mouth disease and the attacks on the US of 11 September 2001. However, the number of inbound visits to the UK fell by 9 per cent. between 2000 and 2001. Expenditure by overseas visitors to the UK fell by 12 per cent. over the same period. It is not possible to make accurate predictions about the impact on the UK tourism industry of a conflict in the Gulf. Some overseas visitors might be more reluctant to travel, but more British people might choose to holiday in the UK.

  In 2001–02, DCMS allocated £35.5 million in baseline grant in aid to the British Tourist Authority, £9.6 million to the English Tourism Council and £1.9 million to the Greater London Authority for tourism support. To help tourism to recover from the impact of foot and mouth disease, an additional £14.2 million was allocated to the British Tourist Authority and a further £3.8 million was allocated to the English Tourism Council. The additional funds for the British Tourist Authority were used for marketing Britain as a destination, and are not broken down by region. Of the additional £3.8 million for the English Tourism Council, £2 million was spent on regional activity, broken down as follows:

  Regional Tourist Board

  Funding

  Cumbria

  255,000

  East of England

  185,000

  Heart of England

  235,000

  London

  135,000

  Northumbria

  185,000

  North West

  185,000

  South East of England

  175,000

  Southern

  175,000

  South West

  285,000

  Yorkshire

  185,000

  Total

  2,000,000

  283W
  In 2002–03, my Department allocated £35.5 million in baseline grant in aid to the British Tourist Authority, £11.6 million to the English Tourism Council and £1.9 million to the Greater London Authority. To help tourism to recover from the impact of the events of 11 September 2001, an additional £19 million was allocated to the British Tourist Authority and a further £1 million was allocated to the English Tourism Council. All these additional funds were used for marketing Britain as a destination, and are not broken down by region.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Attendance Monitoring
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what he estimates to be the cost of the joint LEA and DfES awareness campaign, to be run in April, to highlight key messages on attendance monitoring to local education authorities. [104418]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The joint Department for Education and Skills and Cabinet Office document: "Making A Difference" Reducing Red Tape and Bureaucracy In Schools—Second Report contains a typographical error at page 6 of the Executive Summary. In the outcome relating to LEA monitoring of attendance, the acronym "LEA" should read "LGA" (Local Government Association). The related action, to be found at page 23 of the report, explains that work on the joint DfES/LGA awareness campaign will begin from April 2003. This initial work will include scoping the extent of the campaign and its likely cost.

  First Aid
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) if he will make a statement regarding the provision of basic first aid education for children; [104446]

  (2) what assessment he has made of (a) the benefits of first aid teaching at an early stage of children's education and (b) the age at which such education should be first provided. [104447]

  Mr. Miliband
  Basic Aid Training is included in the curriculum as part of the framework for Personal Social and Health Education. No assessment has been made by the Department for Education and Skills of the benefits of first aid teaching in schools. The aim is to ensure that children are safe within and outside their school environment. At Key Stage 2 (ages 7–11) children are taught about school rules, health and safety, basic emergency aid procedures and where to get help. Learning continues through Key Stage 3 and 4. At Key Stage 4 (ages 5–16) young people learn to recognise and follow health and safety requirements and develop skills to cope with emergency situations that require basic aid procedures, including resuscitation techniques.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what actions he is taking in conjunction with the Higher Education Funding 284W
  Council for England to monitor the value added by higher education institutions, with particular reference to in-course assessment. [104098]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 24 March 2003]: Since 1999, HEFCE has published each year Performance Indicators for each institution on student non-continuation and progression rates, benchmarked against entry qualifications and other factors. As signalled in the White Paper for Higher Education published in January 2003, we have asked HEFCE to build upon this work, reviewing the current methodologies for recording student achievement and developing more sophisticated ways of measuring 'value added'. HEFCE will announce details of their review shortly.

  Hospitality
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what hospitality has been offered at public expense in the last 12 months, by each Minister in his Department to outside interest groups, broken down by(a) restaurant, (b) recipient and (c) cost in each case; [99521]

  (2) what criteria Ministers in his Department use when determining whether to offer hospitality in restaurants to interest groups at public expense; and if he will make a statement; [99520]

  (3) how often Ministers in his Department have received hospitality in restaurants from outside groups in the last 12 months. [99596]

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

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what his Department's hospitality budget(a) is in 2002–03 and (b) was in each of the last three years; and how much was left unspent at the end of each financial year. [99597]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  My Department does not hold budgets specifically for hospitality. I refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) on 27 January 2003,Official Report, columns 539–40W, which provides figures on spend.

  LEAs (Meetings)
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what meetings he has had with representatives of local education authorities in the last 12 months. [103357]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  In line with Exemptions 2 and 7 of the "Code of Practice on/Access to Government Information", it is not normal practice of Governments

  285W
  to release details of specific meetings or their content, as some of these discussions may have taken place on a confidential basis.

  Sector Skills Councils
  Mr. Barry Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list the sector skills councils, and the names of the chairman and chief executive of each. [104093]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Five trailblazer Sector Skills Councils (SSCs) were announced in December 2001 and have received two year licences to operate. Details are as follows:

  Cogent—trailblazer SSC for oil and gas extraction, chemicals manufacturing and petroleum industries.

  Chair—John Mumford

  Chief Executive—John Ramsay

  Lantra—trailblazer SSC for the environment and land based sector.

  Chair—Gordon McGlone

  Chief Executive—Peter Martin

  Skillfast-UK—trailblazer SSC for apparel, footwear and textiles industries.

  Chair-Edward Stanners

  Chief Executive—Linda Florance

  Student loans: number of borrowers and amount borrowed by students normally domiciled in the UK—academic years 1996–97 to 2001–02

  Academic year

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–991

  1999–20002

  2000–012

  2001–022

  Newcastle University

  Total number of borrowers (000s)3 of which

  6—

  6.2

  6.9

  7.1

  7.7

  8.8

  Mortgage style loans (000s)4

  6—

  6.2

  5.0

  3.2

  1.4

  0.4

  Income contingent repayment loans (000s)2

  6—

  5—

  1.9

  3.9

  6.3

  8.3

  Total amount borrowed (£m)3 of which:

  6—

  9.5

  12.7

  16.5

  21.1

  26.3

  Mortgage style loans (£m)4

  6—

  9.5

  7.6

  4.6

  2.0

  0.6

  Income contingent repayment loans (£m)2

  6—

  5—

  5.1

  11.9

  19.1

  25.6

  University of Northumbria at Newcastle

  Total number of borrowers (000s)3 of which:

  6—

  7.2

  7.7

  8.5

  8.9

  9.2

  Mortgage style loans (000s)4

  6—

  7.2

  5.3

  3.2

  1.2

  0.2

  Income contingent repayment loans (000s)2

  6—

  5—

  2.4

  5.3

  7.7

  9.0

  Total amount borrowed (£m)3 of which:

  6—

  10.6

  13.9

  20.4

  24.3

  27.2

  Mortgage style loans (£m)4

  6—

  10.6

  7.8

  4.5

  1.6

  0.3

  Income contingent repayment loans (£m)2:

  6—

  5—

  6.1

  16.0

  22.7

  26.9

  1 New student support arrangements in higher education came into effect in September 1998. For the first year of the new scheme, eligible new entrants received support for living costs through both grants and loans. Grants, which were assessed against family income, on average formed about a quarter of the support available. All students were entitled to a non income-assessed loan, which comprised the remaining three quarters of support available.

  2 New entrants to higher education in 1999–2000, together with those who started in 1998–99, received support for living costs solely through loans which are partly income-assessed. Grants for living costs are no longer available except for some limited allowances, e.g. for students with dependants; single parent students; and disabled students. Grants for students with dependants and single parent students are income-assessed but the Disabled Students' Allowance is not. From 1999–2000 student loans have been made available to those aged 50–54 who plan to return to work after studying. These loans are repayable on an income contingent basis.

  3 Refers to loans advanced in the target year only, which include those students in their first, second, third and any subsequent year of their course. Includes hardship loans but excludes fixed rate loans of £500 for part-time students introduced in September 2000.

  4 Loans available to students who, apart from a few exceptions, entered higher education before academic year 1998–99 and which are repayable on a mortgage style basis.

  5 Not applicable

  6 Not available

  Source:

  The Student Loans Company
  286W
  Skillset—trailblazer SSC for the audio visual industries.

  Chair—Clive Jones

  Chief Executive-Dinah Caine

  Skillsmart-trailblazer SSC for the retail sector.

  Chair-Belinda Earl

  Chief Executive—Nigel Broome

  There are ten further sectors in the final phase of developing Sector Skills Council proposals for consideration by the Sector Skills Development Agency (SSDA). As SSCs are licensed, information about them including the names of the Chair and Chief Executive, will be published by the SSDA.

  Student Loans
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many students at the Universities of(a) Newcastle and (b) Northumbria at Newcastle took out (i) loans, (ii) grants, (iii) hardship funds and (iv) opportunity bursaries in each year since 1996; and what the total amount of money paid out was under each different scheme. [103418]

  Margaret Hodge
  The number of students domiciled in the UK attending University at(a) Newcastle and (b) Northumbria at Newcastle who have taken out a student loan, and the total amount of money borrowed, in academic years 1996–97 to 2001–02 (latest year available) is shown in the following tables:
  287W
  Data on the number of students in receipt of all types of maintenance grants at individual institution level are not collected centrally.

  Hardship funds: Academic years 1996–97 to 2001–02

  Academic year

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Newcastle University

  Successful applicants

  639

  430

  *

  1,505

  1,079

  1,291

  Total in payments (£)

  192,106

  160,812

  *

  591,886

  562,848

  714,368

  University of Northumbria at Newcastle

  Successful applicants

  776

  448

  558

  729

  900

  750

  Total in payments (£)

  231,420

  231,984

  672,735

  845,445

  1,023,467

  809,520

  * Information for 1998–99 for Newcastle is unfortunately not retrievable

  Opportunity Bursaries: Academic years 2001–02 and 2002–031

  Academic year

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Newcastle University

  Number of students with a bursary

  59

  110

  Amount paid to students (£)

  59,000

  110,000

  University of Northumbria at Newcastle

  Number of students with a bursary

  62

  151

  Amount paid to students (£)

  *89,000

  *199,500

  * Includes payments to second year Opportunity Bursary award holders.

  1 Opportunity Bursaries (only available since 2001–02)

  Modern Apprenticeships
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has to modify the age cap on modern apprenticeships. [104094]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Modern Apprentices aged between 16 and 24 are eligible for LSC funding support. The Government is considering the case for removing the age cap on MA funding and opening Advanced Modern Apprenticeships to suitably qualified or experienced adults, in line with Modern Apprenticeship Advisory Committee recommendations. We currently support the Rail Skills Award pilot for adult apprentices in the rail industry, and the LSC has local flexibility to fund some apprenticeship training for adults.

  We will decide on the way ahead in the light of early operating experience in Wales and Scotland, where the age cap has already been lifted selectively, together with evaluation of current activity in England, and the availability of resources.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Home Responsibility Protection
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what safeguards are in place to ensure that people whose National Insurance contributions are interrupted receive information about home responsibility protection; and what estimate he has made of the level of take-up of home responsibility protection among eligible carers and parents. [102605]

  Malcolm Wicks
  People claiming Child Benefit are given full information about Home Responsibilities Protection (HRP) which includes advice as to whom in a couple should be the payee where HRP would be beneficial. However, the award of HRP for Child
  288W
  Benefit payees caring for a child under 16 is automatic and therefore the take-up for those entitled to HRP via this route will be 100 per cent. Most people caring for a severely disabled person will receive Invalid Care Allowance (ICA). People getting ICA will be credited with National Insurance contributions so they will not need HRP. Where ICA is not appropriate, or the carer decides not to claim it, various leaflets, including the PM9, specifically designed for carers, does give information about claiming HRP. Where the carer is receiving Income Support for a full tax year and is not required to register for work because of their caring activities, HRP will be available automatically. However, it is not possible to identify and provide specific information to people who give up work to care for a disabled person and who do not make any claims to benefit or inquiries about protection of their state pension, but the Department publicises the availability of HRP. From April, HRP will also be available to registered foster carers who do not currently get HRP by virtue of caring for a child of their own under 16.

  Household Income
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many and what percentage of children lived in households with less than median income in each year from 1975–76 to 2002–03 in(a) numerical and (b) percentage terms; and if he will make a statement. [95582]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Such information as is available is provided in the tables.

  Numbers and risk of falling below median income for children in households, including the self-employed

  Million

  Before housing costs

  After housing costs

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  1979

  59

  —

  60

  —

  1981

  61

  —

  62

  —

  1987

  59

  —

  60

  —

  1988–89

  58

  —

  61

  —

  1990–91

  61

  —

  63

  —

  1991–92

  59

  —

  61

  —

  1991–92

  59

  —

  61

  —

  1992–93

  59

  —

  61

  —

  1993–94

  60

  —

  62

  —

  1994–95

  59

  7.5

  61

  7.8

  1995–96

  59

  7.5

  61

  7.8

  1996–97

  60

  7.8

  62

  8.1

  1997–98

  61

  7.8

  63

  8.0

  289W

  Numbers and risk of falling below median income for children in households, including the self-employed

  Million

  Before housing costs

  After housing costs

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  1998–99

  61

  7.8

  63

  8.0

  1999–2000

  60

  7.8

  62

  8.0

  2000–01

  59

  7.6

  62

  7.9

  Notes:

  1. All figures are estimates and are taken from the Households Below Average Income (HBAI) series. From 1979 to 1993–94 data are derived from the Family Expenditure Survey: single years for 1979, 1981 and 1987, two calendar years combined for 1988–89, 1990–91,1991–92 and 1992–93 and two financial years combined for 1993–94; results are for the United Kingdom. From 1994–05 to 2000–01, data are derived from the Family Resources Survey and represents single financial years. The Family Resources Survey does not include Northern Ireland, and the latest year for which data is available is 2000–01.

  2. Numbers are in millions. Estimates of numbers from the Family Expenditure Survey are not considered sufficiently reliable to be presented here.

  3. The estimates are sample counts, which have been adjusted for non-response using multipurpose grossing factors that, in the case of the Family Resources Survey, control for tenure, Council Tax band and a number of other variables. Estimates are subject to both sampling error and to variability in non-response. The income measure used is weekly net (disposable) equivalised household income (that is to say income that is adjusted to reflect the composition of the household).

  4. The estimates are presented on both a Before Housing Costs (BHC) and an After Housing Costs (AHC) basis in line with HBAI conventions. Figures are provided including the self-employed.

  Post Office Card Accounts
  Sir Robert Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) of 16 January 2003,Official Report, column 806, if he will place in the Library a copy of the script used by helpline staff when people wish to open a Post Office card account. [100254]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information has been placed in the Library.

  Benefit Payment
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what representations he has received from organisations representing blind and partially sighted people about the accessibility of PIN Pads used to withdraw benefits in cash in post offices; and if he will make a statement. [104816]

  Malcolm Wicks
  There is no question of blind, partially sighted or disabled people not being able to access their money after the move to Direct Payment. We are committed to ensuring that all people have reasonable access to their benefits and pensions and there will be a number of options available.

  My Officials regularly meet with a number of representatives from Specific Interest Groups, including the RNIB, RNID and Disability Alliance to discuss all issues surrounding Direct Payment. We are aware of the concerns that have been raised with the Post Office about the design and accessibility of the post offices' PIN pads.
  290W
  The Post Office has agreed that they need to make the PIN pad more accessible and user friendly. They will also be looking at other ways of accessing the Post Office card account that does not involve using a PIN pad. The Post Office are taking action to address the concerns raised and have invited RNIB and other disability groups to work with them. It is clear these issues have been recognised by Post Office Ltd. and are being taken seriously.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how many benefit recipients who have been sent letters asking them how they wish to receive benefits following the switch to automated credit transfer have opted for payment by(a) an existing account, (b) a Post Office card account, (c) a basic bank account and (d) the exceptions service; [104579]

  (2) how many benefit recipients have been sent letters asking them how they wish to receive their benefits following the switch to automated credit transfer, broken down by benefit. [104581]

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

  Information that is available shows that as at 7 March 2003 1,369,229 customer invitation letters had been issued. This is made up of 1,236,473 Child Benefit customers, 107,790 Veterans Agency customers and 24,966 Pensions customers. From the invitation letters issued over 545,000 customers have responded to our letters and opted for payment into a bank or building society account and over 106,000 customers have responded with a request for a Post Office card account.

  Bereavement Payments
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many appeals relating to bereavement(a) allowance and (b) payments have been made in each month since the allowance was introduced; how many such appeals were in respect of claims made outside the time limit; and how many such appeals were successful. [88469]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The available information is in the table. Information in the format requested could be obtained only by a clerical examination of all cases which would incur disproportionate cost.

  Appeals found in favour of the appellant at hearing for bereavement and widows benefits1

  Received by the Appeals Service

  Cleared at hearing2

  Found in favour

  April 2001

  55

  50

  10

  May 2001

  60

  60

  15

  June 2001

  70

  50

  5

  July 2001

  55

  45

  5

  August 2001

  75

  40

  5

  September 2001

  75

  40

  5

  October 2001

  85

  65

  5

  November 2001

  60

  50

  5

  December 2001

  45

  35

  0

  January 2002

  70

  40

  5

  February 2002

  70

  55

  10

  March 2002

  60

  45

  10

  April 2002

  70

  45

  5

  May 2002

  90

  55

  10

  June 2002

  65

  25

  5

  291W

  Appeals found in favour of the appellant at hearing for bereavement and widows benefits1

  Received by the Appeals Service

  Cleared at hearing2

  Found in favour

  July 2002

  90

  65

  10

  August 2002

  75

  60

  10

  September 2002

  65

  45

  5

  October 2002

  90

  45

  10

  November 2002

  115

  55

  10

  Notes:

  1. All figures are subject to change as more up to date data becomes available.

  2. Some appeals will be cleared without a hearing by an appeal tribunal.

  3. Figures are rounded to the nearest five.

  4. Figures are for all "bereavement/widow's benefits" and cannot be split into various components. Therefore figures will include Widow's Benefit appeals.

  Source:

  100 per cent. download of the Generic Appeals Processing System.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) pursuant to his answer of 13 January 2003,Official Report, column 365W, what the total (a) annual and (b) monthly expenditure by his Department and its predecessor on (i) bereavement allowance, (ii) bereavement payments and (iii) widowed parent's allowance has been since the introduction of bereavement benefit in April 2002; and if he will make a statement; [91612]

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 13 January 2003, Official Report, columns 364–5W, what the total (a) annual and (b) monthly expenditure by his Department and its predecessor on (i) bereavement allowance, (ii) bereavement payments and (iii) widowed parent's allowance has been since the introduction of bereavement benefit in April 2001; and if he will make a statement. [92643]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is published in the Department Report, a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the running costs are of the(a) court-based child maintenance assessment system in the year prior to the introduction of the CSA and (b) CSA in the latest year for which he has data in today's price terms as a percentage of the total value of all maintenance assessments. [101500]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Information is not available in respect of the year prior to the introduction of the Child Support Agency. The available information is set out as follows:

  The White Paper "Children Come First" (Cm 1264) published in October 1990 indicated that the direct and indirect administration costs of the scheme then in place amounted, for the year 1989–90 and at 2001–02 prices, to £193 million.
  292W
  Comparable information on the total value of maintenance assessments for 1989–90 is not held.

  The Child Support Agency's administration costs were £285.5 million in 2001–02. This represented some 37 per cent. of the total value of the maintenance collected and arranged by the Agency in that year.

  Notes:

  1. The direct administration costs for the pre-CSA scheme include expenditure on assessments, variations in the level of assessments, enforcement and payment and collection.

  2. The indirect administration costs for the pre-CSA scheme take account of legal aid expenditure on aspects of ancillary relief in matrimonial proceedings, including, as well as child maintenance, matters such as spousal maintenance and property and other issues.

  3. The figures for the costs of the pre-CSA scheme are based on those given in Volume Two of the White Paper "Children Come First" (Cm 1264).

  4. The administration costs of the Child Support Agency for 2001–02 are drawn from the Agency's Annual Report and Accounts for the year.

  Health and Safety Executive
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the cost of the Health and Safety Executive has been in each year since it was established. [104152]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The information requested is given in the following table.

  Cost of the Health and Safety Executive: 1974–2001

  Cost (£000)1

  1974–76

  30,353

  1976–77

  37,660

  1977–78

  42,363

  1978–79

  46,505

  1979–80

  55,728

  1980–81

  69,898

  1981–82

  72,882

  1982–83

  80,143

  1983–84

  85,651

  1984–85

  89,942

  1985–86

  92,386

  1986–87

  94,325

  1987–88

  93,532

  1988–89

  89,626

  1989–90

  96,060

  1990–91

  119,625

  1991–92

  157,334

  1992–93

  170,922

  1993–94

  174,550

  1994–95

  176,359

  1995–96

  178,011

  1996–97

  177,847

  1997–98

  178,090

  1998–99

  176,952

  1999–2000

  181,744

  2000–01

  189,400

  2001–02

  203,500

  1 The figures have been rounded to the nearest £000.

  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people have been employed(a) in total and (b) in administrative roles by the Health and Safety Executive in each year since it was established. [104153]
  293W
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The information requested for the period between 1974–75 and 1982–83 is not fully available. The Health and Safety Executive's policy is to retain personnel data for six years. However, we have

  Staff in post of the Health and Safety Executive: 1974–2001

  Staff in post

  Staff in post

  Total

  Administrative1

  Total

  Administrative

  1974–75

  3,500

  n/a

  1 April 1992

  24,321

  1,609

  1975–82

  n/a

  n/a

  1 April 1993

  4,538

  1,646

  1 April 1983

  3,593

  n/a

  1 April 1994

  4,545

  1,622

  1 April 1984

  3,563

  1,860

  1 April 1995

  4,391

  1,595

  1 April 1985

  3,616

  1,911

  1 April 1996

  4,151

  1,456

  1 April 1986

  3,568

  1,905

  1 April 1997

  4,077

  1,412

  1 April 1987

  3,573

  1,846

  1 April 1998

  3,932

  1,262

  1 April 1988

  3,470

  1,804

  1 April 1999

  3,880

  1,139

  1 April 1989

  3,525

  1,836

  1 April 2000

  3,937

  1,119

  1 April 1990

  3,98

  1,902

  1 April 2001

  3,894

  1,027

  1 April 1991

  23.877

  1,975

  1 April 2002

  4,050

  964

  1 This information represents the number of non specialist staff employed by HSC/E, who are largely administrative support staff.

  2 The increase in staff is due to a transfer of responsibilities for safety on the railways and offshore safety from Department of Transport and Department of Energy respectively.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he intends to reply to the letter to him dated 29 February from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mrs. A. Smith. [104878]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  I wrote to the right hon. Member on 25 March 2003.

  Income Support Mortgage Interest Rate
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what measures he has taken to eradicate the lag time inherent in setting of the income support mortgage interest rate. [104523]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Benefit help with mortgage interest payments is calculated using a Standard Interest Rate which is based on the weighted average of basic rates charged by the top building societies. The figure is calculated by the Financial Services Authority and published monthly in the Office for National Statistics' Financial Statistics table 7.1L. Changes in the rate are triggered by a 0.25 per cent. move in the published figure.

  We have no plans to change the current arrangements, which give effect to changes as quickly as is practicable. Once the information is received from the Office for National Statistics of an alteration in the interest rates, the Department immediately sets in motion the procedures to amend the relevant computer systems and legislation. Regulations are laid at least 21 days in advance of their coming into force to allow for proper parliamentary procedures to be followed. The same timetable applies when the standard interest rate increases as when it decreases.

  Job Retention and Rehabilitation Pilots
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much has been spent so far on the job retention and rehabilitation pilots; if he will list the
  294W
  been able to extract the figures from HSE's annual reports apart from those areas marked as not available in the table.

  The available information is in the following table.

  pilots and their (a) costs and (b) locations; and how many pilots, in which locations, are planned for 2003–04. [104719]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The Job Retention and Rehabilitation Pilot will run from April 2003 for up to two years. It will test the effectiveness of different intervention strategies in helping people return to work, and will be delivered in six sites: Birmingham, Greater Glasgow, Sheffield, Tyneside, Teesside and west Kent. The total cost of the pilot is anticipated to be £17.75 million of which £1,580,197 has been spent to date.

  Lone Parents
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what percentage of lone parents refused to disclose the details of the father of their child(a) in the year prior to the introduction of the CSA and (b) in the latest year for which he has data. [101498]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The administration for the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mr. Doug Smith. He will write to my right hon. Friend.

  Letter from Doug Smith to Mr. Frank Field, dated March 2003:
  The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in replying to your recent parliamentary question about the Child Support Agency promised a substantive reply from the Chief Executive.
  You ask what percentage of lone parents refuse to disclose the details of the father of their child (a) in the year prior to the introduction of the CSA and (b) in the latest year for which he has data.
  I do not have the information to answer this fully. I do however have some relevant information in relation to sole parents who are in receipt of "prescribed benefits". They are obliged to provide information to the Agency. Some parents may not wish to provide this because they have a genuine fear of violence or intimidation from the other parents, or where there are child welfare issues, which would mean that it would not be prudent to contact the other parent. We do not press the parent with care to provide information about the alleged other parent if there are reasonable grounds to believe that to do so may harm or distress the parent with care or any child living with him or her—this is known as "good cause".

  295W
  Since 1 April 2002 around 12,000 applications for "good cause" have been accepted.

  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what barriers to work he has identified as facing lone parents in London more than in other regions. [96895]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Understanding how employment constraints facing lone parents in London compare to other areas is complex. We have commissioned research into this issue1 and this research found that lone parents in London reported the same barriers to work as lone parents elsewhere in the country.

  The three main barriers to moving into work reported by lone parents are availability and cost of child care, concerns about financial uncertainty on moving into work and the cost of housing and council tax. We have introduced a number of measures to help lone parents to overcome these barriers, including the National Childcare Strategy and Tax Credits, which are helping to make work possible and make work pay.

  We are continuing to examine the problems lone parents face when moving from benefit dependency into work and finding ways of helping them to overcome them. The New Deal for Lone Parents (NDLP) provides support tailored to the individual circumstances of lone parents, which takes into account any particular problems they face because of the area that they live in. NDLP has already helped over 160,000 lone parents move into work, including over 16,000 in London.

  1 "Investigating Low Labour Market Participation Among Lone Parents in London: A Review of the Methods" by William O'Connor and Richard Boreham published in November 2002 in DWP's In-house Research Report No 104.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the average weekly payment for lone parents(a) not in receipt of income support and (b) in receipt of income support of child maintenance is as determined by the courts and the CSA (i) in the year prior to the introduction of the CSA and (ii) in the latest year for which he has data in current price terms. [101499]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Such information as is available is as follows:

  The average weekly payment of child maintenance in 1992 in cases where the lone parent was in receipt of Income Support was, in 2002 prices, £28.35.

  The average weekly payment of child support maintenance in 2002 in cases where the lone parent was not in receipt of Income Support was £43.70.

  The average weekly payment of child support maintenance in 2002 in cases where the lone parent was in receipt of Income Support was £36.23.

  Notes:

  1. For the estimates for 2002, the data is taken from quarterly 5 per cent. samples of the Child Support Computer System (CSCS) from February 2002 to November 2002 and so is subject to a degree of sampling error.

  2. The 2002 estimates are based on cases with Full Maintenance Assessments.

  3. For the 2002 estimates, cases where the maintenance assessments are at zero have not been included.
  296W
  4. For the 1992 estimate, information is drawn from the Income Support Annual Statistical Enquiry, which is information at a point in time in the year; in 1992 the Annual Statistical enquiry took place in May.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what proportion of lone parents not in receipt of income support received regular maintenance payments for their children(a) in the year prior to the introduction of the CSA and (b) in the latest year for which he has data. [101501]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Information is not available for the year prior to the introduction of the CSA.

  In 2002, 64 per cent. of lone parents who are parents with care and who were not in receipt of Income Support received maintenance payments.

  Notes:

  1. Data is taken from the four quarterly 5 per cent. samples of the Child Support Computer System from February 2002 to November 2002 and so may be subject to a degree of sampling error.

  2. Payments in respect of both interim and full maintenance assessments are taken into account in the calculation.

  3. Cases where the parent with care receives payments directly from the non-resident parent and those where there has been no charge to the account (luring the quarter have not been included in the analysis.

  Media Campaigns
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list those parts of his responsibilities which will be the subject of media campaigns in the coming six months. [101553]

  Mr. McCartney
  Between March 2003 and August 2003 the following areas of responsibility are planned to the subject of paid advertising campaigns using the major media channels listed below:

  Subject

  Medium

  Payment Modernisation

  TV, Press, Radio

  Pensions Education

  TV, Press

  Benefit Fraud

  TV, Press, Radio

  State Second Pension

  Press

  Jobcentre Plus

  Press, Radio

  Age Positive

  Press

  Mental Illness
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what support in finding employment is given by his Department to unemployed people suffering from mental illness. [102232]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  People with disabilities and health problems have full access to the services of Jobcentre Plus, and are offered meetings with their personal advisers to ensure they are aware of all the help and opportunities available to them.

  We have a wide range of programmes that have proved successful in helping people with disabilities, including mental health problems, secure work where they are ready and able to do so. For example, the New Deal for Disabled People is the first national employment programme focused on all Incapacity Benefit (IB) recipients. Through its network of over 60

  297W
  Job Brokers across Great Britain the programme is proving successful, and by the end of December 2002 had helped 8,676 people into jobs.

  We are also removing barriers to work within the benefit system. Anyone claiming IB can now work for up to and including £20 a week for an unlimited period or work for less than 16 hours a week and earn up to and including £67.50 a week for 26 weeks. People with conditions that may be unlikely to improve over time, such as those with severe mental health problems, will continue to be able to work and earn up to £67.50 a week for as long as they are receiving IB.

  These arrangements have enabled people with many different disability-related barriers to work, including those with mental illness, to move successfully into jobs.

  New Deal
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will place a copy of the latest quantitative evaluation of the New Deal 50 plus in the Library. [90819]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  All evaluation reports on the New Deal 50 plus published by this Department are placed in the Library as a matter of course.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people have enrolled in the New Deal for Disabled People; of them, how many have been enrolled in more than one programme; and how many have completed courses and moved into(a) permanent and (b) temporary employment. [104061]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  New Deal for Disabled People (NDDP), through its network of over 60 Job Brokers across England, Scotland and Wales, is helping people with health problems and disabilities to move into work.

  The available information is in the table.

  People helped into work through NDDP (July 2001 to December 2002)

  Total

  People registering with a Job Broker

  35,316

  People helped into work

  8,676

  People achieving sustained work

  2,330

  Notes:

  1. Sustained work is defined as the customer remaining in paid work for at least 26 out of 39 weeks.

  2. Information is not available for numbers of NDDP customers who have undertaken other programmes while registered with a Job Broker, or on the numbers of customers who have found temporary work.

  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many lone parents have agreed to participate in the New Deal for Lone Parents in London since its inception; how many and what percentage of participants have obtained employment; and what percentage of participants obtained employment in other regions in England. [96894]
  298W
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The information is in the table.

  Region

  Number of participants in the New Deal for Lone Parents

  Participants who have gained employment

  Proportion of participants gaining employment (percentage)

  London

  41,630

  16,030

  39

  Wales

  21,170

  11,200

  53

  Scotland

  32,560

  17,230

  53

  Yorkshire/

  Humberside

  31,030

  17,150

  55

  West Midlands

  28,300

  13,960

  49

  East Midlands

  19,320

  10,160

  53

  East of England

  21,020

  10,990

  52

  South West

  26,640

  14,570

  55

  South East

  31,180

  16,050

  51

  North East

  18,290

  10,160

  56

  North West

  45,500

  24,130

  53

  Great Britain

  316,770

  161,700

  51

  Notes:

  1. Data are provided for Jobcentre Plus regions

  2. Data are from the start of the national NDLP programme (October 1998) to September 2002.

  Source:

  New Deal Evaluation Database, DWP

  Pensions
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions of those people estimated to be entitled to pension credit, how many and what proportion are expected to have made a claim and be in receipt of their entitlement by October 2004. [103637]

  Mr. McCartney
  The Pension Service will be writing to all pensioner households to explain pension credit and invite applications. By 31 March, letters will have been sent to all MIG households letting them know we will convert their payment to pension credit automatically. Between April and September 2003, invites will be issued to around 20 per cent. of pensioner households with the remaining households targeted between October 2003 and June 2004. This systematic approach will be supported by regional and national advertising.

  As the Secretary of State has said in the House, we want as many pensioners as possible who are entitled to claim pension credit to do so. We have set a PSA target of having at least three million households in receipt of pension credit by 2006. We expect to have made good progress towards this target by October 2004, and our aim is to have reached at least 2.8 million or 73 per cent. of those eligible, in 2004. The number of eligible households is estimated, from research data, to be 3.8 million.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans his Department has to help women who were allowed to pay reduced national insurance contributions to gain a full state pension. [97269]

  Mr. McCartney
  We recognise that the majority of pensioners are women and are committed to ensuring that our pension reforms improve women's pension rights. We have already done much to help. The
  299W
  introduction of stakeholder pensions, State Second Pension, Winter Fuel Payments, improvements to the Minimum Income Guarantee and, from this October, Pension Credit are, or will be, of particular help to women.

  In the recent pensions Green Paper "Simplicity, security and choice: Working and saving for retirement", (Cm5677), we have proposed looking at how best to ensure that women are aware of their pension position and the choices they make.

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

  The married women who opted to pay reduced rate contributions made an informed choice. They were required to give written notice of their decision on a form attached to a leaflet. The leaflet went to great lengths to describe the consequences of that decision and required them to sign a declaration that they had read and understood the leaflet. Employers could not make this decision on behalf of their employees. Women who chose to pay reduced rate National Insurance contributions were given a certificate to give to their employer. An employer was not allowed to deduct reduced rate National Insurance contributions without this certificate.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the differences between the rules on accruing entitlement to(a) the basic state pension and (b) the state second pension. [104575]

  Mr. McCartney
  In order to become entitled to the basic State Pension, a person has to satisfy two conditions. The basic State Pension is available to both the employed and self-employed. In addition, anyone may make voluntary contributions, subject to a time limit, if this is necessary to build up entitlement.

  The first basic State Pension entitlement condition is that a person has either: one qualifying year since 6 April 1975 which is derived from the payment of Class 1, 2 or 3 National Insurance contributions or from Class 1 contributions treated as paid; or paid 50 flat rate contributions at any time before 6 April 1975.

  The second basic State Pension entitlement condition relates to the number of qualifying years a person has. Currently to get a full basic State Pension a man needs 44, and a woman 39, qualifying years. The number of qualifying years can be reduced if a person is entitled to Home Responsibilities Protection. The basic State Pension cannot be paid if a person has less than 25 per cent. of the qualifying years needed for a full State Pension.

  A qualifying year for the basic State Pension is a tax year in which a person receives, or is treated as receiving, qualifying earnings of at least 52 times the National Insurance Lower Earnings Limit for that year.
  300W
  In certain circumstances a person may be credited with earnings to help them get a State Pension if they do not have enough earnings in a tax year to reach the level needed to make it a qualifying year.

  The State Second Pension is only available to employees and to certain carers and people who are disabled or long-term ill.

  The entitlement condition to the State Second Pension depends on the level of earnings a person has, or is treated as having, between the Lower Earnings Limit and the Upper Earnings Limit in any tax year from 6 April 2002. Entitlement to the State Second Pension will be reduced or extinguished for any period where a person has contracted-out into an occupational or personal pension scheme.

  Only earnings on which Class 1 contributions have been paid, or treated as paid, count towards the State Second Pension. Earnings of married women and widows who pay contributions at the reduced rate do not count.

  Employees who earn above the Lower Earnings Limit but less than the Lower Earnings Threshold are treated as having earnings at the Lower Earnings Threshold. Certain carers and people who are disabled or long-term ill who earn less than the Lower Earnings Threshold, including those with no earnings at all, are also treated as having earnings at the Lower Earnings Threshold.

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many(a) referrals, (b) investigations and (c) successful prosecutions have resulted from calls to the National Benefit Fraud Hotline from 1997 to the most recent figures available. [92498]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The available information is in the table.

  Number of referrals

  Number of investigations

  Successful prosecutions

  January 1997 to March 1997

  56,740

  Not available1

  Not available1

  April 1997 to March 1998

  139,666

  Not available1

  Not available1

  April 1998 to March 1999

  106,652

  Not available1

  Not available1

  April 1999 to March 2000

  109,489

  28,582

  335

  April 2000 to March 2001

  2145,488

  33,134

  492

  April 2001 to March 2002

  2150,340

  32,943

  703

  April 2002 to December 2002

  291,648

  25,081

  546

  1 Full information on the number of investigations and successful prosecutions resulting from calls to the National Benefit Fraud Hotline is available only from April 1999.

  2 Figure includes all referrals from the National Benefit Fraud Hotline including calls received by the Call Centre Bureau, which since May 2000 has been contracted to answer calls outside normal working hours when the main hotline unit is closed.

  3 The fraud database shows completed cases commenced in the relevant period. Due to the elapsed time between commencement of an investigation and completion of a prosecution there are cases which are inserted into previously completed data for earlier periods. All totals are therefore correct at the time when quoted but subject to adjustment at a later date.

  Source:

  National Benefit Fraud Hotline and Fraud Information By Sector system3
  301W
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list the(a) law enforcement and (b) other agencies involved in the investigation of benefit fraud; and what role his Department plays in co-ordinating their work. [94008]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The primary responsibility for the investigation of benefit fraud lies with Departmental investigators. Where appropriate, for example where the fraudster is committing other crimes that cross organisational boundaries, other law enforcement and public sector agencies provide assistance or work in partnership with our investigations.

  The law enforcement agencies with whom we work in partnership to tackle benefit fraud include the police and Her Majesty's Customs and Excise. The Department and the Association of Chief Police Officers have recently signed an agreement setting out the principles for legitimate, mutual operational support, to enhance co-operation in the investigation of benefit crime.

  Other agencies who provide assistance or work in partnership with our investigations include local authorities, the Northern Ireland Social Security Agency, the National Asylum Support Service, the Inland Revenue, Trading Standards, the Passport Agency, the Health and Safety Executive, the Immigration and Nationality Division, and the Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

  Co-ordination of all joint working is the responsibility of the Chief Investigation Officer, working as necessary with Regional Directors, to develop a unified approach with both local government and other Government Departments.

  Poverty
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how his Department defines living in

  Table 1: Nominal benefit and tax credit expenditure-pre-Budget report 2002 forecasts

  £ million, cash

  War Pensions

  Northern Ireland expenditure

  Total United Kingdom expenditure

  Personal Tax Credits (expenditure component)

  Total United Kingdom benefit and tax credit expenditure

  1991–92

  967

  1,951

  68,220

  —

  68,220

  1992–93

  1,158

  2,212

  77,469

  —

  77,469

  1993–94

  1,286

  2,470

  84,907

  —

  84,907

  1994–95

  1,147

  2,622

  87,471

  —

  87,471

  1995–96

  1,258

  2,797

  91,493

  —

  91,493

  1996–97

  1,351

  2,975

  95,187

  —

  95,187

  1997–98

  1,288

  3,046

  96,388

  —

  96,388

  1998–99

  1,264

  3,169

  98,724

  —

  98,724

  1999–2000

  1,256

  3,285

  102,338

  1,097

  103,435

  2000–01

  1,396

  3,346

  104,660

  4,648

  109,308

  2001–02

  1,231

  3,551

  109,893

  4,845

  114,738

  2002–03

  1,187

  3,706

  114,383

  5,665

  120,048

  2003–04

  1,148

  3,847

  119,306

  7,823

  127,129

  2004–05

  1,107

  3,919

  121,931

  11,310

  133,241

  2005–06

  1,091

  4,075

  126,525

  12,600

  139,126

  Note:

  War Pensions, Northern Ireland, and Personal Tax Credits forecasts provided by HM Treasury. Historic information provided by the relevant Departments.
  302W
  poverty; how many households (a) in the UK and (b) in each region are classified as having been in poverty in (i) 2000–01 and (ii) 2001–02; and how many households are expected to be in poverty in (A) 2002–03, (B) 2003–04, (C) 2004–05 and (D) 2005–06. [103806]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Poverty and social exclusion are complex and multi-dimensional issues, affecting many aspects of peoples' lives-including their living standards, health, housing, the quality of their environment and not just low income. The fourth annual 'Opportunity for all' report (Cm 5598) sets out the Government's strategy for tackling poverty and social exclusion and presents information on the indicators used to measure progress against this strategy. We do not publish forecasts of these indicators.

  Specific information regarding low income for Great Britain is available in 'Households Below Average Income 1994–95—2001–02'.

  In April 2002 we published 'Measuring Child Poverty: a consultation document' to gather views on an appropriate measure of child poverty for the long term. This consultation was very well received and we plan to publish initial conclusions this spring.

  All publications listed are available in the Library.

  Tax Credits (Departmental Website)
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions for what reason tax credits are no longer included in the benefit expenditure tables available on the Department's website. [100789]

  Mr. McCartney
  The information was inadvertently omitted from Tables 1 and 2 of the Benefit Expenditure Tables on the Department's website. All the missing information is given in the following tables.

  The tables on the website have now been updated to include this information.
  303W

  Table 2: Real benefit and tax credit expenditure—pre-Budget report 2002 forecasts

  £ million, 2002–03 prices

  War Pensions

  Northern Ireland expenditure

  Total United Kingdom expenditure

  Personal Tax Credits (expenditure component)

  Total United Kingdom benefit and tax credit expenditure

  1991–92

  1,276

  2,576

  90,089

  —

  90,089

  1992–93

  1,481

  2,830

  99,097

  —

  99,097

  1993–94

  1,606

  3,083

  105,990

  —

  105,990

  1994–95

  1,413

  3,230

  107,762

  —

  107,762

  1995–96

  1,507

  3,350

  109,593

  —

  109,593

  1996–97

  1,569

  3,454

  110,513

  —

  110,513

  1997–98

  1,451

  3,431

  108,558

  —

  108,558

  1998–99

  1,385

  3,474

  108,217

  —

  108,217

  1999–2000

  1,344

  3,516

  109,526

  1,174

  110,700

  2000–01

  1,462

  3,503

  109,583

  4,867

  114,450

  2001–02

  1,262

  3,640

  112,641

  4,966

  117,606

  2002–03

  1,187

  3,706

  114,383

  5,665

  120,048

  2003–04

  1,123

  3,762

  116,681

  7,651

  124,332

  2004–05

  1,056

  3,739

  116,340

  10,791

  127,132

  2005–06

  1,016

  3,793

  117,779

  11,729

  129,508

  Note:

  War Pensions, Northern Ireland expenditure and Personal Tax Credits expenditure provided by HM Treasury. Historic information provided by the relevant Departments. Figures converted to 2002–03 prices using the pre-Budget report out-turn, estimates and forecasts for the GDP deflator.

  Top-up Fees
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to his answer of 13 February 2003,Official Report, column 969W, on top-up fees, whether the projected repayment of student loans will be made on a calculation of net gross income. [101287]

  Margaret Hodge
  I have been asked to reply.

  Loans for fees would be repaid on the same basis as student loans for maintenance. Student loan borrowers are currently liable to repay their loans at a rate of 9 per cent. on all additional income over 10,000 a year. So for a graduate earning £15,000 they will repay at a rate of 9 per cent. on £5,000. The income taken into account in calculating student loan repayment is gross income (before deductions for tax, national insurance, or other payments deducted source, for example court orders).

  We propose to increase the repayment threshold from £10,000 to £15,000 in April 2005.

  War Widows Pensions
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the value of the income related 304W
  benefits disregard for war widow's pension is; when it was last updated; and what the rise in the retail price index has been since that date. [104023]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Income-related benefits are intended to help people whose resources are insufficient to meet their day-to-day living expenses. Any income that is available to meet those expenses is normally taken fully into account. However, there is a special disregard in income-related benefits in respect of War Widow's Pension which was increased from £5 to £10 in April 1990. We believe that the current disregard strikes the right balance between acknowledging the special reasons for these pensions and prudent use of public funds.

  In addition to the £10 disregard referred to in the reply, local authorities have the discretion to disregard the full amount of War Widow's Pension in their calculation of entitlement to Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit.

  Between April 1990 and January 2003 the percentage increase in the all items Retail Price Index has been 42.6 per cent.

LORD CHANCELLOR

  Effective Enforcement
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Yvette Cooper)
  My noble Friend, Baroness Scotland of Asthal, Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, has today announced the publication of the White Paper "Effective Enforcement" which sets out legislative proposals to improve methods of recovery for civil court debt and commercial rent and a single regulatory regime for warrant enforcement agents.

  It is crucial that creditors who have established a legitimate claim should be able to pursue it through a straightforward and accessible system, and if necessary enforce a judgment by the most appropriate means. Equally, debtors who genuinely do not have the means to pay should be protected from the oppressive pursuit of their debts.

  The White Paper contains detailed proposals for a single regulatory structure, unified law and a fairer fee structure for all enforcement agents to enable straightforward, effective warrant enforcement and protect vulnerable debtors who genuinely cannot pay. The paper also sets out revised procedures for attachment of earnings and charging orders and improved access to information to assist enforcement.

  The paper builds on the Green Paper "Towards Effective Enforcement", published in July 2001 and the responses to this consultation paper, published in May 2002.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Pathways to Work
  The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Andrew Smith)
  The Department of Work and Pensions laid before the house on 18 November 2002 a consultation document entitled "Pathways to Work—Helping People into Employment". This document sets out the next steps in the Government's welfare to work strategy for people with health problems and disabilities. It recommends piloting a number of innovative measures to help people to return to work where they have the capability and expectation of doing so. I will be announcing the detailed outcome of the consultation exercise in due course. In the meantime my Department, together with the Department of Health and appropriate Scottish Executive and Welsh Assembly officials, are preparing for the implementation of the Pilots.

  I am pleased to announce that the first tranche of these Pilots will start in late October 2003, in the Jobcentre Plus Districts of Bridgend, Derbyshire and
  12WS
  Renfrewshire. The Pilots will test and evaluate the impact of the extra support we will provide for those sick and disabled people who want to go back to work. Further pilot locations, to commence from April 2004, will be announced in due course.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Export Credits Guarantee Department
  The Minister for Women (Ms Patricia Hewitt)
  In previous statements to the House on 22 July 2002,Official Report, columns 779–78W, and 17 December 2002, Official Report, column 45WS, I reported on the Export Credits Guarantee Department's (ECGD) progress towards being established as a Trading Fund.

  The Government recognise the important contribution exports make to the UK economy. Capital goods exporters, in particular, attach a great deal of importance to ECGp support, pointing to its value in helping them secure business in competitive overseas markets.

  Last year, the Government made a firm commitment to ECGD's stakeholders to maintain the level of ECGD support at broadly the current level, and to tackle unfair export credit subsidies on a multilateral, and not a unilateral basis. The Government therefore remain committed to maintaining the level of ECGD support at broadly the same level as it provides now.

  I am publishing today a study by National Economic Research Associates (NERA) on the costs and benefits of ECGD's support to exporters and investors overseas, which I commissioned last year jointly with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. Copies have been placed in the Library of the House.

  This report builds on the earlier NERA report that concluded ECGD should continue to provide cover for medium to long term capital goods exports, because it was likely that the market was failing to work effectively. However, it also concluded that the justification for providing subsidy through ECGD is weak, although the Government's view remains that any attempt to eliminate the subsidy should be done only on a multinational basis.

  The report I am publishing today suggests a wide range of possible costs and benefits from ECGD's business over the last 10 years; and to maximise the benefits in the future proposes an approach to pricing and managing risk which reflects the full costs of the business supported.

  My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and I met Digby Jones and several of ECGD's key exporter customers earlier this week to discuss the NERA report and the Government's response.

  The Government have listened carefully to exporters' concerns regarding ECGD, and will maintain a dialogue with them as ECGD progresses towards Trading Fund status. The move to Trading Fund status will help ECGD to improve its management arrangements, including operating efficiencies, while offering better levels of customer service.

  Community Interest Companies
  The Minister for Women (Ms Patricia Hewitt)
  A joint DTI/Home Office/Treasury consultation document on proposals for a Community Interest Company (CIC) is being published today. The consultation document sets out the proposals in detail for a new type of company, not-for-profit, and working for the public benefit.

  The CIC will present new opportunities for social enterprises to benefit the people they serve: it will be easy to set up, with all the flexibility and certainty of the company form, and some special features, to guarantee that it is working for the benefit of the community or the wider public. Easy for investors to understand, with an assured lock on profits and assets to attract social investors, it will help create a strong new brand for social enterprise and a new marketplace for social investment. By doing so, it will cut the costs of setting up and financing social enterprises. It will recognise the strong links between social enterprise and the wider community, encouraging stakeholders to engage in enterprising communities. This in turn will improve the delivery of local services.

  The concept of the CIC was outlined in the Strategy Unit report "Private Action, Public Benefit", published in September 2002. The CIC consultation document fulfils the report's commitment to carry out a technical consultation on the concept before legislation. Responses to the Strategy Unit's consultation have been taken into account in developing the fuller proposals in the CIC consultation document.

  The Government's aim is to widen and deepen the enterprise culture in our country, so that everyone, regardless of their background or circumstances, has the chance to go as far as their talents will take them. Our strategy is to support small and medium sized businesses and social enterprises to modernise and reform the delivery of services at local level, regenerate disadvantaged communities and spread the enterprise culture. Several initiatives have been introduced to boost enterprise and community development in our most disadvantaged areas, particularly through the Phoenix Fund. Other measures are focused on Enterprise Areas, such as exemptions on Stamp Duty for all commercial property transactions, the Community Investment Tax Relief, and Bridges Community Ventures. The introduction of CICs builds on these measures, enabling the growth of the Social Enterprise sector, and creating real opportunities for people in areas where they are needed most.

  The Government do not intend that CICs should deliver essential public services in core sectors such as hospitals and schools. Rather, CICs should develop to meet the needs of local communities, complementing core Government services in areas such as childcare provision, social housing, leisure and community transport.

  The key features of the CIC would be an assurance, delivered through an independent regulator, that profits and assets would be used to deliver the objectives of the company, which would be for the benefit of the public and the community. Otherwise, the companies will have the same freedoms and responsibilities as any other company. It is proposed that the regulator will apply a
  14WS
  statutory community interest test, namely that a reasonable person could regard a CIC's purposes as being beneficial to the community or the wider public interest, and that its purposes are not for private benefit.

  Some restrictions on the freedom of CICs to raise risk equity are also proposed, in order to preserve the lock on profits and assets. It is proposed that dividends should be limited to returns within a ceiling to be set by the regulator, and that investor shareholders would be able to influence, but not control, the direction of the CIC.

  In addition to the normal publication of company reports and accounts, CICs will have to report to the regulator on action to promote the public benefit, including action to involve stakeholders. Views are sought on whether, in addition, there should be a statutory requirement to consult stakeholders, with an exemption for smaller CICs.

  The core functions proposed for the regulator are: to check that applicants are non-profit distributing companies working for the community benefit, to publish CICs reports on action taken to promote the public benefit, and to ensure that when a CIC is wound up, any residual assets after creditors have been paid in the normal way will be used for the public benefit. It is proposed that the regulator will have powers to take action in order to protect the integrity of the CIC brand. It is envisaged that these powers would normally be exercised through publication of information and investigation of complaints, rather than intrusive monitoring.

  Copies of the consultation document are available in the Libraries of the Houses and on the DTI website. We welcome views on all aspects of the proposals outlined in the paper by Wednesday 18 June 2003. An indicative regulatory impact assessment is included with the consultation document.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Local Education Authority Grants
  The Minister for School Standards (Mr. David Miliband)
  I am today announcing an increase to schools' budgets for 36 authorities that have received a low increase in their Education Formula Spending Share and a reduction in grant through the standards fund.

  We have made radical changes to the formula for distributing general education funding for 2003–04, particularly for schools. The funding intended for schools and LEA central functions is separately identified through the schools and LEA block; there is a new formula for distribution; and, to smooth the introduction of the new education formula, all authorities will receive at least a 3.2 per cent. increase in Education Formula Spending Share (Education FSS) per pupil. At the same time, we have made changes to grants paid through the Standards Fund. The overall cash increase in general funding for LEAs and schools is £2.6 billion for 2003–04.

  Authorities have been working hard to ensure that this extra funding reaches school budgets. However, the Government have received representations from local

  15WS
  authorities, schools and head teacher representatives about the effects of the new financial system for a number of LEAs in the short term, and we recognise that in some authorities the combination of a low increase in Education FSS, coupled with reductions in grant through the Standards Fund may result in low budget increases for schools. In the light of this, we propose to pay an additional grant of £28 million to ensure that the effective increase in education funding for LEAs and schools between 2002–03 and 2003–04 is no less than 3.2 per cent. per pupil for all authorities. Education funding includes both Education FSS, School Standards Grant and certain Standards Fund grants: a detailed specification of the grant will be made available to all local education authorities; and a copy will be placed in the House Library.

  The schedule below sets out the receiving authorities and their allocations: it is based on an estimate of the increase in School Standards Grant (SSG) for 2003–04, and will not be amended downwards when we have actual amounts of SSG paid to each authority. It will be a condition of the grant that authorities will have to pass it on in full to schools: we will expect authorities to allocate the grant to those schools that currently have the lowest increases in overall funding per pupil. We expect that this extra funding for school budgets will be of particular relevance in taking forward the workforce remodelling agenda.

  Grant

  LEA

  (£m)

  Barking and Dagenham

  1.128

  Bedfordshire

  0.135

  Bexley

  1.492

  Bournemouth

  0.140

  Brighton and Hove

  0.960

  Bromley

  0.815

  Camden

  1.168

  Croydon

  1.302

  Dorset

  0.318

  East Sussex

  0.110

  Enfield

  1.147

  16WS

  Grant

  Essex

  1.162

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  0.886

  Hampshire

  0.278

  Haringey

  1.330

  Havering

  1.089

  Hertfordshire

  1.000

  Isle of Wight Council

  0.110

  Kensington and Chelsea

  0.288

  Knowsley

  0.736

  Lambeth

  1.282

  Leicestershire

  0.835

  Medway

  1.295

  Norfolk

  1.595

  North East Lincolnshire

  0.033

  Plymouth

  0.831

  Portsmouth

  0.891

  Redbridge

  0.903

  Richmond upon Thames

  0.152

  Slough

  0.376

  Southampton

  1.016

  Southend

  0.358

  Suffolk

  0.108

  Sutton

  0.503

  Thurrock

  0.308

  Waltham Forest

  2.140

  Total

  28.220

TREASURY

  Finance Bill
  The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo)
  Legislation will be introduced in the Finance Bill 2003 which will counter tax avoidance used by individuals attempting to exploit the 100 per cent. rate of capital allowances available for expenditure on information and communications technology. The legislation will prevent first year allowances being available to anyone who exploits software or software rights by the granting of rights to use or otherwise deal with that computer software. The measure will apply to expenditure incurred on or after today.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Manchester.

Energy Efficiency and Waste Management
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the resources allocated to the Are You Doing Your Bit Campaign are sufficient to inform consumers how they can reduce their impact on the environment and climate change and to fulfil the Government's policy of decoupling economic growth from environmental degradation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, the Are You Doing Your Bit Campaign was a successful stage in the Government's effort to raise the general level of public awareness, but matters have been moving on from there. The Government have been developing new strategic approaches for sustainable production and consumption, within which future information initiatives will build on the general awareness fostered by the campaign, but will have a more specific focus in areas such as energy efficiency and waste reduction.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. The campaign was very successful, and was recognised to be so. Does he then find it a particular shame that it came to an end with its funds taken away and redirected, albeit to the Rural Task Force? No new funds were found for the campaign, and consumers are now not informed of any way in which they can do their bit either to reduce CO2 emissions or their waste. All the Government's headline indicators that are failing are doing so in areas on which consumers could have an impact.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I do not quite agree with that. The campaign was scheduled to run for a few years. It ran for a few years, and it certainly raised awareness. It did not dramatically alter behaviour. One reason for that is that information for consumers to make the positive choice on, for example, product specification, labelling and new energy efficiency measures was not in place for them to make that choice. It is on that that we are now concentrating.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I declare an interest as a consumer and keen advocate of high economic growth. What would I need to decouple to improve that?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I would require more information than I regret to say that I have about the
792
noble Lord's lifestyle. He could find ways, as were advocated by the campaign, of using less water and electricity and creating less waste than probably he and most of us do at the moment. The campaign was about the individual citizen's ability to change their behaviour to reflect environmental improvements. That meant that we could have economic growth with less demand on resources and less creation of pollution.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the contributions made by the Churches through the eco-congregations and parish pump networks, which help people to understand and do good things about the environment? Furthermore, does he agree that one of the factors most damaging to the environment is the large number of single-person households, with their separate energy bills and car ownership? Would he agree that the best action that anyone could take, far from decoupling, is to get married and stay married? Would he be prepared to endorse the slogan, "Tie the knot and save the planet"?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate is driving me to wider issues. Household formation does have an effect on the demand on resources. Were the full teachings of the Church, in terms of "Go forth and multiply", to be pursued by the same married couples to the extent that sometimes seems to be the Church's policy, the demand on resources would be even greater. Having said that, I pay tribute to the work of the Church campaigns and, in particular, the parish pump workshops. Much alteration and improvement in behaviour and awareness can arise from local groups led by the Churches and others.
Lord Avebury: My Lords—
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Cross Bench!
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I think that the Minister suggested that I could do a lot to save waste. How am I to save waste when every household necessity that I buy is packaged to within an inch of its life, to such an extent that sometimes I cannot even get into it and have to seek help?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I absolutely agree. I remember that, many years ago, when I was asked what piece of legislation I would favour most I said one on packaging that meant that someone with reasonable dexterity could open a package within 30 seconds. Regrettably, that has never been adopted by the House. There has been some tightening up of packaging regulation, but packaging is certainly one contributor to waste that clearly has not been decoupled from economic growth. In fact, the reverse is true, and we have more packaging than we need. Much of that is non-biodegradable material and we need to take action on that front.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, the Minister said that the campaign had been successful, yet it has changed direction. What was not successful, and what new direction is the new campaign that has been allocated to the Rural Task Force taking?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the question of the Rural Task Force was one of rebudgeting within DEFRA in the wake of foot and mouth rather than decisions on environmental priorities. The environmental campaign was successful in raising awareness. As I said in response to the Question, what is needed is to make it easier for consumers and citizens to make the positive choices that they now know that they should make. That includes issues such as product specification, low-energy household products and better labelling of all consumer goods, so that we make the minimal energy-use choice. Awareness is there, and we need to turn it into reality.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, does the Minister think that the House of Lords itself is doing its bit? Would it not make it easier for the House if, for example, each room had separate waste-paper baskets, one for junk mail—noble Lords dispose of a great deal of that—and one for ordinary waste?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I suspect that the detail of that is a matter for the House authorities rather than for me. The central issue of our waste strategy is waste minimisation, which means preventing the junk mail being generated in the first place.
Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware that we can indeed have recycling bins in our offices? In Room G-O5 there is a very good example which he can visit.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that information, which should be made known to Members of the House. Those of us in a responsible position here have a responsibility for ensuring that our activities in government departments and in Parliament give a lead to our citizens.

Gurkhas: Pay and Service Conditions
2.44 p.m.
Baroness Boothroyd Baroness Boothroyd asked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they have for improving the pay, pension and service conditions of Gurkhas serving with British defence forces.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government greatly value the unique contribution that the Gurkhas continue to make. The fact that Gurkha pay and pensions represent a fair deal was recently affirmed by a ruling in the High Court. Take-home pay is equivalent to that of other Army
794
personnel, and pensions, which are available after only 15 years of service, compare favourably with professional salaries in Nepal, where Gurkhas are discharged. We will, however, be studying the ruling carefully, particularly in respect of current provisions concerning married accompanied service.
Baroness Boothroyd: My Lords, I appreciate the noble Lord's response although he would not expect me to accept it all. Now that the legal case has been set aside, is it not time for the pay and service conditions of the Gurkhas to be re-examined by Her Majesty's Government with a view to improvement? After all, the Gurkhas have served this country as a great fighting force for more than two centuries, during two world wars and numerous conflicts. Does the Minister agree that social justice alone demands that we should not remain so stingy in relation to these very brave and noble fighting men, who have fought for us for all this time and who are most loyal and true to this nation? When can we expect a report on those issues?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for what she said about the Gurkhas. The whole House will agree with her about their role in many campaigns over many years of our history. She will know that brave Gurkhas are presently serving with Her Majesty's forces in Iraq—I understand that about 600 Gurkhas are currently serving. That demonstrates to the House how valuable a part they play in our military campaigns.
I am afraid that I cannot agree with the noble Baroness—I say this with some trepidation—about the pay and conditions of the Gurkhas being somehow "stingy". As I suggested in my Answer, the pay of Gurkhas is made up of two elements: the Indian army basic pay and the universal addition, as it is called. That gives Gurkhas broadly the same net take-home pay as a British counterpart in the United Kingdom. Pensions were reviewed just three years ago. All British Gurkha pensioners—25,500 of them—had their pensions at least doubled. Those pensions must be viewed in the context of the cost of living in Nepal, where all Gurkhas are recruited and discharged as Nepalese citizens. Matters arose in relation to the judgment to which the noble Baroness referred, which we will take up. However, on pay and pensions, as the High Court found, there is no injustice.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, does the Minister agree that because there is very little employment in Nepal, when those troops are decommissioned, they should be allowed or encouraged to return to this country? Their money from this country would go back to Nepal.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I cannot agree in full with the noble Baroness. The problem goes back to the tripartite agreement, which is now many years old, although it has been brought up to date since 1947. It involves Nepal, India and this country. The basis of

795
that agreement is that the Gurkhas are recruited in their homeland, they serve in their own regiments and are discharged as Nepalese citizens in their own land. They are therefore subject to the same immigration rules as everyone else.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, although I welcome the fact that the MoD dropped its case for not paying compensation to Gurkha prisoners of war in Japan—it took more than 50 years to agree—does the Minister agree that that should be taken as a case for improving pay and conditions to Gurkhas when the next review of the tripartite agreement takes place?
Lord Bach: My Lords, as I said, there is currently no planned review of the tripartite agreement although we are seriously looking into elements of it as a result of the judgment. One such matter was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharples. We accept the current position on compensation.
Viscount Slim: My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sharples, made clear, the unhappiness among Gurkhas at the moment is not so much about pay and conditions as about what happens after their release. It is strange that a government who accept criminals, terrorists and all sorts of funny people from overseas into this nation of ours do not take a loyal and solid Gurkha once he has had his discharge in Nepal and wishes to come back to work. It is my understanding—I hope that the Minister will correct me—that the Home Office is not too averse to the proposal, but the Ministry of Defence seems to dig its toes in at anything to do with a Gurkha after he has left service.
Lord Bach: My Lords, as the noble Viscount knows, Her Majesty's Government are not to be divided up in the way he suggests. I cannot possibly agree with the last comment that he made. However, both he and the noble Baroness, Lady Sharples, have raised an issue which I know is of considerable importance to, and accepted by, many in this House. During the course of a debate in another place on 6th March, my honourable friend Dr Lewis Moonie, who is the Minister responsible for these matters, made it clear that he would take up with his colleagues the issue that has been raised generally. But he also made it clear that he could make no promises.
Lord Vivian: My Lords, can the Minister say whether, if the tripartite agreement could be amended satisfactorily for all three parties, consideration might be given to extending the terms of engagement from 15 to 22 years, as 99 per cent of all Gurkhas now complete their full-time military service of 15 years?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I certainly undertake to look into that matter. However, one advantage held by the Gurkhas is that at the end of 15 years, which is their minimum level of service, they receive a pension which is paid straightaway. UK-citizen soldiers have to be in the Army for 22 years before receiving a pension
796
straightaway; otherwise, as the noble Lord knows better than I do, they have to wait until they are 60 years of age.

Asil Nadir
2.52 p.m.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass Lord Maginnis of Drumglass asked Her Majesty's Government:
What contact they have had, directly or indirectly, during the past five years with Asil Nadir concerning criminal charges outstanding against him in the United Kingdom.
The Attorney-General (Lord Goldsmith): My Lords, within the past five years, the Central Criminal Court has issued a warrant for the arrest of Asil Nadir, and Interpol has been notified. In the course of an application made to the Central Criminal Court on his behalf for a stay of the criminal proceedings, contact took place through his solicitors. Arrangements were also made for him to be examined by two medical practitioners on behalf of the Crown to assess his physical and mental health—the state of his health forming part of his application.
Mr Justice Potts heard that application in the Central Criminal Court and, in effect, refused it in January 2001. Since then two informal indirect approaches were made, in late 2002 and early 2003, to the British High Commission in Cyprus which did not receive a response. Having made inquiries, I am not aware of any other contact, direct or indirect, between Her Majesty's Government and Mr Nadir concerning the criminal charges outstanding against him.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, I am grateful to the Attorney-General for that reply. But can the noble and learned Lord appreciate my suspicion that there may have been some arrangement to ameliorate legal proceedings pending against Asil Nadir when this fugitive from justice suddenly changed the editorial position of his Kibris and Cyprus Today newspapers to castigate President Denktash of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus for his opposition to the disgracefully partisan United Nations resolution on the Cyprus issue?
Does the noble and learned Lord agree that "Mr Polly Peck" is hardly the most reliable individual, nor does he have the principled commitment of President Denktash to the people of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus? Will he assure me that Asil Nadir's support for the United Nations resolution will not be canvassed in return for legal concessions and that all charges against Nadir will continue to stand?
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, the first issue raised by the noble Lord is whether or not some sort of arrangement has been made with Mr Nadir to drop, or, as he says, ameliorate, the outstanding charges in exchange for some political support. I can assure him that no such arrangement or deal has been made. I

797
would encourage Mr Nadir to return to the jurisdiction so that the outstanding proceedings can be completed.
The noble Lord asked how that is to be squared with the change of line being taken in newspapers owned by Mr Nadir. The rationale behind the editorial line taken in those newspapers is not something for which Her Majesty's Government can answer. We do not have any information as to why the Kibris newspaper shifted its editorial position any more than we do in relation to any other newspaper.
However, if one were to speculate, one might think that, as it is the most popular newspaper in northern Cyprus, it may have detected a shift in the opinion of its readers. Perhaps the editorial team would have noted the 75 per cent approval rating for the United Nations proposals, and the presence in the street of up to 70,000 demonstrators—about a third of the entire population of northern Cyprus—against Mr Denktash's policies and in favour of the United Nations proposals.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that the application of Turkey for membership of the European Union should be considered not only in the light of its human rights record but in the light of the pressure that it can exert upon the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus to introduce proper extradition proceedings?
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I suggest to the noble Lord that that is very wide of the Question that has been asked and that it would be more appropriately put in the context of a different Question.

Drugs Dealing with Children: Penalties
2.56 p.m.
Lord McColl of Dulwich Lord McColl of Dulwich asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether plans to make the supplying of drugs to children a specific offence are to be dropped.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, we have decided not to introduce a specific new offence of supplying drugs to young people. Evidence that a dealer is specifically targeting children and young people would be an aggravating factor brought to the attention of the court. We shall seek to ensure, including through the proposed new sentencing guidelines council, that sentences for dealing drugs to young people are appropriately severe.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer. Is it possible, by some unimaginable stretch of the imagination, that the Government have got this wrong? How are we going to prevent children being hooked on such drugs? Once they are, it leads to a lifetime of misery and disaster and a shortened life span.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I agree with that. The question is: what is the most effective way to deal with the situation? A year ago, it was suggested that consultation should be carried out on the question of whether the offence of dealing in drugs should be aggravated if it involved dealing to children. After the issue had been considered widely, it became apparent that far steeper sentences for dealing drugs to children could be achieved without introducing a new crime. As indicated in a case called Nolan, the courts are very willing to give stronger sentences. That, rather than introducing a new element to the crime, seems the most effective way to deal with the problem. I believe we all agree with the noble Lord, Lord McColl, that we should fight the scourge to which he refers. The question is: what is the most effective way to deal with it?
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, does the Minister accept that many of the people who are guilty of such offences are children themselves? Further, does he accept that those children have multiple problems? Therefore, will he agree that the best way to deal with such children may well be through the child protection system rather than through the criminal justice system? Can he also let me know what action the Government are taking to support schools in the deterrence and detection of drug dealing on their premises?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I agree that the criminal justice system provides but one way to combat drugs. Indeed, it is the right course to intervene as early as possible with children who are at risk through both the buying and selling of drugs. We should always face this issue on the basis that it is not a question of either/or; both the criminal justice system and early intervention are important. The Government are extremely keen to promote education and police intervention in schools. The police should not be seen as people who will carry out arrests but as people who will educate children in the dangers of drugs. Considerable efforts have been made by the DfES, including the distribution of more than a million leaflets to schools to explain the dangers of drugs.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, does the Minister recall that about 18 months ago in this House we were given an assurance that the Misuse of Drugs Act would be amended to include crack cocaine? Can the Minister tell me what action has been taken?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I do not recall a specific assurance being given. Crack cocaine is

799
already an illegal drug. I am not sure what change to the Misuse of Drugs Act would be required. I shall write to the noble Baroness.

Franco-British Relations
3 p.m.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester Lord Faulkner of Worcester asked Her Majesty's Government:
How they intend to improve relations with the government and people of France.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Amos): My Lords, we continue to work closely with France on a range of important issues. However, there are issues on which we disagree on tactics, for example Iraq. But such disagreements do not define our relationship with France.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I am grateful for that encouraging reply. I declare a family interest in that my daughter is married to a French citizen and that they and their three children are residents of France. Is the Minister aware of how welcome the statement made by my noble and learned friend the Lord Privy Seal in exchanges on the Statement on Monday was when he said:
"Despite the differences that we have had with our allies—we should not forget that the French Government have been our allies for many decades—we must work together, not only in the European context but in humanitarian relief as well"—[Official Report, 24/3/03; col. 492.]?
Does she agree that, if we are to make a reality of the Prime Minister's objective of putting Britain at the heart of Europe, the demonising of France, its president and its people must come to an end and that Ministers should express their distaste for the kind of xenophobic rubbish that one reads in some tabloid newspapers?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, my noble friend will expect me to agree with the Lord Privy Seal. It is important to say that one disagreement does not define the UK/France relationship. It is a close relationship that goes back a long way and disagreements have been a part of it. It is important to remind the House that we continue to work together on a range of important issues—immigration, education, defence—and we continue to enjoy close commercial, cultural and sporting ties. I do not believe that the overall strength of our bilateral relations will be affected by our differences on Iraq. Those differences have to be discussed and sorted out, but we look forward to celebrating the closeness of our relationship in the entente cordiale celebrations next year.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, would one way to achieve an improvement in relations be to encourage British people to drink more wine and to eat more cheese? That would not be a hardship.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I agree that drinking more wine and eating more cheese would not be a
800
hardship. However, I believe that my colleagues in the Department of Health may have something to say about the quantities of wine that we imbibe and the amount of cheese that we eat.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords—
Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords—
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords—
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, there is plenty of time. Perhaps my noble friend Lord Strabolgi should speak next as he frequently goes to La Coupole for his lunch.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, I declare an interest as for many years I was a former member of the Franco-British Council. Will the Government continue to encourage and to finance the Franco-British Council, which is financed by both governments, as it encourages and fosters good relations between Britain and France and carries out important work?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend that the Franco-British Council carries out important work. Of course we want to see that work continue. The support given to the council by the British and the French Governments will continue.
Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, can the Minister assure the House that one of the issues on which we continue to work closely with France, and I hope the entire European Union, is that of the Middle East and the Arab/Israel problem? In that context, is she aware of a report in the Financial Times this morning that part of the package that President Bush has sought from Congress includes 1 billion dollars towards further military aid to Israel?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I can confirm that we continue to work on the wider Middle East peace process. The noble Lord will know that the European Union as a whole has played an important role in that, being part of the quartet and it was involved in helping to draft the road map. I am also aware of the announcement that was made by President Bush in respect of the 1 billion dollars.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, does the Minister agree that in the current circumstances neither Britain nor France is well served by such domestic written press? Both the French and the British press have not helped the situation. Can she also tell the House how closely the British and the French Governments are working together on policies in regard to Africa? Both states have troops on the ground in the messy, overlapping trans-national conflicts in West Africa. Are we co-ordinating closely in those conflicts?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that we continue to work closely with France on

801
a range of issues in Africa. They include co-operation not only in conflict resolution—we both support ECOWAS who have put troops on the ground in Côte d'Ivoire—but we are also working together in Sierra Leone, in Liberia and in the Great Lakes. We have worked together in the UN on a number of those issues. Both the UK and France remain committed to NePAD and to the commitments that we made through the G8 to the G8 Africa action plan, and I am working closely with my French counterpart on that. The House may be aware that we have been in discussions with the French about the possibility of co-location in some countries in Africa—for example, in Francophone Africa where the French have a wider spread than we do—and we co-locate in Freetown. Only last week senior officials from the UK and France met and agreed the continued importance of Franco-British co-operation in Africa.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, while it is obvious that there can be no European future without France, it is equally obvious that the Franco-German agenda is bound to be less dominant in the future as we move forward in the reform of the European system? It will also be less dominant in the mending of transatlantic relations between America and the EU than in the past. Will she ensure that the policy-makers in the Government grasp the opportunities offered now by the new Europe and its wish to develop in different directions? Will she also ensure that we do not revert to the habitual role in some parts of the policy-making machine of just waiting to respond to whatever comes from Paris and allowing France to take all the initiatives?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I do not agree with the last point made by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, that the policy initiatives all come from Paris. We now have complicated and complex changing alliances. We are seeing the enlargement of the European Union. In the context of the discussion on the convention, a paper was put forward by the French and by the Germans. All of that contributes to a wider debate about the future of Europe and the relationship between the European Union and the United States. All of those things need to happen. Such conversations and discussions will continue. The British position is absolutely clear: we want to see a strong Europe—a strong European Union with a good partnership with the United States.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, although we have had the Hundred Years War with France and other wars, in Scotland we have
802
had the Auld Alliance and there have been much longer periods of friendship between our two nations? What are friends for if sometimes we cannot disagree?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Baroness that the strength of friendship means that it is much easier to have disagreements and to deal with them.
Lord Brookman: My Lords, on everyone's mind will be the eventual restructuring of Iraq. To what extent are constructive discussions ongoing with France to that end?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the House will be aware that with regard to reconstruction in Iraq we seek a further Security Council resolution. Our objective is to achieve the widest possible coalition of support under UN auspices, so we shall work closely with the French and with other Security Council partners on the issue. That is absolutely vital. Noble Lords will know that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister is now on his way to the United States to discuss with the Administration the reconstruction efforts.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, will the Minister tell the House whether the Government are aware of any pressure brought to bear by France on Turkey as to the United States transfer of troops through Turkey to northern Iraq, particularly in the light of Turkey's application to join the EU?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I am certainly not aware of any such pressure. I am happy to take that question back and to write to the noble Lord if I can add anything.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, the Question refers quite specifically to how Her Majesty's Government intend to improve relationships with the Government and the people of France. Can the Minister advise the House as to the extent to which the French Government and the people of France intend to improve relationships with Britain?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, it would be slightly difficult for me to answer on behalf of the French Government and the French people, although I can hear my noble friend behind me saying "Go on".
In any relationship or partnership things have to be two-way. We should not be able to have discussions with our French counterparts if they were not prepared to have those discussions with us. I can assure the House that we are engaged in discussions with our French colleagues on a whole range of issues. I repeat: although the disagreement on Iraq runs deep, there are a number of different areas— immigration, education and defence. The noble Lord may not know that after the Franco-British summit a proposal was submitted on defence. I am happy to write to the noble Lord about it.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, perhaps we may briefly refer to the gastronomic theme. Is the

803
Minister aware, in view of the mention of the fondness of the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, for lunch at La Coupole, that that particular restaurant has an Anglophile menu? The last time I lunched there, on the menu was "Welsh rabbit", which was excellent. When I inquired of the waiter where the cheese came from, he was unable to answer. But, after a foray into the kitchen, he returned, beaming all over his face, with the news, "C 'est le Cheddar".
Baroness Amos: My Lords, it would be impossible to say anything that would top what the right reverend Prelate has said.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, will the Minister say whether the French are fully onside with us on the need for regime change in Harare?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, first, it is not British policy to have regime change in Harare. We have consistently said that we want to see a return to the rule of law, the end of harassment, and that one way to achieve that would be to have free and fair elections in Zimbabwe. There were not free and fair presidential elections last year. It is for the people of Zimbabwe to decide who they want to lead their country.

Business of the House: Debates this Day
3.13 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Lord Chalfont set down for today shall be limited to two-and-a-half hours and that in the name of the Lord Northbourne to three hours.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Iraq
3.14 p.m.
Lord Bach: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place earlier today by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence.
"With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a further Statement about military action in Iraq. Coalition forces have made significant progress since my Statement to the House last Friday.
"Saddam Hussein's calculation in this conflict is that western democracies are weak, that they have no stomach for a fight, that they will not stand up and go on standing up for the things they believe in.
"Tyrants misunderstand and miscalculate the values that are at the heart of our democracies— that we are here in this House only because people are able freely to elect us, and that we uphold and
804
observe the rule of law. They also forget that the members of our Armed Forces volunteer to serve their country.
"Our Armed Forces comprise free men and women with their own often strongly held individual views and ideas. They serve together and risk their lives together because they choose to, not because some thug stands behind them or their family with threats of torture or execution.
"Those free men and women choose to risk their lives in the defence of values we share. And when those lives are lost we pay proper tribute to them and to their families, because they stand in our place, and we must in turn resolutely stand up for them.
"That is why on behalf of the Government I extend our condolences to the families and friends of those servicemen who died—20 individuals with 20 grieving families. Whether they died in tragic accidents, or from enemy fire, these men gave their lives in the service of their country and in defence of the highest ideals. We owe them and their families a profound debt of gratitude for their sacrifice. They will not be forgotten.
"We have all seen the reporting from the 24-hour media over the last few days. Inevitably, such reporting reflects the immediate situation around specific journalists. It does not always give an overall picture or strategic perspective.
"I would therefore like to set out the context by reporting progress against the tasks identified in the Government's military campaign objectives published on 20th March.
"After six days of conflict, the coalition has made steady progress, following the main outline of our military plan, towards the objective of overcoming resistance from the Iraqi security forces. The Al Fawr peninsula, Umm Qasr and the southern oilfields have been secured, and Iraqi resistance in those areas defeated. 3 Commando Brigade is in control, and the United States 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit has been released to return to the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force which is now heading towards Baghdad.
"16 Air Assault Brigade is deployed in the southern oilfields and the 7th Armoured Brigade dominates the Basra area. Resistance in nearby Az Zubayr has been defeated and British forces are in place in much of the area around the city of Basra.
"US forces are spearheading an advance northwards with lead elements at Karbala, 60 miles south of Baghdad. US Marine combat units have also crossed the Euphrates and are proceeding northwards. Honourable Members will have seen accounts of the serious engagement near al Najaf last night in which US forces from the 5th Corps repelled an attack by Iraqi forces.
"Over 5,000 sorties have now been flown in the air campaign, and we have achieved significant degradation of Iraqi regime and command and control facilities. The focus of our effort will now shift towards close air support of coalition ground forces advancing on Baghdad.

805
"On our most important campaign objective—namely, to deny Iraq use of its weapons of mass destruction—our efforts have centred on disabling the command and control facilities through which the Iraqi regime would order the use of such weapons. Our experts have already begun to investigate potential weapons sites in coalition-controlled areas. To date, we have no evidence of Iraqi use of weapons of mass destruction during this campaign. But it is impossible to know whether this is the result of successful military operations or a deliberate tactical judgment of the Iraqi regime. Indeed, we know from prisoners of war that protective equipment was issued to southern Iraqi divisions.
"As the Prime Minister has made clear, it will be the removal of Saddam Hussein's appalling regime which will ultimately lead to Iraqi disarmament. To achieve this, we have been seeking to isolate the regime at all levels in every part of Iraq—in Baghdad, Tikrit, Mosul and in Basra—primarily by the use of precision attacks against regime and military targets. Although the regime has not yet collapsed—Saddam Hussein's thugs continue to resist in some areas—the regime has effectively lost control of southern Iraq. The regime must know that its days are now numbered.
"British forces have made a key contribution towards the objective of ensuring that essential economic infrastructure is secure. The southern oil fields and associated infrastructure have been secured with very little damage. Umm Qasr, the country's one significant port, is under coalition control and is in working condition. A mine countermeasures task force under Royal Navy command and including US and Australian elements is making steady progress in clearing the Khawr Abd Allah waterway of any mines. That is necessarily a slow and painstaking process.
"In the areas now under our control, British commanders are making contacts in the local communities in order to begin the process of restoring normality.
"We seek to deter wider conflict both inside and outside Iraq. The situation in coalition-controlled Iraq is generally stable, although we are keeping a close watch on events in Basra. I can assure the House that the welfare of the people of Basra is at the forefront of the concerns of coalition commanders. Coalition forces are engaging groups of enemy forces as they try to flee the city and we have successfully struck key regime targets within it—notably, overnight, the Ba'ath Party headquarters.
"Northern Iraq remains stable and we intend to preserve that position. The situation remains calm along Iraq's other borders. Much of coalition-controlled Iraq bordering Iran is under British command, but the suggestion that the Royal Marines were sent to guard against Iranian forces is
806
simply not true. We are seeking close contacts with the Iranian authorities to reduce the scope for any misunderstanding.
"Overall, our campaign aims to secure a better future for the people of Iraq. Our fight is not with the people of Iraq. There can be no greater demonstration of that than the efforts that we are making to provide immediate humanitarian support and assistance where we can. Let us be clear: there has long been a humanitarian crisis in Iraq caused by Saddam Hussein's misrule and plundering of that country's resources for military spending, including his programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction. Many Iraqis have long been dependent on aid from the UN Oil for Food programme, and more than half of Iraqis living in rural areas have no access to safe water.
"The first stage in providing that help to Iraq must be defeating Saddam Hussein's forces and establishing a secure environment. That is necessary before we can begin to conduct humanitarian operations. The Royal Fleet Auxiliary vessel "Sir Galahad" is loaded with water, medical supplies, food and equipment for providing shelter. It is waiting to enter Umm Qasr as soon as the sea lanes have been cleared of mines. At the same time, in a co-operative effort with Kuwait and the United States, Royal Engineers are constructing a water pipe from Kuwait into Iraq to provide drinking water.
"That humanitarian effort will build up over the coming weeks. It is impossible to know for certain the full extent of the resources that will be required. But, in conjunction with the Department for International Development, we have plans to address what we know are likely to be the most immediate and pressing needs. That must be part of a wider international effort, and the International Committee of the Red Cross is already providing support to the Iraqi people in Basra and elsewhere.
"After six days of military operations against the Iraqi regime, the coalition has made steady progress. Our servicemen and women have played a pivotal role in what has been achieved and we can be proud of their courage, resilience and determination in combat. But there is much more to achieve, and much more that we can offer the people of Iraq. The Government's position is clear. We will remain resolute until our objectives have been met."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.24 p.m.
Lord Vivian: My Lords, from these Benches we are grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place. I say at the outset that all our thoughts and sympathy are extended to the families of the courageous troops who have lost their lives and been wounded. We are grateful for the overall view of the campaign repeated by the Minister, as television reporting covers a mass of small incidents that can on occasion be misleading and unhelpful.

807
On balance, it is clear that the coalition forces are doing well, that things are going to plan and that there has been no real setback for our forces. In fact, significant progress has been made.
However, it is with great regret that casualties have occurred. It is regrettably likely that more may occur, but we must stiffen our resolve in that respect. With regard to the tragic friendly fire accident of a Queen's Royal Lancer tank being destroyed by our own troops, I do not feel that it is wise to comment further until we know the Outcome of the inquiry, but of course it does demonstrate how essential it is that our own Challenger tanks and Warrior armoured vehicles have proper, working Identification Friend or Foe systems. In particular, I send all my sympathies to the families of the two tank crewmen who were killed and the two who were severely wounded.
I have several questions for the Minister. Why has it taken so long to silence the Iraqi television and broadcasting system? Although the main transmitters have been destroyed, other systems keep it running. If we want the people of Iraq to rise up, it is essential that speeches by Saddam Hussein are not seen or heard. Why should we have to listen to commentary by Saddam's generals broadcast by the BBC?
Will the Minister say a little more about the role of 16 Air Assault Brigade in the Ramaliah oil fields and of the Royal Marines on the Iranian border, to which he referred? I am not asking about their missions, but I should be interested, as I expect the House would be, to know a little more about their overall roles.
We have achieved what the plan required so far. Those achievements are excellent. We must keep stressing those achievements, and 7th Armoured Brigade is to be congratulated on its operations around Basra. The clearance of the Umm Qasr port and the waterways by the Royal Navy and its minesweepers has been an exemplary operation. It is to be congratulated on having done such a dangerous job so well.
I am sure that all sides of the House wish to convey our messages of good fortune to all our soldiers, sailors and airmen. We pray for their safe return. We owe them a vast debt of gratitude and I pay respectful tribute to them all.
3.27 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, we echo that support for our soldiers fighting in Iraq at present and our regret for those who have died, especially through friendly fire. That is obviously one of the worst situations that the Armed Forces can face. Considering how complicated and dangerous is the operation that has been embarked on, it is almost to be expected. When soldiers are fighting at night and in sand, such tragedies may well take place. I hope that the Government will ensure—as I am sure that they are doing—that the systems that safeguard our troops against friendly fire incidents are satisfactory.
The Iraqi regime has not collapsed in the way that we were led to believe, mostly by the press. I hope that the Government will continue their careful and
808
cautious policy, and that the constraints protecting Iraqi civilians from the overwhelming firepower of the coalition forces will not be relaxed.
It is extremely welcome that no chemical weapons have yet been used. However, there was a report in the press that a chemical weapons factory had been discovered. Was there any truth in that, or was it press speculation?
One issue that is now coming to the fore as ground is taken is humanitarian aid. It is a source of some relief that I believe that half of the water supply in Basra is now back on-line. It will be important for troops to get into Basra to normalise the situation, because it is not just the lack of food and water that will cause real upset, it will also be the inability of Iraqi farmers to take their tomatoes to market and sell their produce.
Although that is just a short-term crisis, in the long term it will affect how the Iraqi people view the coalition forces. I believe that only three countries have given military support to the action in Iraq. Can the Minister indicate how many countries have committed forces or units for humanitarian relief? I ask that question particularly because, until the situation is settled in Iraq, the military will have to guard humanitarian convoys and allow non-governmental organisations to work in safety. That will cause a great drain on our military resources in the Gulf.
Obviously, our thoughts are with the soldiers in Iraq. But our thoughts are also with the people of Iraq who face such fear and danger.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I thank both noble Lords from the Front Benches for their helpful and supportive comments at this time. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, perhaps I may say a word about the sad deaths of the two soldiers in the Challenger tank. The noble Lord did not mention it but I know, and your Lordships House would want to know, that the soldiers came from the same regiment that the noble Lord served in so notably for many years. While we all feel the pain of that appalling incident, I dare say that the noble Lord feels it as much, if not more, strongly. I am sure that your Lordships would want to ask the noble Lord to pass on our best wishes to that brave regiment.
There is an ongoing inquiry into the incident. The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, asked questions about it. He will forgive me if I say very little, save that a range of equipment was fitted to Challenger 2 tanks before the operation to contribute to the combat ID capability. Whatever is or is not fitted, I regret that the ghastly truth is that in war—I dare say this was true of olden days as well as in modern times—there can never be 100 per cent guarantee that these particularly appalling incidents of friendly fire do not occur. That is all I shall say on that topic now.
The noble Lord, Lord Vivian, asked questions about some British forces and whether I could give more detail. I am afraid that I am not in a position to give that information to him today.

809
As regards weapons of mass destruction, the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, asked a question in relation to the site about which we have all read in the newspapers. The position has not advanced much since those reports. We are aware of reports that a so-called chemical weapons factory has been discovered near Najaf. The Pentagon will not be drawn on these reports—quite understandably—while they are unconfirmed. Of course, we will not be drawn either. But I assure noble Lords that extremely careful research is going on to establish whether there is anything in that newspaper story.
On humanitarian relief, I cannot give the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, an exact number for the nations involved. Indeed, I am not sure that knowing precise numbers of nations involved in various aspects adds very much. I am neither confirming nor denying the statement that he made; namely, that three countries are involved in war fighting at present.
The point is that the military action against the regime to enforce disarmament of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction is supported by a broad coalition of well over 40 countries. Some 20 countries are providing or have offered military forces or host nation basing to the coalition and supporting activity. A large number of other nations are providing logistical support as well. Many countries have expressed their desire to help the crucial humanitarian assistance part of this campaign.
Finally, I confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, that my understanding, too, is that 50 per cent of the water supply to Basra has now been restored.
3.35 p.m.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords, the Minister no doubt in error overlooked the question about television being disabled.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend; I wish he was always there to remind me. This is an important point and fairly sensitive to describe. My understanding is that the television station hit last night also had a military connection. Bearing in mind that very careful targeting is central to the coalition's aims in this campaign, one of the reasons why television studios or centres have not been hit is that they were considered too close to civilians. I am told that a way has been found around that. That is why the damage was done to the particular television station last night. But the frustration that the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, expresses is one I think we all share.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, does the Minister not agree, while not advocating censorship of our broadcasting media, that it would be a good idea for the Government to suggest that it is neither in good taste nor compassionate to keep showing pictures of
810
coalition prisoners of war who are in a state of shock? This causes them great distress in later years and distress to their families.
Lord Bach: My Lord, the noble Baroness tempts me and I cannot resist the temptation. She is absolutely right. I shall not enter into a general criticism of how the media have handled events so far. They have a job to do and, in many ways, they have done it extremely well. On that particular matter, those sections of the media that have shown the pictures can be criticised. Undoubtedly, putting those prisoners of war before the media was a gross breach of the Geneva Convention, but we should not be surprised that Saddam's regime encourages such breaches. I hope that after that rather poor beginning in terms of allied prisoners of war, it will not be repeated.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, I should like to ask the Minister to send from me and from all the ladies of the War Widows Association of Great Britain our deepest love and our greatest sympathy to the widows and families of all the servicemen we have lost in Iraq.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her comments. I guarantee that that message will be relayed as she asked.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, will the noble Lord bear this thought in mind because I think that it is very encouraging? The numbers of casualties have been absolutely tiny in this war. More people have been killed on the roads in England during the past week than have been killed in battle. In half an hour, a squadron of the 4th County of London Yeomanry was wiped out at Villiers Bocage in 1944. In 218, 30,000 Romans were killed in three hours at the Battle of Lake Trasimene. We have had a stupendously great victory so far. Our soldiers have done brilliantly. Just a minor point. The forebears of my noble friend Lord Vivian were not allowed to continue the pursuit at Waterloo because there had been a big blue-on-blue by the Prussians shooting up the Oxon Bucks Light Infantry, so the Prussians continued. There is nothing new on shooting our own side, tragic though it may be. Surely, we should congratulate people on the infinite care and lack of casualties, both to ourselves and to the enemy, in what we have achieved so far.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord. I thank him for his comments. One of our main aims is to ensure that casualties—no matter where they come from—are kept to an absolute minimum. Every fatality is a tragic loss. I hope that the number of casualties remains low, but I would be foolish to forecast that that will continue to be the position. War is a dreadful thing and will undoubtedly lead to casualties. The noble Earl prefaced his question with the words "so far". Each casualty is terrible, but so far there have not been as many as expected. We have a long way to go and we have to keep our nerve.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, there has been much speculation about calls from Sulaymaniyah last

811
night for a northern front incorporating PUK and KDP posh merga forces with the coalition forces. Has my noble friend anything to report on that matter?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am afraid I do not have anything to report on that matter. My noble friend can rest assured that the coalition is keeping a close eye on events in northern Iraq.
Lord Blaker: My Lords, there seems to be an increasing tendency for members of the Iraqi armed forces to abandon their uniforms and dress in civilian clothes while keeping their weapons. Is that not likely to make it more difficult for our forces to distinguish between such people and genuine civilians whom they are instructed not to injure if at all possible. If this is true and results in more civilian deaths, is it not clear that the fault will lie not with our side but with the Iraqis? Will the Government and the American Government make this very clear, by all means possible, to the world and to Iraq?
Lord Bach: My Lords, as always, the noble Lord makes an extremely good point. Such tactics, which appear to be being employed, are completely ruthless, as one would expect. The coalition seems more concerned about civilian casualties than the Iraqi regime, whose citizens these people are. It is clear that in some of the southern towns and cities about which we have heard so much, the intensity of the regime has dominated people's lives. We are seeing still the intensity of that domination in the way the Iraqi authorities are behaving.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, many will have welcomed the Prime Minister's statement yesterday that we will not make the same mistake we made in 1991 by failing to support the uprising that took place then. He said that we would not fail the people of Iraq this time. Given the tyranny and the brutality to which the Minister referred, can he tell the House the current situation in regard to the uprisings of resistance in Iraq, not least in Basra.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I can say little more than I have said so far. As the Prime Minister said earlier today, the picture is confused. There may have been an uprising in Basra but, as yet, we do not have a clear picture of its scope or scale or where it will take us. However, coalition forces are engaging groups of enemy and other paramilitary forces as they try to flee the city. Once matters become clearer we shall look to assist and exploit the situation in order to liberate the brave people of Basra and allow humanitarian aid to flow into the city. The noble Lord can rest assured that the people of Iraq will not be left in the position they were 12 years ago.
Lord Sandberg: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House what success we have had in putting out the fires in the, luckily, relatively few oil wells fired by the Iraqi authorities.
Lord Bach: My Lords, in comparison to the total number of oilfields, very few fires indeed have been
812
started. I believe that nine have been set on fire, although we have found many where charges have been laid but not set off. The clear reason for that is the brilliant campaign undertaken by the British forces to get there quickly and efficiently. Saddam Hussein sought to invoke an environmental disaster 12 years ago. No doubt he would have attempted to do so again had he been able to, but this time he has seemingly not succeeded. Not all the fires have been put out, but all of them are under control.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, I add further expressions of gratitude and admiration from these Benches for the courage and professionalism of our servicemen and women and send profound sympathy to those injured and bereaved so far and offer our prayers for them.
Can the Minister elaborate further on the restoration of the water supply to Basra? Has the International Committee of the Red Cross been involved in helping to restore the water supply? Does the Minister see a possibility of other NGOs being able to be involved fairly soon in areas of Iraq where relative peace has been re-established? Can he say more about his expectations of the role of NGOs and how soon they will be able to operate?
Lord Bach: My Lords, we know that in Basra a high order of humanitarian needs existed well before the conflict began a week or so ago. I am not in a position to give the right reverend Prelate more specific information. Our policy is clear. We want to see humanitarian aid going into Iraq—into Basra in particular—as soon as possible. We shall have to establish a secure environment before we can do so, and that is what we are working to achieve.
Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, I apologise to the Minister for being absent during the opening moments of the Statement. Is it not inevitable that the extraordinary news coverage that is taking place, together with the insatiable demands of the various networks for more and more news, has led directly to a feeling of impatience and that something has gone badly wrong? In that connection, is it not worth remembering that, although the land campaign in the previous Gulf War took four days, the entire campaign took 42 days to achieve a much more limited objective? Perhaps I may offer this advice to the Minister when dealing with this impatience that may lead to confusion and to a feeling that perhaps the campaign is failing. There is obviously a heavy load on the Minister and his colleagues to inform the people. The media will not change—they will continue to press and to demand more action—and he will have to convey the messages. In conveying those messages, may I suggest that it is very important that all the government and military spokesmen under-claim rather than over-claim and follow any rumour. In the famous and tragic fog of war, it will give easy propaganda victories to Saddam

813
Hussein and his cohorts if they can prove that stories we appear to be supporting are unfounded. That is a very important aspect of the present campaign.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater. He is right. Some of the expectations which have appeared in the media and elsewhere have always been ridiculous. The noble Lord, better than anyone, can make comparisons between the Gulf War, and perhaps Kosovo, and this conflict. We have had huge successes very early in the campaign. No one really thought that by this time we would have got as far and done as well as we have. We shall bear in mind his second point about under-claiming. I hope that we are doing that. We are trying to be as cautious as possible with a 24-hour media and some of the absurd claims that have been made. We have to feel our way when we have to counter the occasional exaggerated story. We do not want to say that it is not true when it may be true in part.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, further to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord King, is the Minister satisfied that the massive press presence, with its TV cameras and instantaneous reporting of events, is not a hindrance or even a danger to our fighting forces? Do the commanders on the ground have clear instructions on how to deal with the press the moment it becomes a nuisance, without having the fear that they themselves will be pilloried if they tell members of the press to get lost?
Lord Bach: My Lords, the great majority of the journalists now in the Gulf working with the coalition and our Armed Forces are, to use the parlance, embedded in the coalition; that is, commanders on the ground have the authority that the noble Lord asked about. Clearly, if journalists are in danger of representing a real challenge to our troops, then of course I am sure that they would be told to get lost; or in military terms, something a good deal stronger than that.
On the other hand, it is important to recall that there is no better proof of a free society than one in which journalists are able to comment as they please, able to watch battles taking place and witness the campaign being waged, and are then able to report back to a free people. If anything like that could take place in Iraq, then things would be very much for the better.
Lord Fearn: My Lords, can the Minister explain why Turkish troops have amassed on Iraq's borders? Is there a reason for that?
Lord Bach: My Lords, to a limited extent, Turkish troops have been within northern Iraq for many years. We know that the Turks have a legitimate interest in what is now taking place in Iraq and they fear what may happen. However, along with the rest of the world, we have advised the Turks to act cautiously.
814
Although they fear a break-up of Iraq's territorial integrity, that is not something that the coalition is going to allow to take place.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I am slightly disappointed that, to date, not a great deal of mention has been made of our reserve forces serving in the Gulf. Perhaps I may remind the House and the Minister that some 5,000 men and women are currently serving in the Gulf. Those people have given up their civilian jobs and a large part of their daily existence and lives for the next nine months. They are professional people comprising medics, signallers, sappers, members of REME and many other specialists. Whenever and wherever possible, and when the opportunity presents itself, can I ask the Government to make more mention of the vital role that these great and to date unsung heroes are playing on our frontline and right through to our rear support? The reservists will be hugely important to the success of the outcome in the Gulf.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Bach: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl very much for his words and certainly I take on board the message that he has sent to us. I believe that earlier today my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in another place responded to certain specific questions on the position of the reserve forces. However, what the noble Earl has said is absolutely right. The sacrifice made by the volunteers in giving up their everyday lives in order to serve their country—in passing, I do not apologise for mentioning again one of our colleagues in this House, the noble Earl, Lord Attlee—is something that the rest of us can only wonder at.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, the Minister mentioned that many countries are now providing logistical support. Can he tell the House whether any Arab countries are openly on that list? Furthermore, can he comment on the reaction in their own countries?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am afraid that I am not in a position to answer the noble Earl's question.

Extradition Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Security and Liberty
3.55 p.m.
Lord Chalfontrose to call attention to the balance between national security and individual liberty in a democratic society; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lordsaid: My Lords, perhaps I may say how much I look forward to this brief debate—although perhaps I am alone in that. I should also say

815
how much I shall appreciate the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Dinton. His experience gives him a special insight into these matters.
I should begin by saying that in using the term "national security" in the Motion, I do not mean to restrict the debate to national security only in the sense of defence. I am concerned here with the balance between, on the one hand, the interests of the state and society in the broader sense and, on the other hand, those of the individual citizen on the other. In fact, a better phrase than "national security" might be found in one of the prayers we use to start the proceedings each day in your Lordships' House,
"the public wealth, peace and tranquillity of the realm".
Yet the events of September 2001 have underlined the fact that there is now a serious threat to our national security in the narrower sense and that, in defending ourselves against it, we may be obliged to employ measures which would not be appropriate in a totally safe and unthreatened society.
The question is simple: to what extent, in ensuring the safety and well-being of our democratic society as a whole, should we adopt policies which, even temporarily, restrict the liberty of individuals in that society? As I have said, it is a simple question but, as always, it is the answer which is a little more difficult.
We need first to examine the two principal factors in the equation: what is the nature of the threat to society, and how far is the freedom of the individual endangered by our reaction to it? The threat to national security—the military threat—comes, as noble Lords will know, from a unique kind of global terrorism with its motivation in a fanatical religious extremism, the aim of which is no less than the destruction of our liberal democratic society and of the freedoms and tolerance that we have developed over the centuries. It is a violent and ruthless extremism that is totally without humanity or compassion. We are dealing here with a very serious threat and it is simply childish and self-deceiving to use, as do some people, debating society phrases such as, "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter", or to talk glibly about meeting the threat of terrorism by finding a remedy for its causes.
Some of those who oppose the terrorist threat are so-called "sleepers", living among us, ostensibly as peaceful citizens, but ready to strike, lethally and without warning. So the threat to our security can come suddenly, not only from outside but also from within. Our society is in danger of becoming what the Home Secretary, Mr David Blunkett, called in a press interview,
"an airy-fairy libertarian world, where everybody does precisely what they like and believe the best of everybody, and then they destroy us".
The syntax of that statement may be slightly precarious, but its truth is unmistakable.
Then there is the other kind of threat to the public wealth, peace and tranquillity of the realm. It comes from crime, vandalism and what has been called "anti-social behaviour". It is not too extreme to say that we are now living in a society in which violent crime, the
816
gun culture and the virtual anarchy which is associated with drugs and gang warfare are inspiring apprehension and fear in society as a whole. Burglary and robbery seem to be regarded in some sections of society as alternative leisure activities. In many residential areas of our capital cities, people are afraid to walk alone after dark, while older citizens are not even safe in their own homes.
I think it is fair to say that no reasonable person would deny that we have the need, and indeed the duty, to defend our society and its values against both of those threats. Some would argue that that may legitimately involve measures which restrict the freedom of action of our citizens; in other words, which may erode their liberty, even if only temporarily. One of the primary responsibilities of a freely elected government is to protect their citizens from harm; to ensure, as I have said, the maintenance of the public wealth, peace and tranquillity of the realm. If that is threatened, is it not right to place limits on individual freedom if, in doing so, we diminish or remove the threat?
That may be a simplistic formulation of the issue, but it leads to the crucial question: are we in danger of passing the point of balance at which individual liberty can legitimately be restricted in pursuing what the state regards as the common good?
To what extent is individual freedom being restricted and to what extent are individual rights being endangered today? Every human rights activist has his favourite list of alleged attacks on individual freedom—many were described in a recent series on the BBC World Service, which asked the question: "Have governments decided that, for the time being at least, there are more important priorities than guaranteeing the liberties of their citizens? If so, are they correct?". The BBC's conclusion seemed to be that the answer to the first part of the question was: yes—governments, including our own, have decided that there are more important priorities than individual liberty; and, no, they are not correct to do so.
The BBC is not necessarily the fount of all wisdom or objectivity in these matters, although there is some evidence to support that point of view. The organisation Liberty—the National Council for Civil Liberties—has been very concerned for some time about the impact on civil liberties of counter-terrorism legislation, with special reference to the Terrorism Act 2000, and also about derogations from the European Convention on Human Rights. Not surprisingly, Liberty takes the view that special anti-terrorism legislation creates a twin-track criminal justice system in which people suspected of terrorist activities have fewer rights than suspects under the ordinary criminal law.
Those concerns are not altogether surprising. In the past five years, the Government have brought forward 12 criminal justice Bills. Recent legislation and proposed legislation, much of which has been brought forward on grounds of national security, seem to suggest that the point of balance is shifting away from

817
the sacred principle of individual liberty. Everyone will have his own list, but many people are concerned about such developments as the proposed change in the law as regards double jeopardy and the threat to the right to trial by jury.
There are questions in many minds about the increasingly prevalent use of closed circuit television and the potential intrusiveness of plans for what are called entitlement or identity cards. Many people view with special alarm the American proposal for a Total Information Awareness system, involving a centralised recording of e-mails, credit card transactions and telephone calls; and there seems to be a growing prevalence of the practice of arbitrary arrest and incarceration without trial. All are matters of grave concern.
One aspect of the problem is reflected in the consultation paper published earlier this month by the Home Office: Access to Communications Data. Last summer, the draft order adding public authorities to the list of those with access to communications data was strongly resisted and the Home Secretary withdrew it, conceding that he had got it wrong. However, in the new consultation document the Home Secretary makes the following statement:
"The concerns highlighted by the reaction to the withdrawn order are only part of a much wider debate about the balance between privacy and protecting the public from crime".
It may be argued that crime and privacy are not the same as national security and liberty. But I would argue that they are, in fact, aspects of the same problem. The invasion of privacy is itself an erosion of individual liberty. The Home Secretary seems to endorse this, by quoting in the consultation paper the European Convention on Human Rights, which, he says,
"permits compromise of an individual's freedom, but only in accordance with the law and where necessary to protect life or prevent crime".
The new consultation document seeks to explain why public authorities need access to communications data—in other words, to such things as itemised telephone call records, on-line tracking of communications and the identity of telephone subscribers.
It is arguable that all these measures may be necessary in the defence of society against crime and the threat of terrorism. As Isaiah Berlin, one of our modern political philosophers, has written:
"We must preserve a minimum area of personal freedom [but] we cannot remain absolutely free and we must give up some of our liberty to preserve the rest".
However, I would suggest that we must not cross the frontier beyond which we sacrifice so many of our individual liberties that we are no longer a free society. On one side of that frontier stand societies sure of their civilised values. As the classical political philosophers have always insisted, that frontier may shift, but it is always recognisable.
818
My question today is: are we sure of our civilised values? Are we capable of recognising and preserving the balance—which, once it is lost, may be impossible to restore? As Edmund Burke said in his Reflections on the Revolution in France,
"I flatter myself that I love a manly, moral regulated liberty as well as any gentleman".
But individual liberty must, as Burke went on to say, be combined with peace and order, civil and social manners. Recent developments in our streets, inner cities and elsewhere lead me to doubt whether those virtues—civil and social manners—any longer go along with individual liberty in this country. It is arguable, therefore, that we may need strong measures to ensure the peace and tranquillity of the realm.
Even those who share my life-long commitment to the principle of individual liberty may be concerned about some of the activities of marchers, protesters and demonstrators for various causes who frequently make our streets and public places "no-go" areas for ordinary citizens trying to live their own lives and go about their own business. It is worth remembering that the European Convention on Human Rights, which I quoted a moment ago, and which is often quoted in support of some of these activities, states clearly that the freedom of right of expression is subject to a number of conditions, including,
"the protection of the rights of others"—
the protection of the rights of others, my Lords.
Perhaps in that phrase lies part of the answer to the question that I posed at the beginning of my remarks. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
4.7 p.m.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, we owe a debt of gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, for introducing such an important and topical subject.
At this moment, we are fighting three wars: a war in Iraq against Saddam; a war against terrorism; and a war against crime. These are all wars to protect individual liberty—the liberty of the Iraqis from a dictatorship which is obscene in its satanic cruelty to human beings; the liberty of those who have no connection with international politics but who can, at any moment, be cut down by the terrorist, who will go for the safest, and thus probably the most innocent, target; and the liberty of ordinary citizens to go about their daily lives in reasonable confidence that their lives and property will be secure from the common criminal.
I believe that it is therefore necessary to re-think fundamentally the balance between national security and individual liberty. I start from the simple proposition that individual liberty is a function of national security. Without the second, you cannot have the first.
If public policy in a democratic society is to reflect the concerns and priorities of the citizens, as I believe it should, then it is the task of government to introduce such safeguards as may be necessary to meet those wishes.

819
There is so much to be done and so much which can be done. Thanks to the acceleration of technology, many of these safeguards can be put in place not only with huge precision and efficiency—and, at the same time, safeguarding the liberties which they seek to protect—but at ever-diminishing cost.
I would like to mention the recent report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology entitled Chips for Everything, which was introduced in a debate here last week in a remarkable speech by its chairman, my noble friend Lord Wade. I strongly recommend your Lordships who have not already got it from the Printed Paper Office to read it.
Almost anything we want to do is now possible.
In the short time available to me, I can give only a few examples of where I believe changes in policy are needed. I start with the urgent need to be able to identify citizens of all ages with certainty. This, of course, takes one straight to the controversial subject of identity cards. But it is not the card that matters. It is the foolproof identification of each of us. This is profoundly democratic because it means everyone is treated exactly the same in terms of their identification. It does, of course, involve a unique reference number which must be linked to individuals by biometric measures. There are many of these—the oldest and best known is the fingerprint. More modern methods include eye and face matching and, ultimately, DNA.
There was a time when the police thought that the need for and value of such methods was questionable. No longer. I have in recent months heard the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police call on two occasions for the introduction of identity cards, which he says must have the essential biometric component.
The Government are toying with what they call an entitlement card. To produce something which fails to meet the toughest criteria of certainty, privacy and security would be an inexcusable waste of public money.
Let me say a word about the humble passport. By fortunate coincidence, I received a Written Answer to a Question only yesterday which I suggest highlights the wholly inadequate passport system we have in this country. I asked:
"Whether immigration officers at points of entry into the United Kingdom have the facility to check on-line the validity of British passports presented by persons leaving or arriving; and how long after the reporting in any part of the world of a lost of stolen British passport this information is available to immigration officers at points of entry into the United Kingdom".
The Minister's answer was that UK immigration officers do not have direct access on-line to the UK Passport Agency database and that details of passports reported as lost or stolen are sent to the Immigration Service Warnings Index, which is available. It is not electronic. The Minister continued:
"As part of its anti-fraud programme, the UK Passport Service is developing a database for passports reported lost, stolen or recovered".—[Official Report, 24/3/03; col. WA 53.]
Is it not amazing that in the year 2003 such a database does not already exist?
820
Let me go further: do your Lordships realise that there is no enforced requirement to surrender the passport of a deceased person? The street value of a deceased person's passport is considerably greater in criminal circles than the value of a stolen or lost passport, because it is thought, perhaps wrongly, that there is a smaller risk that somebody might have noticed that the holder was dead. Yet when I raised this subject fairly recently, I was told that enforcement of surrender was not a practical proposition and was too sensitive to grieving relatives.
There are many other subjects we could raise and will raise. We live in a world of growing menace, and we have to adapt to this new world. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, referred to the balance—it is a balance of security against terror. The Americans have put responsibility for this at Cabinet level. I would like to see us do the same.
4.14 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I, too, am very glad that the next speaker will be the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Dinton. Very appropriately, he is to be followed by one of his predecessors as Cabinet Secretary, the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong of Ilminster. However, I am surprised and somewhat disappointed to see that, apart from three Members on the Front Bench, the Labour Benches are entirely deserted and there is no speaker who takes the Labour Whip speaking in this debate.
I declare an interest in this matter as a vice-chairman of the council of Justice. That certainly makes me one of the human rights activists to whom the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, referred in introducing this timely and important debate. In view of his speech and its emphasis on the dangers of allowing national security concerns to interfere with personal liberty, I am tempted to welcome him to our number.
There must be a balance between security and liberty. That is particularly important because of the terrorist threat. The war with Iraq is also relevant, as is the war against crime, although I would put that under a different heading from national security.
We have lived with a terrorist threat in this country since 1969, although the threat from Al'Qaeda and similar organisations is worse than that from the IRA. With some exceptions, the IRA aimed to limit rather than increase the number of people who were killed by its terrorist actions.
I can envisage circumstances in which there might need to be further restrictions, but it has not so far been necessary to restrict the everyday activities of ordinary citizens. It is possible that in future there may be circumstances in which it is necessary, as the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, suggested, to have identity cards. I am not yet persuaded that that is the case. Identity cards are likely to be of more use in dealing with benefit fraud than terrorism. They are not, I believe, needed for security purposes.

821
I do not see CCTV in public places as a serious problem, though access to communication records is considerably more worrying. I was very glad that the Government backtracked somewhat on their earlier rather alarming proposals.
Legislation concerning terrorism has so far been targeted fairly accurately on terrorism and terrorists, partly due to the action in your Lordships' House of both Opposition parties when it came to dealing with some of the very alarming provisions contained in the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001.
Obviously, legislation concerning terrorism involves restrictions which, as the jargon goes, engage human rights law. They operate as restrictions on convention rights under the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act. For example, the power to proscribe certain organisations under Section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000 is a restriction on freedom of association. The right to seize money belonging to a terrorist organisation is an interference with the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions. Prohibition of advocacy of terrorism is a restriction of the freedom of expression under Article 10.
The fact that this legislation restricts rights does not mean that it contravenes human rights. The European Convention on Human Rights is, I believe, a realistic document. The restrictions it imposes must be prescribed by law and necessary in a democratic society. The restrictions must be proportionate, and the more serious the threats to security, the more intrusive those restrictions may be. In an extreme case, where a public emergency threatens the life of the nation, the European Convention on Human Rights recognises a right of derogation—that is, a right to exclude the operation of some of its provisions from some convention rights.
The present system is able to cope with foreseeable security problems. However, some people have proposed that we should emasculate the Human Rights Act and withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights. Plainly, such action would be neither necessary nor desirable. It would be a surrender to terrorism. Calls for the scrapping of the Human Rights Act come mainly from those who do not believe in human rights to begin with.
There are even worse suggestions than scrapping the Human Rights Act. In the USA—although not in this country, as far as I am aware—there has been a call for the legalisation of torture as a tool of interrogation. I would find that horrifying. It would be reducing ourselves to the level of the terrorists.
In a crisis, civil liberties may be restricted in the interests of national security. We need to defend ourselves. However, we are defending not only our lives, but our liberties as well. If we restrict those liberties, we must do so only in order the better to defend ourselves.
4.21 p.m.
Lord Wilson of Dinton: My Lords, I rise to address the House with a sense of surprise and pride. I am surprised because, having had the honour of listening to debates for many hours in this House in the 1960s and 1970s as a private secretary to the late Lord Brown of Macrihanish and as an official, not for one second did I think that I would address the House myself. I feel pride because over a long period I have developed a great respect for your Lordships and for the role of this House. It is a great national institution and I am very proud to be a Member of it.
I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, on this crucial debate. Having been a permanent under-secretary at the Home Office for approaching four years and Secretary of the Cabinet for approaching five years, I am familiar from within government with the problem of striking the balance to which the noble Lord rightly referred. I know very well the difficulty involved, as, I am sure, does the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, who occupied both those offices a little while before me.
I have always thought it helpful to approach the subject by looking at the famous dictum of John Stuart Mill, which I have taken the liberty of checking for accuracy, although I have often tried to remember it. He said that,
"the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others".
That is a good starting point for any discussion on the balance. However, there is a familiar paradox built into that statement. In order to protect liberty, we may have to restrict it by invading privacy or by restricting freedom of movement, although, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said, we must never descend to the level of the terrorists, or we have lost the battle.
The trouble—and I speak from much experience—is that the perception of that harm varies, as does the perception of what severity of action is required in order to protect ourselves against it. That is a peculiarly difficult debate to have if some parties have more knowledge than others. Those in government who deal with these issues of law and order every day—those who receive the reports and warnings on threats to national security and deal with the very proper concerns of the police and the security services—get a concentrated view of the destructive forces in society and begin to realise that they are real in a way that one is not necessarily exposed to in other walks of life. Terrorism, espionage, serious crime, animal rights activists and so on pose a cumulative danger that gives one a sense that life is quite threatening.
The problem is made more difficult because, as has rightly been said, the limits of what we should tolerate shift. Speaking in another context, the late Lord Devlin once said,
"there must be toleration of the maximum freedom that is consistent with the integrity of society".
However, he also said that the limits of that tolerance shift. The balance between individual liberty and national security does not always remain the same. It

823
is not the same in wartime as in peacetime and there are varying shades in between. We have become aware in recent years that we may have systems and structures that are vulnerable to serious harm by relatively simple means that we may not previously have realised. September 11th was a terrible example of that, but there have been others, including the Tokyo Underground incident and the opera house in Moscow. Although it was not an issue of national security, I think the fuel supply crisis a few years ago also brought home the ways in which we are building in vulnerability that we may not have known we had.
The public are well aware that there is a shift. Governments find themselves under great pressure to act. They cannot always disclose the full extent of their knowledge and they do not always want to advertise weaknesses or alarm the public unduly. At the same time, this must not become a debate in which those who are concerned about harm see only the harm and those concerned with liberty see only the threat to liberty. It has to be a dialogue about where the balance is.
We need to focus on three crucial safeguards. First, the national institutions that are responsible for striking the balance have always had and must retain a sense of respect for liberty and for due process. I pay tribute to the integrity of those who worked with me in the Home Office and the Security Service. They have built that into their culture and are not always given full credit for doing so. It is fashionable not to trust people in authority. There are some good features of our institutions that may not be apparent.
Secondly, it is never enough for governments to say, "Trust us". It is important that we have set up independent watchdogs who have access to information about the extent of harm. Even if they cannot disclose all the information that they know, they can none the less provide some reassurance to Parliament and the public that the balance is being struck properly and is not being abused. I have in mind in particular the Intelligence Services Commissioner, the Investigatory Powers Tribunal and the work of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, to which I pay tribute. These and a number of other independent watchdogs play a crucial role. I also pay tribute to the Intelligence and Security Committee, which has the power of oversight and can direct the investigator to review the work of the intelligence agencies.
Finally, the most important line of defence is Parliament, and particularly this House. It has always played a crucial role in oversight of the executive. It must continue to play that role. That is why I particularly welcome this debate, which is in accordance with that great tradition, which I support.
4.28 p.m.
Lord Armstrong of Ilminster: My Lords, your Lordships will understand that it is a very special pleasure for me to be able to be the first to congratulate my successor and former colleague, my noble friend Lord Wilson of Dinton, on his maiden speech. He has
824
spoken with wisdom and judgment and we all look forward to hearing from him many times on these and other subjects.
It is a funny thing, but former secretaries of the Cabinet who have the good fortune to be elevated to this House often make their maiden speeches on issues of security. I did so myself and I remember being rebuked by Lord Bonham-Carter, who reminded me that supporting the government of the day could not be regarded as non-controversial.
I also join in the gratitude that your Lordships have expressed to the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, for giving us the opportunity to discuss this important issue of striking a balance between national security and individual liberty. In a funny way, it is a relatively modern issue. I doubt whether Cardinal Wolsey, Sir Francis Walsingham, the Earl of Strafford or even Sir Robert Walpole, to name but four, lay awake at night thinking about the individual liberty of the subject. However, it is an issue that is very much with us today and on which it is extremely difficult to generalise.
Like my noble friend Lord Wilson, I had to confront the issue many times during the last 17 years of my career in public service. Perhaps my most public confrontation with it was when I gave evidence in proceedings in the courts of Australia, New Zealand and England in which the British Government of the day sought injunctions to prevent the publication of Mr Peter Wright's notorious book Spycatcher. I claim a modest entry in the Guinness Book of Records for giving evidence in the High Court in Wellington, New Zealand, on one Monday and in the High Court in London, England on the following Monday.
I will be thus far economical with the truth, as not to risk boring your Lordships by recounting the reasons why I thought then and still believe today that the Government of the day were right to seek, on grounds of national security, to override Mr Peter Wright's individual right to publish his book, for that is only one example of the point that I am concerned to make this afternoon.
Like my noble friend Lord Wilson, as Permanent Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office, I confronted the same dilemma every time I was called on to advise the Home Secretary of the day whether he should sign a warrant for a telephone interception on grounds of national security. Clearly, intercepting someone's telephone is a gross invasion of his individual liberty, but no one, or almost no one, would say that there could be no conceivable circumstances in which a decision to intercept on the grounds of national security would be justifiable.
So it seems to me that, in seeking to strike a balance between national security and individual liberty, it is not possible to argue that individual liberty should always prevail and that there are no conceivable circumstances under which the interests of individual liberty should not prevail. It is an issue for which it is impossible to lay down general rules about how the balance should be struck. It must be struck in each separate case; it must depend on the wider

825
circumstances, the perceived needs of national security in those circumstances and on a judgment about whether those needs, in the particular case, override the duty to respect the rights of individual liberty.
When I was called on to advise the Home Secretary on these judgments, the question that I asked myself, and asked the Secretary of State to consider, was whether the arguments on national security grounds for doing whatever was proposed were strong enough to justify overriding the right of individual liberty. I remember cases in which I advised, and the Minister agreed, that they were not strong enough. Of course, I remember many other cases in which I thought, and the Secretary of State agreed, that they were strong enough, but for neither of us was the decision open and shut or automatic. The balance had to be struck afresh each time.
As my noble friend Lord Wilson reminded us, the decision about how to strike the balance will often depend on security considerations that it is not possible to disclose publicly. The decision must rest, therefore, with those who have access to that information. In the end, it comes down to a matter of trust. The Secretary of State who is called on to take the decision must be able to trust that the agencies who seek his decision will give him and his senior official advisers all the information on which his decision must depend. Like my noble friend Lord Wilson, I pay tribute to the integrity of the security services in their dealings with these matters. The Minister must be able to trust his senior official advisers to tell him when they believe that a case has not been sufficiently established. He, upon whom the responsibility of the final decision rests, has to deserve and retain the trust of Parliament and the public that his decisions will be reached responsibly after striking what he believes is the right balance.
Some people, even some of your Lordships, may feel that such decisions should not be left to civil servants or security agencies, which might be regarded as too apt to give undue weight to security considerations. That is why it is appropriate and necessary that the decisions should be taken by Ministers, as they always have been in my experience. I say that not because Ministers necessarily have a monopoly of right judgment in these matters, although they may have, and be expected to have, a strong sense of the importance in our democratic system of the maintenance of individual liberty. Ministers carry the ultimate responsibility for decisions in this area, which may sometimes seem of little moment in comparison with the great issues of the day but are of great moment in relation to the rights of individual citizens. Those activities are now supervised, monitored and given oversight by various commissioners and the parliamentary oversight committee.
We may not be able to lay down rules as to how a right balance should be struck in each case between national security and individual liberty, but we can and should require Ministers, who are accountable to Parliament, to be responsible for the decisions that have to be made in striking that balance.
4.35 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Chester: My Lords, in Nelson Mandela's autobiography, Long Walk to Freedom, I was struck by the climax—the day of the first free election with universal suffrage. Mandela recounts that it was not the prospect of victory for the ANC or his own accession to power that elated him as much as casting a vote along with his fellow South Africans in the birth of a proper democracy, with the accompanying dignity that only democracy can convey.
I do not believe that the Judaeo-Christian tradition can lay an exclusive claim to the emergence of modern democracy, but a certain correlation is obvious from a glance at the map. Democracies rest on a belief in the inalienable rights and freedom of each individual. The modern notion of the freedom of the individual, although much developed in modern secular thinking by J.S. Mill and many others, goes back to the Jewish belief that each person is unique, created by God and made in his image. That was continued in the Christian tradition, although there was now a sharper sense in which freedom itself was seen as a gift of God—"You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free".
In an ancient world which saw human life as all too often dominated by fate and forces outside our control—and, indeed, with a lack of democracy—that came as a breath of fresh air. It cut across social and cultural divisions; in Christ Jesus there was to be neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor freeman, male nor female. The Christian vision of society is a deeply inclusive vision—in which, for example, the stranger is welcomed and fed unconditionally, in a sense. I need hardly add and acknowledge that societies and nations claiming a Christian vision at their heart have all too often fallen short of it, as the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, hinted. Let us take the obvious example of slavery. It is a matter of deep sadness that it took nearly 1,800 years before William Wilberforce and others steered an abolition Bill through Parliament.
The Judaeo-Christian tradition also includes the idea of nation states with definite roles and purposes, both for the good of individuals and for the wider world. It is assumed that there will be rulers and governments with power which they are called on to exercise for the common good. Some suggest that the nation state has now had its day, or at least its heyday. I am not so sure, although I recognise the strains that the global society and economy generate. My own sense is that nations will relate better to one another if they do not neglect their own identity and distinctive character, although that character will always be formed in partnership and relationship with others. Britain has been a richer and more humane society as the dominant English ethos has been checked and shaped in relation to the distinctive identities of Scotland, Wales and Ireland.
Today we are engaged in the slow but enriching task of welcoming a new wave of immigrants to our shores—from the second half of the 20th century into the 21st century. The threat from international terrorism has arisen at this time and in that context. It

827
is a threat that threatens to destabilise our society. It is an unpredictable threat that can encourage us to fear the worst, which is not always wise, although the changing nature of our world, its sophistication and interconnectedness, means that the threat can be very large. More people lost their lives on September 11th, when no munitions were used, than at Pearl Harbor.
There are new challenges to maintain national security, which it is the responsibility of governments to face. There can be agonising choices, as have already emerged from this debate and on the larger political scene in relation to Iraq.
Easier travel and global communications combine with very sharp differences in wealth and freedom around the world to generate movements of peoples and the ever-increasing pressure on immigration especially into the wealthier and more democratic countries. Europe is especially open to such movement. In those circumstances, governments do indeed face sensitive and difficult decisions. For example, it would not at all surprise me to see the introduction of identity cards; and, provided that the police, immigration and security services wish to see that, I think that it can be warmly welcomed. Other speakers—including the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, in his memorable maiden speech—drew attention to a number of issues that have arisen and may yet arise.
As for immigration policy itself, provided that it is operated with the maximum degree of humanity, I believe that government policy in general needs our support. To me it is not so much a question of whether asylum seekers might be detained on arrival—I am actually quite happy to support that—my concerns are about how they are viewed and treated when they are so detained. The standards of education, healthcare and advice which they are given must be maintained at the highest standards that we would want for our own established citizens. A few of those who arrive will indeed be intent on no good, and that possibility has to be honestly considered. But it should not be allowed to colour the general approach that we take to those who arrive in very vulnerable conditions on our shores.
Do we recognise in the stranger-in-the-midst someone who is every bit as much a child of God and made in His image as you and I? For all societies are judged ultimately by the way in which they treat, look after and value the most vulnerable in their midst. Our immigrants and asylum seekers are first, in my view, among those. That does not answer the difficult questions and dilemmas which may yet have to be faced, but it is the foundation of a society that aspires to be called free and civilised.
4.41 p.m.
Lord Selsdon: My Lords, when I was a child, perhaps I thought as a child, but I was certainly taught as a child. One of the things I was taught was about country—it may now be called geography. I was taught where the countries were and about their rivers and their values. I was taught that gold came from the Gold Coast, ivory from the Ivory Coast, grain from
828
the prairies in Canada and coal from coal mines all around the world. When I became a man, I did not necessarily put away those childish things. I used to ask myself, "What is the value of what?" I found a map from the Department of Trade issued in the year of my birth which showed that there were more active ports in the United Kingdom and that more trade went through the United Kingdom than anywhere else in the world. We also had a great manufacturing base. I worshipped people such as Brunel and I longed to drive railway trains and do other things of that sort.
As time went on, I found that many of those great assets of the United Kingdom had faded away. We manufactured no more. We had no more empire. I gradually wondered what we were left with. Then, suddenly, it came to mind, as through a glass darkly—it is called services. But it is not services. The one thing that we had but failed to value and appreciate is not a commodity such as gold but something else. In one of the arguments I had with friends about the importance of coffee to soldiers fighting in Latin America, where they had guns with grinders in the butt, and in other arguments about the importance of the Silk Route, I was brought back to earth by the Germans. They pointed out that semiconductors—the microchip—have overtaken all other commerce and products in the world of the sale. What did the microchip do? It set out to destroy the two great commodities that we have in this country, which we have fought for and have cost us dear—privacy and freedom. Those are commodities on which no value can be placed.
The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, started in one way, and I am going to move on in another. Without boring your Lordships and going back to what I was taught, I simply say that I am who I am and not what someone tells me I am. I do not believe in carrying passports. I believe that security is based on knowledge. I believe that banks should know their customers under their old philosophy. "Know thy customer" should be an Act and a law. However, we are now relying on the semiconductor. We are told to, "Press one … press two … press three", and if we do so we may end up speaking to someone in India. If someone presses a wrong button, his account may be raided, as mine was only a week ago, by £19,000. If someone finds a card number on the Internet, before you know it, that number can be used to purchase products as far away as Cincinnati, Ohio.
Why has that happened, and what do we do about it? I am not entirely sure, but I shall give some historical examples. My grandfather had the privilege of being Postmaster General. It was a crime to tamper with the post. Is Internet tampering a crime? Is opening other people's correspondence or recording it a crime? It should be. But in the days of Postmaster Generals, who were in the Cabinet, there was also the telephone. I was brought up in Newbury. Although we were the last to be on direct dialling, we knew that the telephone operator would not only tell people how to contact the doctor, but also listen in to the call. That was acceptable. However, we also knew that, when we

829
went on to directory inquiries, people would not be able to get our address. If someone was ex-directory, not even his number was available.
Now it is all very easy. I feel as though I am betraying a state secret. One can go on the Internet and type "bt.com", and up on the screen will appear the question, "What name and where?" One can type in a name and find that person's address and postcode. One can then click on "map". On to the screen will come a map with a little red circle showing where that person lives. If one is still excited and feels more adventurous, one can click on "aerial photograph", and on to the screen will appear an aerial photograph of the house. If one is clever, one can narrow down the photograph, certainly to the size of a tennis court and, with a bit of skill, to the size of a car. One can then click on "directions"—which might state, "Leave House of Lords; turn right; turn left", and give the miles to the destination. Someone at Heathrow could note the name on someone's baggage and ring up a friend. Before you know it, your private address could be gone. I give that as one example.
Years ago, with my colleague from the bank, we introduced a draft Bill called the Protection of Privacy Bill which showed that a total of 97 Acts of Parliament gave the Government, without permission or a court order, the power of search and entry into a home. I thought that I might try to reintroduce it. On 26th June 1976, in her halcyon days as Secretary of State for prices and consumer protection, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, admitted that her officials had the right of search and entry under 15 Acts of Parliament. We have invaded privacy for so long, perhaps the moment has come to realise that security is based on the protection of privacy.
4.47 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, space was left for me at this point in the speakers' list but, because of an apparent computer glitch, my name was left out. I am afraid therefore that noble Lords will have to wait a little for the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis.
I, too, thank my noble friend Lord Chalfont for introducing this important and timely debate and for his excellent speech. Securing the right balance between individual liberty and national security is never easy. In times of national emergency, governments the world over tend to panic and introduce excessively repressive measures. One thinks of the bewildered Italian waiters and German Jewish refugees interned in the Isle of Man and elsewhere in 1940 under the 18B regulations. Far worse was the treatment meted out to loyal and law-abiding Japanese-American citizens in California and elsewhere in the months and years after Pearl Harbor. The McCarthyite hysteria following the Soviet takeover of eastern Europe is perhaps another case in point.
On the other hand, when there appears to be no immediate threat democracies tend to go too far the other way, becoming excessively lax where national
830
security is concerned. We, for example, allow certain people who are not British subjects or Commonwealth or EEA citizens to live permanently in Britain who not only have no loyalty to this country, its institutions or its traditions, but who are positively hostile to this country and everything it stands for. That is taking liberalism to excess. We should emulate most other civilised countries and become more robust when confronted by such matters.
Having said that, for the most part the balance tends to be tilted unnecessarily far in the reverse direction at the expense of individual liberty. This House did a quite splendid job in watering down last year's panic anti-terrorism legislation. Even so, the finished product embodies certain new offences which have nothing to do with terrorism, and gives other causes for concern.
Is it not ridiculous for the police to be currently threatening demonstrators who make rude gestures at United States military aircraft—not that I approve of such gestures—with prosecution under Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986? Threatening and abusive gestures may well merit prosecution; gestures that are merely insulting do not.
The matter of identity cards is once again rearing its ugly head. Most unusually I disagree totally with the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford. There may well be a valid case for entitlement cards, for use when obtaining treatment on the NHS and so on, but identity cards, which must by definition be compulsorily carried at all times to be effective, are another matter altogether. It would be illegal, for example, to nip out of one's front door to post a letter 50 yards down the road without carrying one's identity card. A woman sunbathing on a beach would have to conceal such a card somewhere in her bikini. As someone once pointed out, you would effectively need a passport to step outside your own front door.
Moreover, let us remember that during World War Two British prisoners in Nazi prisoner of war camps, with only the most primitive materials and equipment at their disposal, managed to produce forged identity documents which, more often than not, fooled the Gestapo. Can one seriously imagine that, with all the advantages of modern advanced technology at their disposal, today's terrorists are not capable of forging identity cards in their millions, should they be introduced?
Finally, I have a question for the Minister which I believe is relevant. I am particularly heartened in that respect by what my noble friend said at the outset. The Minister will not be able to answer me today, not least because the present administration are in no way responsible for what happened 16 years ago, but he may care to investigate and write to me placing a copy of his reply in the Library.
On 10th January 1987, what was almost certainly a nuclear convoy—although this was never publicly admitted by the Government—was heading north-west from Portsmouth. Not far from Salisbury one of the heavily laden lorries skidded on black ice and ended up in a ditch. When local villagers came out to

831
see what was happening, they were surrounded by armed soldiers and police and then interrogated. Their names and addresses were taken. Subsequently, those totally innocent villagers, who included a Methodist preacher, an insurance broker, a farmer and a local councillor, discovered that their names and addresses had been put on the files of the United States National Security Agency in Maryland. For all one knows, they are still there on file. The then government and nearly all the British media remained virtually silent on the matter—very sinister. Only the now defunct Today newspaper, in fine crusading mode, tried to pursue the truth, as did the honourable Member for Salisbury, Mr Robert Key. But neither the MP nor the newspaper got very far.
What I should like to hear from the Minister in due course is, first, whether the names of the innocent Wiltshire villagers are still on FBI, CIA or some other American police or security tiles, and, secondly, what British agency disgracefully passed their names and addresses over to the Americans? Was GCHQ at fault, as has been suggested? I hope that we do not have to wait until the year 2017—under the 30-year rule—to find out.
4.54 p.m.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, on securing this debate and giving us the opportunity to consider how we might achieve balance between national security and individual liberty. It is a matter of relevance—indeed of urgency at this present time. In the few minutes available I intend to confine my remarks to what is current.
Perhaps it will be appropriate if I illustrate what I feel by looking at the BBC's role in the context of the two criteria pertinent to this debate. Having scan read yesterday's Official Report on the Communications Bill, I was virtually overwhelmed by the incestuous nature of that debate. The plaudits of self-congratulation in terms of our broadcasting system were at variance with my experience.
I have just spent a long weekend visiting grandchildren in Switzerland and, while there, had the dubious experience of listening to 96 hours of what used to be considered the epitome of considered research and objectivity—the BBC World Service. What a presumptuous and self-indulgent lot the correspondents turned out to be; how superficial and patronising was their reporting and, bluntly, how the Saddam Hussein regime must welcome their ill-informed assessments of what is happening around them and their predictions of what is to come.
From a privileged position—I believe that the Minister used the term "embedded"—among our troops, they were able to analyse how the next phase of the battle was to be fought, who might be in what location, possibly where and when, and the armaments at their disposal. Should our military commanders in the field be so encumbered?
Every instance of resistance by Saddam's forces was reported with apparent relish and evoked the prediction that the war would not be the "walk over"
832
that Prime Minister Blair and President Bush might expect. I have not heard those two gentlemen or anyone other than the press ever suggest that events would be other than what they are turning out to be. Is the good image of "war correspondent" as we once knew it, and its association with loyalty and courage, now gone for good? How many of those out there with our troops have ever worn a uniform or ever subjected themselves to the discipline of soldering? Bluntly, are some of them qualified to be next to or near a battlefield in the first place?
We must all have heard or seen the instantaneous TV reports of Saddam's forces shredding the bulrushes with gunfire in the hunt for, fortunately, a mythical pilot who had allegedly parachuted into the water. How many airmen's families had to sit at home envisaging their son or husband as the prey? What did that do for morale, for compassion, for individual liberty or for the truth?
But it would be wrong to lay all the blame at the door of the correspondents alone. How have they come to be there under an obligation to provide wall-to-wall coverage of events that should not be turned into a spectacular? What do the governors of the BBC decree we should have to endure irrespective of the damage it may do? That question should have been asked long ago. Long before we actually went to war the anti-government rhetoric was stomach-turning and blatantly irresponsible. Much of what was being openly speculated upon was dangerous to our front-line troops and that continues—but even more so today—to be the case.
The press is not exclusively the guardian of democracy. It should, at best, take second place to what happens here and in another place but, instead, it projects itself as being in conflict with democracy rather than being complementary to it.
Since the beginning of the debate as to whether or not the United States and the United Kingdom have an obligation finally to stop Saddam Hussein—the man whose regime has been responsible for perhaps up to 1 million deaths—the BBC in particular has fostered and sustained the opposition to military action on our part. It has marshalled opposition rather than seeking to educate opinion. When it was alleged that hundreds of thousands of women and children would die in hostilities, it was accepted and regurgitated as though it were the gospel. We should at least have heard by now some acknowledgement of the exemplary manner in which our military commanders have planned and are executing this campaign with the result that fewer than 100 civilians have died—less than Saddam would slaughter in a good day under his regime.
I said during the debate in this House on Iraq that no one marched in favour of war. Yet there has been no real effort by the news media to at least indicate the superficiality of some of the opposition of, for example, schoolchildren such as those who took time off school to demonstrate outside Parliament and bad-mouth Prime Minister Blair and President Bush. Is that what individual liberty is about? If 13 year-olds are encouraged to denigrate arbitrarily the decisions of

833
national leaders, how can we expect them, two or three years later, to show respect for parents and teachers? The superficiality of one-line condemnations of our current national purpose is portrayed as considered opinion. It is not and has been a negation of individual liberty and a threat to security.
Because of time constraints, I have confined myself to where the BBC is at fault, but it is not exclusively part of what is in danger of becoming a new fifth column in our society. I identify the BBC because I expect our national news agency, financed by the great British public, at least to attempt to seek perfection. We cannot and should not confine the examination of the question to this debate. The House could do worse than engage in a thorough examination of how individual liberty has been confused with indiscipline, how national integrity is suffering and national security endangered.
5.2 p.m.
The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, the debate is very timely and important, and we must thank the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, for initiating it. I want to think about how well-intended national measures can cause quite a few problems for citizens. It is a matter of balance. I find it very interesting, because I have been sitting on a couple of groups that responded to two consultative papers, one from the PIU on privacy and data sharing, and the other from the Home Office on entitlement cards, benefit fraud and so on.
The subject of identity cards and privacy often comes up in discussion with friends. Many of them take the attitude of asking what the honest person has to fear, to which my answer is, "Which one of you has never made a mistake? Have none of you got any youthful indiscretion that you would rather was forgotten?" Such indiscretions do not matter at the time, but one never knows who will hit the limelight later in life—who will become famous for some reason. Think of the unfortunate e-mails that flew around about an activist looking into the Paddington rail disaster, where someone was trying to dig up discrediting material retrospectively.
The problem that we come down to is that, if agencies have huge powers to be able to trawl for information on people retrospectively or even proactively, one does not know what they will turn up, especially when computers can find very tenuous connections. There is the old statistical suggestion that everyone is within six jumps or links to everyone else around the world. I have had that proved to me many times on all sorts of matters. All noble Lords in the Chamber now have a link within six jumps to Osama bin Laden, because I sit on a council with someone whose wife's brother is married to one of his cousins. If someone wanted to drum that up, they could give some interesting and discrediting ideas where there was actually no connection at all.
The problem comes with leaks. Nowadays, unfortunately, information seems to leak on a horribly regular basis. When everything was kept secret there
834
was not such a problem. Another problem—it is an old one and is always voiced—is quis custodiet ipsos custodes. The excellent maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Dinton, was very reassuring on that point, but I hope that matters remain that way. I would hate to see the rise of an equivalent of J. Edgar Hoover over here, and I have said before that there is always that danger.
The other half of my thoughts have been on how we protect people. The judiciary has to worry about what I call the rules versus the effect of law. One can have lots of rules, some of which are put in place to prevent public servants from abusing their position and powers. The danger is that if one then does not accept certain things that happen to come up by accident and are outside the relevant rules, one negates the effect of law that is trying to protect people. Then there are failed prosecutions, with the failure to lock up the person who will damage the public. Suddenly the law is discredited and one tries to tighten the rules up, but that proves worse for other members of the public. We want to look at the effects sometimes rather than only the rules.
The Data Protection Act is very interesting on that basis. It is there to protect us from all sorts of misuse of data. Many people complain about the lack of joined-up government, but half the reason that governments cannot join everything up is that they are not allowed to. There are some very stupid provisions in that Act about not being allowed to exchange addresses and other items that are quite publicly available. That is a good example of when, as the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, pointed out, one can merely click on another website. As something is freely available, why not use that to benefit people? The same applies to enhanced customer service in companies. A lot of rules inhibit being able to provide what the public want. We need to look at some such rules, because they are not sensible and do not do what they should.
I would like to cover ID cards very quickly. The real problem with ID is that one has to catch the criminal first. Once one has caught the person it does not always matter to know who they are, although that can be useful to make other connections. It will not protect the populace merely to have ID cards among them, as the ID card itself is no protection. It has certain positive points. Taxpayers do not want their money wasted in benefit fraud and are fully entitled to make sure that it is paid to the right person, so there is justification in certain circumstances.
Identity checking on money-laundering provisions and to prevent terrorism sounds wonderful, but I am not sure how students and children are supposed to get bank accounts. My son was quite lucky. Because he had one that I opened for him years before such measures were in place, he was able to prove where he lived. Under FSA regulations, one now has to have some proof of identity—a passport or a shotgun certificate—and proof of where one lives in the form of a utilities bill. How many children have utilities bills addressed to where they live? We are going over the top.

835
I have no idea how the Government will roll out their universal bank to everyone if they comply with the rules. In that case, the Government should not fine the bigger banks, which have to bend the rules to keep their customers. I suspect that the only person that those measures prevent from money laundering is the poor Zimbabwean farmer desperately trying to get money out of the country. I am quite sure that terrorists know how to get round them.
We again come back to the problem of people leaking information. If everything were brought together and my identity proved and centralised, I would find it embarrassing for someone to leak information to the press on how little I was worth.
That is about all that I need to say, except that the citizen is left with a great feeling of powerlessness. We have many extra layers of government now, with the European Union, national parliaments with regional government coming in, local government, and a proliferation of agencies. We must keep a watch on their powers. I used to be very worried about and against the ECHR. I am now beginning to see where it has a purpose, but again we need balance on that.
5.8 p.m.
Baroness Greenfield: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Dinton, on a most insightful maiden speech, and thank the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, on providing the opportunity to debate this very timely subject. Not only are the issues relevant to our current society and the crisis that we face at the moment, but I fear that they will be more pressing still as the century unfolds. We are living in a world that is increasingly dominated by a technology that will enable us to monitor and manipulate the individual as never before.
That monitoring could occur at all levels, be it molecules, cells in the body, brains or environment. We are only now starting to realise the consequences of gene manipulation, but so far it has been harder to target those in the human body. Thanks to new technologies, however, that is coming increasingly within reach so that it would be much more feasible and possible to target the genes in situ. At the level of brain cells, we are becoming used to a culture of manipulation by drugs, be they prescribed or proscribed, so that in future we will not only seek relief from mental or physical suffering but to alleviate shyness or become smarter.
At the level of the body and the brain, nanoscience is becoming the manufacturing industry of the 21st century. In so doing, it will enable us to access, as never before, events that link our brains and our bodies. Imagine small devices in our arteries that monitor and read out our hormone or arousal levels, and the status of hunger and fear, and that being accessible to a third party.
Finally, there is the level of the body in the environment, which was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon. I want to explore that area a little further. New types of computers are currently being developed, such as quantum computers, which will
836
soon mean that erstwhile confidential information will no longer be safe. It will be possible to access all information about any individual; such information will indeed be accumulating. Imagine in the future going into your bathroom and, in your mirror, a read out telling you that you have incipient gum disease. There is also a welter of information concerning not just your health but what you are doing moment by moment, which could be available as a kind of log. Imagine an electronic daily diary for everyone that was available for everyone to inspect. If, as may be the case, there is increasing leisure time due to the freeing-up from mundane work by high technology, individuals will be able to spend more time logging in and watching the life narratives of each other. Although that might appear to be a rather pointless way of spending your time, one has only to look at the success of the television programme "Big Brother" to realise the interest of human beings in the moment to moment—seemingly banal—existence of their co-species.
As the century progresses, the cyber-world may be even more blurred from the real world. We already think of virtual reality, but that is a sort of gimmick. Augmented reality, as its name suggests, promises to be more pervasive. Augmented reality would enable one to see the world with additional information that would not normally be gleaned by your senses. Imagine going to a gathering or party and, as you look at someone through your glasses, their CV or further information about them flashing up in front of your face; they would be doing to same to you. Again, we will have more information provided about the individual and will therefore start to see a breakdown in the traditional barrier of our brains and bodies as individuals when that firewall, as it were, is breached. However, it does not stop there; it can be more pervasive still.
Already, scientists are able to grow brain cells on integrated circuits. We know that brain cells can communicate using electric signals. Those can be interfaced with conventional electronics. Again, one has another type of computer, the neuro-chip, which is a sort of carbon/silicon hybrid. Even more relevant to this debate is the fact that because carbon and silicon can talk to each other so easily, we can now have implants in the brain. That might sound like science fiction but already at Emory University there is a quadriplegic patient—a patient who is paralysed from the neck down—who was unable to move. He has received an implant into his brain containing something called nerve growth factor, which, as its name suggests, enables brain cells to grow into it. Over a few months, those brain cells have connected with the electronics so that now—incredibly—the patient can "will" a cursor to move on a computer screen. That is clearly a marvellous medical advance but, on the other hand, it raises the spectre of direct insertion of information into the brain. Imagine e-mail going directly into your brain.
My view is that although that is not exactly I ikely—because the physiology of the brain is not organised in a way that will enable specific targeting—it is all the

837
more sinister for that because we will now be able to monitor or disrupt thought processes, albeit directly but none the less haphazardly. That is because the brain is, above everything, highly malleable.
The relationship between the brain and the environment is a two-way street. We see the world in terms of the associations that we have already formed, but every moment we are alive those connections are being modified by what is coming in. The new technologies will enable us to improve our performance in the world and, indeed, our quality of life. But, by the same token, we will be more open to third-party access and targets for terrorism.
We are facing a century where the new technologies—molecular biology, the development of so-called "smart drugs", nanoscience and, in particular, information technology—are giving us two possibilities. On the one hand, they are giving us a means of manipulating and monitoring the individual as never before, and, on the other hand, they are a means of gaining great insights into the questions that we have been asking for a long time about the human mind, such as: what makes you the individual you are, and how does the brain generate consciousness?
Which way are we going to go in terms of those two possibilities? In the words of the late Carl Sagan:
"It is suicidal to create a society dependent on science and technology in which hardly anybody knows anything about science and technology".
There is one way in which we can try to offset the suicidal scenario—that is, to help to develop a scientifically literate society.
5.14 p.m.
Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, it is a privilege to follow my noble friend Lady Greenfield, who gave us a tantalising—if rather fearsome—glance at the future. She may spell that out in her book called, I believe, "Tomorrow's People", which may be coming out later in the year. We also heard in the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Wilson of Dinton what it is like at the top and the difficult decisions that have to be made with information to which we do not have access but the Cabinet does on an almost daily basis. Above all, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Chalfont for instigating our debate on this important subject. He warned us about the implications of the loss of individual control over our activities through possible intrusion by security agencies using the latest surveillance technologies.
That is the same kind of technology that allows us to see on our television screens each evening, in real time and from the comfort of our own home, the harsh reality of the battlefield many thousands of miles away. We have been shown with considerable pride by the controllers of the war in Iraq how the Army, Navy and the Air Force use the latest electronic surveillance devices to identify with pinpoint accuracy friend from foe on the battlefield before destroying enemy buildings, equipment or personnel. However, things can go drastically wrong, as they did last week, when
838
the identification processes are misread or malfunction under battle conditions. That resulted in the tragic loss of one of our aircraft and its brave crew and in the more recent sad loss of one of our tanks through "friendly fire".
Does the Minister agree that robot systems of identification will always be as fallible as their human masters who control and design them? Does he agree that whatever legislation connected with national security we may pass in this House should make allowance for those defects?
We live in a world in which IT and AI—that is, information technology and artificial intelligence—dominate virtually all aspects of our life. It is a world in which personal and national security plays a major part. It is also a world in which our personal identity may have to be refined, as will individual liberty, if and when ID locators control our movements and artificial intelligence our personal thoughts.
Is it that we are about to re-visit in 2004 George Orwell's world of Nineteen Eighty-Four? I think not; that is, not just yet. The Minister will no doubt agree that that may be unlikely in view of the poor statistics provided in the latest report of the Public Accounts Committee. The report points out that the 2001 census failed to identify and count at least 1 million of the population. That defect, according to today's Daily Mail, included one in five of the real population in 10 London boroughs and two-thirds of the people in one particular borough. Does he also agree that it is precisely in those areas in London where undesirable elements of our society can hide themselves from authority? Is not that the reason that London has been chosen—or apparently been chosen—by many terrorist organisations as a useful base? Will he reassure the House that his department will use all the latest technology at its disposal to see if those statistics can be improved?
The report from the Science and Technology Select Committee, to which many noble Lords have referred, entitled Chips for Everything—the House debated it on 14th March—explained that microchips were and are the key to that future world. IT has created a world in which we can monitor not only ourselves but also virtually anything that moves. To take a simple example—that of farming, in which I have a declared interest—the management of animal husbandry is being transformed by the advances in the electronic monitoring of stock through ID locator implants. Do the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, and all those of us who are for identify cards agree to implants that could show our location all the time? That would cover the point of the noble Lord. Lord Monson, about the lady in the bikini. There would be no problem carrying an implanted identity card into the briny.
On the subject of identity cards, I believe that in Israel shoppers all have implants so that the large department stores can monitor their identity as they go through the door. If we are for identity cards, then we must go all the way. Do we agree that they will be part and parcel of our lives or must we wait for the first ghastly suicide bombers before we start to consider

839
such matters here? I believe that the noble and learned Lord should consider the matter and that all those who talk about identity cards should simultaneously consider implants.
The use of surveillance cameras and sophisticated IT in organising vehicle movement has, again, in my view, brought about an improvement to central London. Motorists are able to put up with the inconvenience and cost. There has been a loss of liberty, but there has also been a compensating benefit.
Bearing in mind that the surveillance technology of the kind referred to by my noble friend Lady Greenfield, which is available in this country and to modern societies, is also available to despotic regimes, such as the one that the coalition forces are attempting to replace in Iraq, will there be any form of restriction on the export of such products to those areas?
5.21 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Greenfield, for reminding us what a horrific world it would be if everyone knew everything about us, including what we were doing and where we were going. Privacy is a terribly important part of being human, from the first time we tell a fib to our parents about what we have been doing or where we are going to the ordinary business of running our everyday lives. It is absolutely essential that a large part of our lives should be our own and not belong to or be open to other people.
I do not believe that I was entirely convinced by the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Dinton, that the bureaucracy can be trusted to safeguard our liberty; nor was I convinced by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester that the history of the Church is one of liberty. It certainly was not according to the way I was taught the history of the Church. I believe that, beyond anything else, the preservation of liberty is the business of Parliament and of others who are not concerned with government or, in other ways, with the powers in the land. They must ensure that this critical part of our being a free and worthwhile nation is preserved.
When we consider legislation which, in particular, poses a danger to liberty, we must not give the Government blanket permissions; we must justify each and every trespass. We must ensure that the Government do not only do things because they can but that, when they do things, they are effective. We must also ensure that the Government consider all possible ways of achieving the same end without the diminution of our liberty.
It is common that authorities do things because they can or that they choose to do the things that they can do rather than the things that are important. I remember running a business in Sydenham. One year we had a fraud, but the police would not touch it. We had an armed robbery, and the police took three hours to arrive. But when there was a fight in the pub opposite, two vans turned up within 30 seconds because that was something with which the police felt equipped to deal.
840
During my time in this House, we have passed legislation on hand guns which was said to be to deal with the problem of the use of such guns in crime. However, the use of hand guns in crime has increased astronomically since then. The legislation that we passed did no good at all in terms of benefits to citizens, but it did a great deal of harm to a large number of people who enjoyed an Olympic sport. I believe that we need to give more care to infringing on liberty simply because it is easy to do.
My noble friend Lord Marlesford raised the question of ID cards. He said, "Now we can do anything". We cannot do anything because we are faced with the practicalities of working with human beings. That is why something as obvious as passports is not properly controlled and checked. It is desperately easy to do, but a government who cannot, after all their years in office, answer my Written Questions electronically will be seriously challenged when it comes to something mildly more difficult, such as passports. One should not think that just because one can see the theoretical benefits of ID cards they will be achieved in practice. We must think through the way such things will work with humanity.
DNA is useful in the way that it is used at present. However, if it is used universally, then one will begin to encounter problems with it. Some people have two DNA structures. If a person has a blood transfusion, he will have two kinds of DNA within him. If a drop of blood is spilt from a thief who has just had a blood transfusion, whose blood will it be? If someone has received a bone marrow transplant, which kind of DNA will appear at the scene of a crime? Once DNA becomes universal, we must ask whether it is sufficiently accurate to distinguish perfectly between all 50 million of us. No, it is not. There is an error factor which means that, if DNA is used universally, problems will be encountered. If its usage becomes common, then, whatever detection system we use, people will find ways of giving the wrong DNA at the crucial time.
The noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, talked about chipping. Even the current low level of chipping that we have for dogs is got round by criminals. If we applied it to people, the criminal and terrorist classes would find ways to deceive the system when they wished to do so.
We also need to consider the effectiveness of what we are proposing. Many noble Lords may remember the Government's proposals on the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill and how they were going to control the flow of information over the Internet. It took a long while to persuade the Government to back off that and to consider the practicalities. They are now doing so. One of the great contributions of this House to legislation is that, two or three years after the passage of that Bill, the substantive measures are still not in place because the Government are at last considering the practicalities.
As usual, the answer is that, where you come up against something that threatens liberty and where the Government feel that they have to make incursions on

841
liberty, there is often a better way of doing things. In the case of the RIP Bill, the answer is human intelligence. One can do a great deal more with good old human intelligence than with electronic intelligence unless it happens to be GCHQ, which has real ability to deal with high quantities of data and sort through them. The ordinary policeman is far better off with human intelligence.
Let us consider the question of a terrorist trying to spread an engineered virus through the human population. It will not do much good to tie us all up in knots in trying to prevent that happening. It will not do much good if, in trying to make the life of an individual terrorist more difficult, all our lives are made more difficult, because the terrorist will find a way round it. In ensuring that we know who is doing what and where, we need to employ good old-fashioned systems through human intelligence. We do not need to infringe liberty on many of the occasions when the Government ask us to do so.
5.28 p.m.
Lord Ouseley: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, for initiating this debate and for allowing us the opportunity to hear such contrasting presentations on this very important issue. I was particularly pleased to hear the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Dinton, and I congratulate him on his remarkable maiden speech. I was also pleased to hear the contrasting speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Greenfield, which offered us an insight into the cyberworld. It is both fascinating and frightening.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, I come to this debate from the human rights perspective of someone who is concerned about the rights and liberties of individuals. The increasing threats to our liberty posed by serious and violent crimes and the fear of crime and terrorism place a greater and increasing reliance on more intensive activity by the police and security services in protecting individual and collective rights and freedoms in our democratic society.
Increased surveillance is an inevitable part of the security services. At times of high risk, such as these, we are indebted to those who have combined intelligence-led operations with legal compliance—I stress legal compliance—to deter and detain those who represent the greatest threats to our well-being.
Surveillance and its reliance on advanced technologies, however, means that more people are potentially under investigation as many parts of the state's apparatus garners information about us, as individuals, tracking our personal telecommunications and electronic communications and other personal data. My personal view, over a period of time—and shared by others to whom I have spoken—was that if you have nothing to hide you have no need to worry. But personal information is mine and not the state's. It is already the case that agencies such as the police, the National Criminal Intelligence Service, the National Crime Squad, Customs and
842
Excise, the Inland Revenue and the intelligence services know more about individuals than they can reasonably remember themselves.
However, information can be used irresponsibly and covertly to destroy the lives of individuals. Only a few weeks ago the editor of the Sun admitted openly to a Select Committee in another place that payments have been made by newspapers to the police for information. I have heard no significant repudiation by the state of such activities.
Of course, it is at times like these, when national security is of such concern, that we witness the emergence of scapegoating, victimisation and stereotyping of types of people who might be regarded as "not one of us"—or to use one of the many post-9/11 mantras, "You are either with us or against us". The issues of Islamaphobia, racism and xenophobia have the potential to influence official reactions and responses to national security concerns. Those issues also influence individual attitudes and behaviour. The real concerns held by many people about possible human rights violations cannot be overlooked when national security decisions are being made. There is a gap in the trust held by sections of the public over the pervasive intrusion into the privacy of their lives by the state's agencies.
How can there be trust when it is known that personal information can be disclosed and is disclosed without respect for the person and unknown to the person? What can the Government do alongside the state agencies to build trust and to help more people to understand the conflicting demands? For starters, they could do more to generate genuine public debates. They can make more information available on a need-to-know basis, including wider availability at accessible public places.
Furthermore, there should be a thorough review of all existing legislation on privacy-intrusive activity to ascertain that it is conducted in accordance with the law and with codes of practice and that it adheres to the principles and rights enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 8 of the convention asserts both the right of individuals to have their privacy protected and respected, while undoubtedly recognising the legitimacy of certain public authorities lawfully to interfere with such a right in specifically prescribed circumstances.
It is the potential abuse of power and information and how it could be used in discriminatory ways against visible minorities, asylum seekers, refugees, travellers and other vulnerable sections of our society that continue to cause most concern. It is evident to many that the proliferation of new technologies and their increasing advancement will be of benefit to those in the security and protection services. It is also crucial that the legal framework to control, to conduct and to regulate the use thereof and to ensure accountability is clearly understood by the public.
It is the Government's responsibility to set out such a framework of public accountability and to convince us of the legitimacy of intrusion into privacy rights so that we can understand the real benefits arising

843
therefrom. Those people who run the law enforcement agencies and the security services should have a statutory duty continuously to engage in public confidence raising and trust building. Their use of privacy-intrusive activities and being accountable for operating in non-discriminatory ways also requires continuous parliamentary scrutiny.
We have a responsibility to the citizens of the UK to strive to get the balance right to maintain national security while protecting individual liberty in our democratic society. When the Minister responds I hope that he will acknowledge the importance of allaying the fears of vulnerable communities and that he will indicate a commitment to engage the public in understanding the contradictions involved, the actions being pursued and the safeguards being applied.
5.34 p.m.
Lord Dahrendorf: My Lords, a few months ago, a very senior officer in the US Attorney General's department was asked about the prisoners taken in Afghanistan and brought to the American military exclave at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. He said, "We could have shot them on the battlefield". To the response that that was not what happened and in reply to a question about the status of the prisoners now, the official replied: "They have no rights, they are combatants". Recent reports suggest that those people are held in cages and in a condition of extreme humiliation, without representation or the prospect of legal redress.
I realise of course that that is not the subject of the debate, but it illustrates what can happen when individual liberties are suspended in the name of national security. Prisoners of an undeclared war are an extreme case. However, the lines of jeopardy can lead quite rapidly from those suspected of terrorist acts, through to so-called "enemy aliens", to members of groups regarded as suspect for some reason, to all citizens in democracies under threat who have to forego some of their basic rights for a period in order to preserve the integrity of their country.
I have seen enough threats in my life not to be naive about the balance of liberty and security which has to be struck in such conditions. To that extent, I certainly agree with the introductory comments of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, and with the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Dinton, when he emphasised that there is no hard and fast line but a shifting process of striking a balance. Given the natural proclivities of popular sentiment and of governments, I am also aware that it is often liberty that is at greater risk than security. It cannot be said too often therefore that it weakens the effective defence of our values if we violate them at home. Unless we remain jealous of our rights, the suspension of individual liberties in the name of national security can reach a point at which one wonders whether we still live in a democracy worth defending. Liberty must, at all times, including times of clear and present danger, be the guiding principle of our actions.
844
One of the reasons why I am proud to be a member of your Lordships' House is that, when faced with legislation restricting individual liberties, we have done everything in our power to defend basic rights. One of the reasons why I am proud to have become a citizen of this country is that even at times of war individuals remain free to express their views. These days I disagree with the protesters out in the street, but they must have the right to make their voices heard. The fact that Parliament listens, indeed that members of the Government and notably the Prime Minister engage with dissident views, is a source of strength.
Let me add two footnotes of a more practical nature. The subject of our debate rightly refers to individual rights. At times of war or of terrorist threats to security, the individual is often an early victim. People begin to think of friend and foe, of them and us. Individuals are subsumed into categories, and they keep, or lose, their rights because they belong to categories. To some extent that is understandable, but on closer inspection it is neither practical nor acceptable. It is in fact an affront to the principles of liberal democracies.
Examples are unfortunately numerous. Suffice it to say at this time that the terrorist acts of 9/11 or Saddam Hussein's crimes must never be turned into a generalised exclusion, let alone persecution, of Muslims, Arabs or indeed Iraqis. It is essential to realise that liberty adheres to individuals. Security in a liberal order is therefore defended against individuals who threaten it and violate the law. It cannot be right to seek to exclude whole categories from human and civil rights.
My second footnote is familiar but warrants repetition. Threats to security are in principle limited in time. Wars have an end—an early end one hopes. The trouble with the notion of a "war on terrorism" is that it is possible to claim that it never ends and to use this claim to justify restrictions on the liberty of citizens for ever. It is a crucial task of Parliament to make sure that governments are prevented from abusing legitimate temporary objectives for illicit permanent measures. If ever there was a case for time limits on the validity of primary and secondary legislation, it is in restrictions on individual liberty in the name of national security in a democratic society.
5.41 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, for bringing the debate to the attention of the House, for introducing it and for underlining what a profoundly complex issue we are trying to address in the House today.
We recognise that a government's first duty is to protect their citizens. We also recognise that, in protecting their citizens, they must bear in mind that it would be foolish to destroy the very thing they are attempting to protect; namely, individual liberty.
In the debate we have interestingly heard a great deal about this balance. I want to pay a special tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Dinton, who spoke not only with his characteristic modesty but also with

845
great wisdom and experience. I am sure the House will look forward to his future contributions, recognising that few noble Lords can claim the breadth of experience that he brings to the Chamber. It was also extremely important and significant to hear from his predecessor, the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong. I shall say more about his speech later.
It is perhaps appropriate for me to quote the words of that very distinguished Member of this House—at whose memorial service many of us will be tomorrow—Lord Jenkins of Hillhead. He said:
"At a time of threat, to be seen to be doing something rather than nothing is a natural human—and perhaps particularly ministerial—reaction. But something, anything, is by no means always better than nothing. You can do more harm than good. It should be very carefully directed at the threat and not splayed over a wide area of increase in executive powers".—[Official Report, 27/11/01; col. 200]
We all recognise, as my noble friend Lord Dahrendorf so eloquently said, that there is a huge danger of destroying liberties and then finding it virtually impossible to bring them back again.
The noble Baroness, Lady Greenfield—who, because of the miracles of technology to which she referred, I was able to see on the video system in this place—referred to the effect of information technology. It brings about the possibility of an almost Orwellian world, one in which almost everything depends upon the objective for which such techniques are being used. We know there has been a huge increase in the incidence of surveillance, ranging from CCTV to systems which mean that we can be seen in detail from many thousands of feet above the surface of the globe. As a number of noble Lords have said—for example, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas—this means there is a much greater threat to the individual privacy of citizens even in a democracy than existed before information technology had opened all these possibilities to us. We need to think about how we can create a framework which establishes an adequate and successful degree of regulation of these new technologies.
Perhaps, to strike a more cheery note, I might quote the famous Russian historian. Dr Solovyev, who said that liberty rose in the interstices of the state. I suppose one might be grateful that so many computer systems appear to be so extremely inefficient that time and again in this House we hear about how they have gone seriously wrong. It does cheer one up quite a lot.
I offer considerable praise to the Government and to this House, among others, for the way in which the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act was handled. One thing that happened in that Act—and your Lordships had a great deal to do with it—was continually to tie it back to its purpose; to remind our citizens and ourselves that the purpose of the Act was to counter terrorism, not to counter any kind of bad behaviour we might care to try to deal with. By tying it back in that way I think we created both an effective Act and also one that was to some extent proof against the danger of being spread beyond its purposes. The Government behaved imaginatively in accepting many
846
of the amendments tabled in your Lordships' House and produced in consequence a better Act than we would have had without those amendments or without the Government's initiative.
It is perhaps appropriate to quote one statistic. Since the Terrorism Act was passed, according to my noble friend Lord Carlile of Berriew, who was charged with a review of the system, 304 arrests have been made, 40 people have been charged, three people have been convicted, 13 people are still in detention, and not a single charge of terrorism has been laid. That shows how it is easy to get matters out of balance.
In that context I say two other things. First—I think rightly—we have tried in this country to set up a system of reviews. The Government have pointed to the problem of reviewing cases in open court when they often concern detailed and secret intelligence information. The system of reviews that has been installed and the establishment of my noble friend Lord Carlile to review the working of the Act, while certainly not perfect, contribute a great deal to protecting liberty in the face of one of the most intensive threats one could invent, challenging it, and indeed making its presence known.
We have, at least to some extent, managed to find the balance to which the noble Lords, Lord Wilson and Lord Armstrong, referred. It is crucial to be able to establish the innocence of those detained because, by the nature of security, a number of people will be arrested and held who are innocent of what they have not yet been charged with. It is absolutely crucial that we find a method that enables those innocent people to escape from the clutches of the law and from detention in prison. I hope we have the balance more or less right. We have just extended the power of detention for another year. Any democrat is frightened of the power of detention without charge. Rightly, it needs to be reviewed and looked at continually.
I wish to say something about the restrained and sensible behaviour of the police—not in every case, but in a great many cases. On more than one occasion fairly late at night I have visited the demonstration outside the Houses of Parliament in order to talk to some of those involved. I spent some time in the company of those demonstrators and of the police. With few exceptions, the police behaved with astonishing restraint and humour. Given the extent to which our liberties depend upon the behaviour and restraint of the police and the endless pressures brought to hear on them by the current situation, it is appropriate and right that this House should praise them for the way they stand up evening after evening, day after day, to the pressures of passionate political opinion expressed on both sides. It is crucial that they do. It is part of what it means to be a free society. If one looks at what happens to demonstrators in many other parts of the world, including some highly developed parts of the world, I think we can say that the police have been an important bastion of our liberties, although not always blameless.
I say a word which follows on from what my noble friend Lord Dahrendorf said. It is perhaps the most unpopular thing I feel obliged to say, but I think it

847
needs saving. Rightly, the Secretary of State for Defence, Mr Geoffrey Hoon, complained bitterly in another place about the treatment of our prisoners of war in Iraq. His remarks were echoed in this House by the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes. That is quite right. It is appalling and humiliating for prisoners of war to be displayed on television for the delight, laughter or satisfaction of people throughout the world who happen to be on the side of those who took those prisoners.
However, because double standards are dangerous things, we must also remember that the prisoners taken to Guantanamo Bay were also displayed on television—on CNN, to be precise. I happen to have seen the broadcast. They were displayed wearing black hoods, kneeling in the dust and, in most cases, with their heads between their knees. When we talk about the Geneva Convention, it must be binding on all sides—all of the more on those with higher standards, because they set the standards for the world. It is therefore important that if we rightly—I emphasise that word—complain about the displaying of our own prisoners of war, we must draw our allies' attention to the importance of ensuring that they too uphold the word and letter of the Geneva Convention.
In that context, I straightforwardly ask: what representations have the Government made about those British citizens who are currently still held at Guantanamo Bay? I am told—rightly or wrongly, I do not know—that there are some six British citizens in that condition. When they took their case to the Appeal Court—again I give profound credit to the judiciary, who time and again stand up against popular prejudice to ensure that the law is upheld—the Master of the Rolls, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips, said that those men had been cast into "a legal black hole".
They may be guilty; they may be innocent. But, as British citizens, I believe that they have the right to be represented by the Government and for questions to be asked about why they cannot have access to lawyers or any kind of court. We should make it plain, as the mother of the whole idea of the rule of law, that it should apply even to the least of our citizens. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester referred to Nelson Mandela. I should like to cite another of his remarks:
"A nation should not be judged by how it treats its highest citizens, but its lowest ones".
In our present situation, what could be much lower than a Muslim Briton held in Guantanamo?
Finally, I cite my noble friend Lord Carlile of Berriew, because what he says reflects the wisdom of the noble Lords, Lord Wilson and Lord Armstrong. He states:
"I have reflected too on the need to avoid an over-reaction to a perception of danger—the perception that sometimes may be greater than the reality. The balance is a difficult one".
Several noble Lords have referred to the temptation for politicians to play safe. Playing safe means that time and again they place the balance on the side of security, because they will be blamed if things go
848
wrong. If they place the balance against liberty, they will not be blamed. And, long ahead, people will forget the part they played in undermining it.
I conclude by citing perhaps the wisest words of all uttered by someone whom I think that none of us could possibly question or doubt in terms of our national standing—none other than the former Prime Minister, Winston Churchill. It was preceded by a remark by the then Home Secretary, Herbert Morrison, who said, and I weigh these words:
"What the House must do is to keep watch on the Home Secretary".
As Home Secretary, he pointed out that Home Secretaries, more than most Ministers, are under constant temptation to ensure that security is the overriding consideration, because they will be blamed if anything goes wrong. Winston Churchill later said:
"You might however consider whether you should not unfold as a background the great privilege of habeas corpus and trial by jury, which are the supreme protection invented by the English people for ordinary individuals against the state".
I especially weigh the following words:
"The power of the Executive to cast a man into prison without formulating any charge known to law, and particularly to deny him the judgement of his peers, is in the highest degree odious and is the foundation of all totalitarian government, whether Nazi or Communist".
Those words still echo here; I want to be quite sure that they echo among the courts and in the attitudes of our allies. I commend the Motion to the House.
5.55 p.m.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, I can think of no one who could have led your Lordships better in this debate than the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. He brought his finely honed mind to bear on the great problem of balancing the interests of national security against the interests of the individual citizen and his liberty. I add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Dinton, on an erudite and enlightening speech based on years of experience serving government.
We are all mindful of the fact that we are conducting our discussion at a time of war—a war against terrorism as well as a war against Saddam Hussein. National security is an especially sensitive issue and a prominent consideration in our minds. As noble Lords have said, traditionally, in wartime the citizen is prepared to allow his liberty to be temporarily curtailed in the interests of all—as represented by the state. But the state tends to err on the side of zeal. It takes no chances and therefore takes more powers than it may need.
All that may be tolerable in hostile circumstances, provided that our liberties are returned to us in due course. They seldom are, as Simon Jenkins pointed out in The Times last Friday. The headline on his article says it all:
"In any conflict, the true victor is always the State".
There has been spate of anti-terrorist legislation, much of it controversial and some of it still under scrutiny by Parliament. Some of it arises from our obligations

849
under European Union law. As the Joint Committee on Human Rights pointed out to the Government, many of our rights are affected. It may be some consolation that both Europe and the United States face much the same problems as we do.
I am bound to say that the situation in which we now find ourselves is exceptional in that while our forces are engaged in open conflict with Iraq, possible terrorist attacks at home may be instigated not by our principal antagonist but by other "enemies in our midst", as the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, described them.
The recent arrest and detention of people suspected of being international terrorists reminded some of us of similar detentions of Nazi sympathisers in the United Kingdom during the Second World War. But the dimension of the problem appears to be much greater now than it was then—especially, perhaps, because of the Northern Ireland situation and the huge volume of immigrants, refugees and asylum seekers, of whose loyalty and reactions we cannot be certain. There are, I believe, 21,000 Iraqis in this country.
Nevertheless, we should give due consideration to Liberty's finding that,
"of more than 7,000 people detained in Britain under the Prevention of Terrorism Act, the vast majority have been released without charge and only a tiny fraction have ever been charged with anything remotely resembling terrorism".
We are reluctant to lock people up without charge in this country, but our formidable anti-terrorism legislation allows us to do so. We are also told that constant vigilance and surveillance is essential for the protection of our trusting society, and we have a number of authorities with the necessary powers to carry out such surveillance, intercept communications and so forth, with the authority of the Home Secretary.
What concerns us is that such activity may get out of hand and become a tool of tyranny. We do not want to create a Stasi state, as in East Germany, where the state's omniscience about the citizen deliberately reduced him to a slavish subject. The guardians must be guarded against themselves and the potential abuse of powers—a danger which is ever present. Like the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, I, too, was reassured by the statements given by the noble Lords, Lord Wilson and Lord Armstrong.
Although I believe with Dylan Thomas that,
"After the first death there is no other",
by which he meant to emphasise the unique sanctity of individual human life, I think that the massive scale and horrendous nature of the death and injury threatened by terrorists is a relevant factor. The terrorist threat builds up fear in society at large and adds to the justification for exceptional measures to frustrate such activity by every possible means.
The magnitude and dreadful nature of certain types of crime excite similar public antipathy and horror. I am referring to child abduction and murder, serial killings and rape, the trade in hard drugs and the gang culture and gun crime that so often accompanies it. The war against crime is always with us and we know
850
that we must sacrifice some of our liberties and right to privacy if we are to gain and maintain an upper hand in that war. Our willingness to sacrifice grows with the enormity of the crime and our horror in the face of it. The lesser the crime, the less willing we are to sacrifice.
There have been a number of references today to freedom and privacy in communication, now vastly enhanced in scope by modern technology and likely to be enhanced further if even a quarter of what the noble Baroness, Lady Greenfield, foresaw is realised. And I have no reason to doubt that it will not all be realised.
The Government's order last year listing the authorities that might claim access to communications data—the who, when and where but not the contents of communication—was dubbed a "Snoopers Charter" and was withdrawn by the Home Secretary after a hefty barrage of criticism. This month, a new consultation paper was published with a healthy and helpful admission that he had got it wrong. And, of course, the Government had got it wrong in the sense that every Tom, Dick and Harry in authority appeared to have staked a claim to access.
Without going into detail, the new consultation document seeks to limit and justify those who may seek access and to discipline them in the event of abuse. In his foreword, the Home Secretary twice mentions "Big Brother". It is not him that we fear so much as his mischievous little brothers in all kinds of institutions up and down the land.
Annex E of the paper contains a number of interesting, fundamental questions for a broader debate and is relevant to our discussion today. The first question is: is there a contradiction between an expectation of respect for individual privacy—"your privacy"—and an expectation of necessary and proportionate intrusion into the privacy of those acting contrary to the public interest—"someone else's privacy"?
There are further questions about what protection for privacy the citizen should expect in order to maintain the balance between his privacy and his interest in a society safe from crime; about how the trust of the public can be won in the use by the authorities of techniques to invade privacy; and about how the benefit to the public can be shown and reassurance provided. Should unlawful privacy violation by criminals or law enforcers be acknowledged as a crime? Indeed, these are major questions—some easier to answer than others—that apply not just to the area of private communications but to a wider area in which, for example, CCTV is used for more sophisticated purposes than its original purpose.
My own provisional conclusion, like that of my noble friend Lord Lucas, is that the state must present ample justification every time a fresh invasion of privacy or curtailment of liberty is proposed, along with as much protection against official abuse and safeguards as can possibly be given. And most importantly, the state should try to anticipate how and when the limitation can be brought to an end and the liberty lost can be restored. A sunset clause can be a

851
great restorative, as the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, implied. The price of liberty is eternal vigilance but that vigilance is not limited to the state and its organs, it extends to the individual citizen who must not only assist the state to be vigilant but be wary of the state itself.
6.6 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, on securing this debate at this particular time. I thank him in two respects. First, his speech set the tone for the debate; namely, the highest possible level. Secondly, it framed the questions and gave some tentative answers in a way that really informed the debate.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Dinton, on his maiden speech. The noble Lord knows that everyone says how wonderful maiden speeches are, but his really was exceptional. From personal experience, I know that the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Dinton, will bring exceptional wisdom and human warmth to the proceedings of this House. We are truly lucky to have him both in this debate and in others that will follow. I welcome him and congratulate him on his speech.
This is an incredibly well-timed debate. Armed intervention is going on in Iraq. We are still in the aftermath of the events of 11th September 2001. The balance between national security and individual freedom is one of the most important issues that both the executive and the legislature have ever had to face. They face it all the time. The noble Lord, Lord Armstrong of Ilminster, is right that every case must be looked at on its individual merits. But that is not a sufficient basis on which to approach the issue. Some principles must be set forth so that there are some guidelines by which one steers a course in relation to striking that difficult balance. Those principles will not provide the answer. Each individual case has to be looked at, but on the basis of those principles.
Perhaps I may suggest some principles on which one should proceed. First, our society is based on the liberty of the individual. It is what we fight to protect where necessary. Our starting point, therefore, in a free democratic society, must be that the liberty of the individual should not be limited unless a proper case for limitation is established. Plainly, threats to national security can form the basis of such a case, but only on the basis that the threat to liberty which the threat to national security poses justifies that limitation of liberty. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, is right. At all stages, one must be careful to ensure that the limitation one imposes, either permanently or in the face of an actual threat, is proportionate to the threat which is posed.
In applying the particular principles, it is important to dwell for a moment on what we mean by "liberty". We all know what we mean by liberty. One particular strand running through the debate was that liberty includes the right to be private. One's privacy is an important commodity which one is entitled to protect
852
in a free society. The constant reference to that is caused partly by the growth of information technology, which makes so much of what one does available to a wider public, but is also due to the way that society has developed. People have less and less trust in government and large organisations. Therefore, they look much more for protection in relation to their privacy.
We need a full and properly informed debate about when is it appropriate to infringe the privacy of individual members of society. We all agree that privacy can be infringed when it is necessary to fight crime, but what is the precise nature of the circumstances, what is the right sanction when intrusion goes too far, what are the right protections that need to be provided?
At the very minimum, whenever we, as a society, propose to infringe people's privacy, there should be a completely transparent debate about the reasons for that infringement and a clear setting out of safeguards. We are only in the process of that debate; it has not been concluded.
The noble Lord, Lord Roberts, referred to the consultation document Access to Communications Data which has been published by the Home Office and which actively seeks to promote debate. There are many unresolved aspects of the privacy debate that we need to address in the context of the world described by the noble Lords, Lord Selsdon and Lord Marlesford, and the noble Baroness, Lady Greenfield.
The noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, complained that you could find his address and a map of how to get to his house. As he was saying that I thought, "Well, the telephone directory has done that for some time". The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, said:
"Almost anything we want to do is possible".
Aldous Huxley speaks again. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, then made the appropriate point that everything we do may well be possible but the track records of large organisations in trying to introduce computer systems suggests that not everything is possible. The noble Baroness suggested that it will soon be possible to have an e-mail sent direct to your brain. These are three different world views in relation to which we need to address the issue of privacy.
I digress in making these remarks—they go to the question of what are the liberties of the individual that need to be protected—but I thoroughly endorse the tone of the debate which suggests that privacy is one of them. We need a proper debate on what are the limits in that respect.
Let me suggest a number of other principles. Any limitations on individual freedom must be proportionate to the threat; they must be sanctioned by law and cannot take place on an ad hoc basis; and they must be implemented in a way which ensures that there are safeguards and that the activities of the executive are subject to monitoring, scrutiny and accountability. If limitations are implemented excessively, the framework must ensure that the monitoring, scrutiny and accountability arrangements

853
are likely to identify and remedy such excesses. In other words, if protections are put in place they must be effective.
We all recognise that in some circumstances they will not be totally effective and that in many other cases they will be. The trial of a person charged with a crime is an effective scrutiny. Where one is dealing with national emergencies and with different circumstances, obviously the arrangements will be one step further removed. But, in every case, there must be monitoring, scrutiny and accountability.
As the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf said, a limitation should last only as long as the threat that justifies it. In some circumstances, the threat which justifies it will last for ever—for example, in fighting crime, the restriction of individual liberty will be justified as long as there is a threat of crime. But the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, is right. There will be occasions when restrictions which are justified by a particular threat will no longer be justified once the threat has disappeared.
Those seem to me to be the basic principles. I am sure that there are others, but they are the starting points for building a framework of principles.
Governments have to face a number of problems when they are dealing with these issues. As the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Dinton, said, the Government frequently know more than the individual citizen. The Government also have a duty, which the individual citizen does not have, to anticipate threats. It is not only important for the Government to respond to a threat once it has matured, they must also anticipate what may be coming down the pipe. The extent to which the Government are able to acknowledge threats will vary from case to case.
Although the Government know more and must anticipate threats, above all, in our society, they must persuade before they can extend limitations on personal freedom. That is the great safeguard in our system. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said, very fairly, that the Government's legislation on terrorism has been "fairly accurately targeted". He went on to say that that was partly as a result of the work of your Lordships' House.
The debate post-11th September in the body politic in the United Kingdom was between the executive and Parliament as to the right way forward. It was informed by what was politically possible against the knowledge that the Government brought to it. In my view, it produced the right result.
The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, referred to extracts from the report of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, and said that we may have got it wrong in a number of respects. We should not fool ourselves that we will always get legislation precisely right, but we did put in place monitoring arrangements to study how the legislation worked in practice. The way in which we operate generally produces a much more accurate result than we give ourselves credit for.
854
In those circumstances, it is perhaps fair to recognise that the executive has a role to perhaps press a little harder than Parliament would otherwise expect so that the debate to which I have referred can be concluded. So those are the principles and that is how it has worked in practice.
Perhaps I may pick up on three other points that have been raised in the debate and which may have something to do with the Government. First, the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act has been greatly misunderstood. Under that Act we are seeking to bring coherence and scrutiny to the process by which a wide range of bodies can ask for information and communication from individual members of the state. It has been perceived to be an extension of the powers of the state and various state bodies. That is not right. It seeks to apply one of the principles to which I have referred—that is, to ensure that there is proper monitoring, scrutiny and accountability of the way in which the powers of the state operate.
The second point concerns entitlement cards and the consultation paper issued by the Government. The consultation ended on 30th January and, in the light of that consultation, we are now considering what to do. We have made clear that the entitlement card proposal is not designed to be a step in the fight against terrorism. Its main aims are to make it easier for the citizen to access services provided by the state; to make it easier to fight identity fraud; and to make it easier to identify who can and cannot legitimately be in this country. Identity fraud takes a number of forms but, as has been pointed out, the terrorists who attacked the World Trade Centre on 11th September at no stage sought to hide their identity. The entitlement card deals with different issues.
The final point refers to the question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, in relation to what the Government have done about making representations in regard to the Guantanamo Bay suspects. The answer is that we have pressed the American Government to make a decision as quickly as possible about what will be the next stage.
The debate has raised many questions, a number of which we have failed to answer. It has provided a basis of principle on which the striking of this difficult balance can be achieved.
6.19 p.m.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, the debate is due to end at 6.25 p.m. and so I have time only to thank the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Dinton, for choosing this debate in which to make his perceptive and thoughtful maiden speech and to thank all noble Lords who have taken part. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Children and Parents
6.20 p.m.
Lord Northbournerose to call attention to the role of parents in providing for the needs of the nation's children in the 21st century and to the case for making available more encouragement and support for parents; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to welcome our two maiden speakers, the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury and the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Carey of Clifton. The debate will be distinguished by the presence of a former Archbishop and an Archbishop. We welcome the new Archbishop as he makes his maiden speech and we welcome back the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Carey, who, as noble Lords will recall, has himself led an extremely distinguished debate in this House.
Fifty years ago, the role of parents in our society was clearly understood. Since then, enormous changes have taken place and, in effect, the rulebook has been torn up. Many of today's parents have never experienced a functional family or even a family where anyone has work. Fewer and fewer people are choosing to become parents. Noble Lords will, I think, agree that our children still have a right to the love, security, care and education they need if they are to develop to their full potential. We are not meeting those requirements.
A significant minority of our young people are growing up anti-social, excluded and without hope. Some 9 per cent of children leave school functionally illiterate. We are sending these young people out into the world disabled. The cost to the taxpayer is huge, both directly and in later lost productivity; the human cost is probably even greater.
Today it is fashionable to blame the schools. However, I am going to be bold enough to suggest that it is the quality of early parenting which lies at the root of the problem. Furthermore, as they held their first baby in their arms, 99 per cent of those parents who fail wanted desperately to succeed. They have been defeated by the mountain of multiple disadvantage against which they have to struggle. It is those parents and that disadvantage which are the concerns of our debate today.
In her Reith Lecture last year my noble friend Lady O'Neill pointed out:
"Every time we create a right for some person or group, we inevitably create a duty for some other person or group".
Who, then, has the duty to deliver the rights of the nation's children today? The Children Act 1989 established the concept of a partnership between parents and the state. I shall return to that concept of partnership later.
First, however, I want to show that, in spite of the welfare state, parents still play a pivotal role in raising the nation's children. By "parent" in this context, I refer to any adult who has made a long-term
856
commitment to love and care for a child. Obviously, birth parents are by far the most likely people to volunteer for the job.
A recent report from the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health states:
"The way parents look after their babies and toddlers makes an important difference to their mental health and social and emotional development. The impact of parenting and its potential for improving mental, social and emotional health is discernible both in the child and later in adulthood. Parents are crucially important because the foundations of learning and of successful relationships are laid in the first five years. That is also the time when parents are at the very centre of the life of the child".
My noble friend Lady Greenfield will speak later about the development of the child's brain. As she is a world expert on the subject, I shall say no more.
Professor Nicholas Elmer wrote in a recent Joseph Rowntree Foundation report:
"The most important influence on a person's level of self-esteem is their parents. After parents have had their say, little else in life will be able to modify the 'opinion of self' formed by parents".
Much other recent research shows the strong links between the quality of parenting and outcomes for children, both in school and in later life. I believe therefore that the evidence is compelling. In spite of the welfare state, parents still play a key role, especially during the first five years of a child's life.
Most parents today, most of the time and with the help of the welfare state, are giving their children the care and education they need for a good start in life. Of those who are not succeeding, most desperately want to do so. Why does success elude them? Research suggests that often more than one factor is involved. A cluster of linked factors causes the problem. These may include ill health, mental illness, depression, learning disabilities, poor housing, lone parenting, loneliness, poverty, violence, alcohol or drugs and ignorance. Today many parents do not know what their child needs, still less how to deliver it. Many have never experienced a happy, supportive family, or even a kind word, or boundaries to acceptable behaviour. They are struggling against a mountain of severe and multiple disadvantage. They need help. How can we help them?
The Government have given these problems very serious thought. Much has been done and they are to be congratulated on that. This morning my noble friend Lady Howe and I visited a Home-Start programme based in Southwark. What is being done in that project is impressive. Parents are empowered by being brought together in a holistic way with the various services they need so that, through the parents, objectives for the children can be achieved. How different, alas, from most local authorities. Often the various departments do not even speak to one another. Furthermore, they try to substitute for parents rather than work through parents. I shall not say more in flattery about the Government's achievements because the Minister has 20 minutes in which to speak, while I have only 15. I shall not sing his song for him.
Much more still needs to be done. I realise that there is only so much that governments can do. Parents do not want to be told how to bring up their children and

857
people do not want a nanny state. That is why I want to spend my remaining few minutes looking at four areas where I believe it is politically feasible for both government and the rest of society to do more to help parents.
First, however, we must define more clearly the role of parents. In her book, Who's Fit to be a Parent?, M J Campion wrote:
"I would argue that the degree of mismatch between expectations of child, parent and state are at the heart of most parenting problems today. Parents are being asked to do a job without any job description".
Parents cannot be expected to get it right if society is not clear about what it expects of them.
A recent report from the National Family and Parenting Institute considers the case for a "parents code" or for guidelines for parents. I am inclined to think that a road map for parents might be a better proposal. A map can show a variety of routes; it can also indicate those which are likely to be the easiest and those which are likely to end in trouble. Ultimately, however, it leaves the choice to the parent.
Parents' responsibilities should be set in the context of the responsibilities of others. We need to shift from emphasising "feckless parents" to a consideration of the responsibility of society as a whole for the future care of our young people. In designing a code or road map for parents, society and parents themselves, as well as government, should be seen to set the agenda. There is a need for open consultation and debate. That debate would probably need to be inaugurated by government, but then they would have to be prepared to listen.
My second points relates to more education and preparation for parenthood. There is no one best way to be a parent. But that does not mean that there is nothing to learn.
A recent report from the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health stated that,
"parenting is a difficult task. The way we were cared for by our own parents influences how we look after our children".
It goes on:
"There is now a growing body of research which shows that our familiar assumptions about bringing up children are not always correct. Some parenting practices (which are passed on from generation to generation) are harmful, and play an important part in the development of emotional and behavioural problems, conduct disorder, delinquency, violence and mental health problems in adult life".
Yet a recent survey by Mothercare indicated that 70 per cent of mothers today rely either on instinct or on what they learnt from their mothers to guide their parenting.
Parents and prospective parents need reliable, research-based information and opportunities to learn about what has worked for others so that they can make informed choices. Education for parenthood in schools has been shown to work, and is popular. The emphasis at that age is on relationships, on accurate information about what a young child needs, and on discussion about the teenager's own aspirations. This subject should be compulsory in all schools—which
858
today it is not; the syllabus should be part of government policy—which it is not; and it should be taught by well-trained staff—which it is not.
Parenting education for young parents, including fathers, during the mother's pregnancy and after has also been shown to work well. Even parenting orders have worked—which all the professionals predicted would not be the case. The Parenting Education & Support Forum tells me that many parents have asked: "Why didn't I get help before? Why did I have to wait till my boy had committed a crime?".
My third point is that we need a more holistic approach to help parents. The point was made clearly in a wonderful debate introduced by my noble friend Lady Howe a few weeks ago.
Even when support is available, too many parents and children are falling through the net because services are over-stretched and, more importantly, are not working together. It is interesting to note the comparison with the Sure Start programme, where the empowerment of parents and a holistic approach to the contribution of the various services are central to the project. How I wish that that could be extended to all areas in all parts of the country, and to all children and all parents.
Health visitors, having gained the confidence of parents, have an important role to play in introducing them to the services that they need. Again, that is working with the Sure Start programme.
Finally, I believe that we should value and respect parents more. This is a crucial message. Parents are a fantastic resource for the nation. Let us stop taking them for granted. If parents feel valued, they will value themselves more; they will be more likely to prepare themselves for the job, and do it well and with enthusiasm. There is an enthusiasm these days for positive parenting, and we arc told by the experts—rightly, in my view—that children respond better to praise than to blame. Why do we not try that with parents too'? We should value particularly fathers and mothers who make a long-term commitment to do the job of parenting, because long-term commitment is important to children.
We need a more family-friendly society. I dream of a society in which, when you walk into a restaurant with children, people look up and smile, as they do in Spain and Italy.
We must listen to parents. Today, parents in our society do not have a voice. Perhaps we could consider developing an organisation for parents which would give them a voice—a kind of trade union for parents.
The time has come to recognise that parents save the state a vast amount of money and do a job which no one else can do as well as good parents can. They are doing the most important job in the world. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
6.35 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, we are very lucky to have the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, among us to remind us of the importance of children,

859
and of their parents, in the scheme of things. I thank the noble Lord for introducing this debate, and for doing so with his customary blend of knowledge and humanity. The subject has attracted a distinguished group of Peers, with a wide range of experience. We can all look forward to the debate ahead of us. It will be particularly pleasant to hear from the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Carey of Clifton, in his new role as a life Peer, and from his successor, the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, whom we welcome to the Bishops' Benches.
We do not need to be experts to know that parents are the most important factor in the lives of children. That is true whatever the make-up of the family—traditional or otherwise.
It is within the family that children first learn a sense of values—sharing and fairness; discipline; the boundaries of acceptable behaviour; how to enjoy themselves; what is safe and what is risky. It is where they first learn to relate to others—it is to be hoped with rational self-confidence, hut, sadly, sometimes with fear, suspicion or aggression.
My conviction is that most people, whatever their financial or family circumstances, try their best to give their children a good start in life. But some parents—often, but not exclusively, the poorest—have real problems with coping with their own lives, or with their children, their partners, their finances, their own mental health, or all of these. Or they may not have had the experience of "good" parenting from their own parents. Even so, one should not assume that these will be "bad" parents. People can show amazing resilience in the face of daunting problems. But they may need support or financial help or advice, or the opportunity to meet other parents in similar situations and to learn from each other.
There is a considerable amount of discussion as to what help should be offered, in what form and by whom. But there is a wide acceptance that it should be available as early as possible. I suggest that a great deal could be done at maternity clinics, during a post-confinement stay in hospital and via mother and baby clinics to increase a young mother's confidence in her own ability to look after her child. Written material about local support and help services could also be made available in these places.
I am sad to hear of the decline in the provision of mother and baby clinics since my time as a parent. A marvellous opportunity to learn which young mums were not coping and to offer discreet suggestions as to "what works" with small babies may have been lost.
I think it is hard to exaggerate the loneliness of the young mother at home. I certainly experienced loneliness, but I suspect that things may be worse now. Young parents may not have their own parents near at hand; or granny may herself be working and not able to provide a second home and partial refuge for the next generation. She may not even want to do so, having only recently stopped looking after her own children.
860
So it seems to me that a great deal of care should be taken by the authorities in tailoring offers of help and the way in which they are presented to parents, in such a way that they emphasise the things that parents themselves seem to value: a respect for their own opinions and for their wish to be good parents, the ability to meet other parents and to learn from them, and a concentration on practical help with dealing with young children.
I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us that, in rolling out programmes designed to help parents and particularly poor parents, the Government will pay close attention to the work of researchers which could help in encouraging parents to seek and receive support. Not all adults in our communities are confident in approaching the authorities and asking them for help. Indeed, many people would rather do anything than approach, say, social services.
Some may say that all would be well in the family if only mums stayed at home. Personally, I am glad that I was able to do so, although I did not always feel like that at the time. Nor did long periods at home, combined with residence abroad as a diplomatic wife, have a beneficial effect on my earnings or pension. But I doubt that being a full-time mum is an option for more than a very few people today. Indeed, I doubt that it ever was. Poor women have always worked, first in the fields, then in the factories, in other people's houses, as laundrywomen, cleaners, cooks and, later, as clerks, shop assistants and typists. It is the desertion of her children by the married middle-class mum which shocks some observers. But we cannot go back to the 1950s, much less the 1930s. We have to find ways of integrating the world of work and the world of child care as much as possible—more, even than the Government's new policies on flexible working, to be activated in a few weeks' time, will achieve.
Those policies are a good base from which to go forward, and I look forward to seeing how they will operate in practice. I am particularly keen to see how they will affect the role of fathers as carers. The pressure on women who want to do well at work is a risk to successful parenting, but so is the terrible modern culture of exaggeratedly long working days for men who want to play their part as parents. In this context, I would like to know whether the Minister is satisfied that working parents, particularly poorer workings parents, have access to the reliable nursery care in school holidays as well as in term time which can help them maintain their earnings.
It is a cliché to say that a society's children are its future, but it is true. Recently there has been a lot of bad news about young people—their increased smoking, drug-taking and drinking, and the violence they cause in the streets. The Government appeared at first to respond to this in punitive mode. There are too many women and too many young people in prison today adding a financial cost to the social costs caused by bad behaviour. This is not the time to discuss penal policy. In any case, the Government seem to have

861
changed tack, with a greater emphasis on punishment in the community and developments such as Community Punishment Plus.
We should never forget that lack of care for parents and families can, in the worst cases, result in offending behaviour. Indeed, as I have said before in your Lordships' House, the breakdown of family life is the single greatest predictor of offending behaviour. It is also associated with low educational achievement and the risk that the cycle of poor parenting begins again. How much better to offer useful help to parents when they really need it—when they first become parents.
6.43 p.m.
Baroness Brigstocke: My Lords, what an important and absorbing subject the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, has chosen to introduce today. I offer him my sincere thanks and warm congratulations.
As a secondary school teacher for almost 40 years and, over the past 10 years, as chairman of governors of a large inner-city technology college, I have never doubted the importance of the early years in the moulding and development of a child's character and abilities. This is a truth known to the Spartans in ancient times and to the Jesuits later.
The noble Lord eloquently described many of the problems facing parents who are struggling inadequately to look after their young children in the tough world of today. I am glad to tell him that help is at hand. This evening, I would like to tell your Lordships about Home-Start, an organisation which exists entirely to provide encouragement and support for parents who have at least one child under the age of five.
Home-Start is now 30 years old, and is acknowledged to be the leading family support organisation in the country. It began as a simple scheme in Leicester, the brainchild of Margaret Harrison, and is now a national organisation, with more than 320 schemes all over England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. That Home-Start is now a major source of family support nationally is largely due to the energies of its chief executive, Brian Waller, the former director of social services in Leicestershire.
Each Home-Start scheme is locally run and managed by co-ordinators who recruit, prepare, train, supervise and support local volunteers, who are parents themselves. These volunteers offer simple, practical help and, most importantly, friendship and support. They live in the same neighbourhood as the families they visit and they are, as it were, matched to the vulnerable families who are in difficulties.
The volunteer parent visits the family in their own home, becoming a trusted friend and very often helping a family to stick together through periods of crisis or depression—particularly post-natal depression. Imagine the comfort for a lonely young mother just to have a companionable neighbour popping in, perhaps saying, "You go and have a rest, I'll wash up and then take the children for a walk",
862
introducing her to a local welfare service or playgroup, suggesting—always in a non-threatening way—a few tips on diet or, indeed, just listening, over a cup of tea.
Our Governments, whatever their colour, have, I am glad to say, given great support to Home-Start over many years, demonstrating their commitment to families and young children. I think particularly at this time of the Ministry of Defence, which provides funding for the many Home-Start schemes that operate specifically for families in the Armed Forces.
Four years ago, Margaret Harrison had another brainwave. She set up Home-Start International to respond to the ever-increasing number of requests from other countries for help in setting up similar schemes. She asked me to chair the trustees, having already done me the kindness of recruiting the director, Tanya Barron, who has a wealth of experience internationally, most recently advising UNICEF's child care forum.
It has been most encouraging to see the UK model of family support so welcome all over the world. One of the attractions of Home-Start is the very low cost of the operation, which is therefore sustainable even in low-income countries. Moreover, its tried and tested information and training materials are available for Home-Starts throughout the world; they are currently translated into Hungarian, Greek, Russian and French.
We are helping 18 countries to set up their own family support organisations. One of the most important lessons that we have learnt is that the needs for family support are very similar throughout the world and across the different parts of society in each country. Home-Start works as well in Australia as it does in Russia, or indeed South Africa or the Netherlands.
Another important lesson learnt is how crucial it is to develop strong working partnerships between professionals and the voluntary sector. During my recent visit to Home-Starts in Australia, I was particularly struck by the fact that nurses looking after mothers suffering from post-natal depression were grateful to be able to refer them to Home-Start volunteers.
The European Commission is currently funding a research project led by Home-Start International to evaluate the effectiveness of parent support programmes in Europe. The first research publication from the project will be available next Monday.
Finally, to return to this country, Home-Start does a wonderful job, but it is still not available to every family that needs it. Imagine what it could do if it were available in every town and city. The Green Paper on children at risk, to be published in May, will give the Government the chance to make Home-Start a truly universal service throughout the UK. What a wonderful opportunity.
6.50 p.m.
Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, I shall be extremely brief. As a fellow trustee of Home-Start

863
International, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Brigstocke, has referred. I endorse everything she has said about the valuable role that Home-Start has played in its 30 years of existence in providing exactly the type of family support to which the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, has drawn attention in this timely debate.
I also endorse what the noble Baroness, Lady Brigstocke, said about the work that Home-Start International is doing to spread the practices and principles of Home-Start to the growing number of countries that are starting up similar schemes around the world.
I also take this opportunity to thank my former colleagues in the Diplomatic Service for the help, support and encouragement that several heads of mission have given to their local Home-Start schemes. I also thank the Department for International Development for the financial help that it has been able to give, for instance, to Home-Start in South Africa. I hope that the experience that officials have now been able to acquire from their contacts with Home-Start will have convinced any doubters of the vital contribution that such organisations can make towards the aims and objectives that the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, set out.
6.52 p.m.
The Archbishop of Canterbury: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, for giving us the opportunity of so timely a debate—a debate that recognises, as we needs must recognise at present, a major cultural shift. The time was when the family appeared as a safe and stable piece of territory, surrounded by the ups and downs of public life. Now it is often the family itself that appears fragile and in need of support from public attention and public investment.
The word "parenting", which has been thrown around already in this afternoon's discussion, is in some ways admittedly a barbarism. As somebody recently said, it would be nice to know what the corresponding duties of "childing" involved. But we cannot do without that. However much it may suggest an unhappy replacement of relation by contract, there are questions here about skills and the management, nurture and development of those skills, which have become a matter of increasing urgency for all those reasons which your Lordships have already heard amply set out.
The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, rightly referred to the weight of multiple disadvantage that presses upon many families these days. I agree wholeheartedly with the identification of that problem and see its effects not least in the challenges that face many parents in the management of stress, anger and conflict. Much of the most important work that can be done in the field of parenting skills is in addressing these issues.
At the same time, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, has reminded us, we face a culture of work that is in many ways inimical to the values we wish to
864
develop. It is, I believe, a fact that fathers of young children work, statistically, the longest hours among our working population. Our attention has already been drawn to this. It is a reminder to us that, while it is perfectly right to think of work as one of the more reliable routes out of poverty, that can only be true in a constructive way and in the long run if our culture of work becomes more humane and less pressurised. I hope that that, too, will be part of our considerations in this area. We are not simply talking about the multiple disadvantage that weighs so heavily on economically less advantaged members of society; we are also looking at the burdens borne by those who are counted prosperous in the world's eyes.
It is because of the increasing awareness of these pressures and conflicts that the level and quality of voluntary contribution to this situation has developed so dramatically in recent years. The noble Baroness, Lady Brigstocke, and the noble Lord, Lord Wright, have drawn our attention to one of the most distinguished essays in voluntary assistance here. I am particularly glad to hear the work of Margaret Harrison referred to, as not only her practical work, but also her research, have proved a benchmark for the understanding of these issues in recent years. It is an area where the life of faith communities and the Christian Churches has become much involved in recent years.
The Mothers' Union has been running a parenting skills programme that, I believe, is currently educating 220 people in parenting skills, of whom nearly a quarter now have professional accreditation. Christian groups have been prominent in many other fields here. There are several names that might be called to mind: FLAME, the Family Life and Marriage Education network; Care for the Family; and the delightfully and aptly named Fathers Direct. I do not believe that it is quite true yet that you can have a mail order arrangement to provide a male parent, but this is a very important contribution to precisely those areas that previous speakers in your Lordships' House have mentioned in this afternoon's debate.
Unprecedented levels of skill and attention have been devoted to this in the voluntary sector. This is where a note of, if not caution, at least concern might need to be sounded. It is always welcome when statutory encouragement and assistance are given to voluntary work in areas such as this. But, as many of your Lordships will realise better than I, the promise of statutory encouragement and assistance can sometimes be something of a Trojan horse. The armed warriors inside brandish their weapons of accreditation and accountability in ways that may be perfectly defensible and yet which create their own problems in discouraging volunteers. Some of the effects of this are already visible in some of those voluntary organisations that I have mentioned.
We need some overview of the situation, able to balance the appropriate level of statutory involvement with a proper flexibility about the volunteer and his or her role. It is in relation to that question of an overview that I make the first of two concluding points that I wish to leave with your Lordships. This has to do with

865
a question that has been ventilated more than once in recent decades. Legislation affecting families and children crosses a wide number of departmental boundaries in government. From time to time, the cry has been raised that it is perhaps time to see some co-ordinating structure that will have that overview of the needs of families and children, which is able to interpret departments to one another and interpret the common mind of government departments to the public at large and turn it into effective action. I hope that that challenge to a co-ordinating role within government will not go unheard.
If I may refer to it in your Lordships' House, the experience in Wales of the development of the role of the Children's Commissioner has again reminded us how very important it can be to have some figure or figures who have that broader role and that broader vision and remit in their work.
Many more things could be said on this subject. I look forward to hearing them from other speakers in the debate, not least the noble Lord, Lord Carey, my distinguished predecessor. But one concluding reflection, which is perhaps particularly timely, is in relation to the way in which faith communities are capable of collaboration in the delivery of parenting skills. Experience in urban south Wales suggested that collaboration between the Churches and the local Muslim communities could break down many barriers of understanding. I suggest to your Lordships that that area is well worthy of further development at a time when relations between faith communities so need reinforcement, cementing and solidifying.
It is a sad fact, and this debate will remind us of it, as many others will, that it is not always shared aspirations that give us the deepest sense of our common humanity—shared problems do that too. The cross-boundary problems affecting faith communities, such as the difficulties of parenting and the management of adolescents, have sometimes proved a major spur to better and fuller co-operation between those faith communities that have a particular investment in the health and nurture of family life.
7 p.m.
Lord Sheppard of Liverpool: My Lords, it is a special delight and privilege to be able to congratulate the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury on his maiden speech. I have for a long time given the greatest value to his teaching and writing and I am delighted that your Lordships have heard him today. He is never pre-packaged but always thought-provoking, bringing fresh thoughts and entering fully into the debate. Your Lordships' House will look forward to many other contributions.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, on introducing the debate. He set the right tone in speaking of encouragement and support. The blame culture has dominated many approaches to parenting for much too long. A community worker told me of a conversation that he had with a local head teacher about a mother whom they both knew. The head
866
teacher said, "She just doesn't care", but the community worker told me that, as it happened, that mother had been in his office that morning saying, "I can't cope". Sometimes people who feel that they cannot cope try to retain their dignity by covering it up with a brassy and aggressive exterior.
Lately I was reminded how fragile parents can feel, when we were given sole charge of our two grandsons, aged four and two, for the whole morning. Would we be able to cope? It reminded me of anxious days when our daughter was growing up.
Parents who have had poor experiences in their own childhood may need intensive and sensitive support. The report to which the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, referred, from the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, rightly warns against assuming that professionals will always know best without listening seriously to parents. Parents need to feel respected and valued.
I had the privilege of being national chairperson of the Family Service Units for 10 years. Each year, I was given a president's visit to one or other unit in the most disadvantaged areas of different cities. A vivid and simple memory is of a unit where there was a playroom where members of staff were down on the floor playing alongside children. Some parents there said that their own parents had never played with them and that they had not known how to begin.
The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, spoke of his visit with the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, to a Sure Start project in Southwark. That programme is under the leadership of the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton. The most reverend Primate spoke of the need for investment; the Government are making a huge investment into that programme. They are halfway in and, in two years, £1.5 billion will have been put into Sure Start. That shows the priority that is being given to young children and their parents.
Sure Start reckons to support families with core local programmes, especially in the most disadvantaged areas. Its focus is especially from pregnancy to four years old, right through until children are 14. It sets out to co-ordinate services that can too easily act in different parts of the forest. One Sure Start project in Liverpool, still in its first year, includes in its team a midwife, a health visitor, a nursery teacher with particular skills in family learning, an adviser in bilingual work, an educational psychologist and someone from adult learning. It is one of four in Liverpool that are up and running, and there should be 10 in the city in two years. I was told that there will be 100 nationally.
Sure Start aims to support parents as parents and in their aspirations to employment. That means enabling access to quality and affordable childcare, allowing mothers to go out to work. Getting into employment is the best way out of poverty for many, and brings more rewards than simply financial ones. Self-confidence begins to flow, which makes a huge difference to parenting. A friend told me that when a mother gets a job and goes to work every morning, children get to school on time.

867
What about fathers? On one large outer estate in Merseyside, I was told that fathers are redundant. To be resigned to that takes away a vital part of a child's upbringing. I hope that Sure Start will build the kind of bridges that bring fathers into the picture too. Men will often help if they are asked to do a job that their skills can offer to a centre, such as repairs or redecorating. On such first bridges of friendly contact, they may dare to acknowledge that they need support in parenting.
In many of the neediest areas, parents have very low horizons. It is all too easy for some parents in the neediest estates to say, "It never did me any harm growing up on this estate, with its culture", and to go on to have low expectations for their children. Building bridges for mothers and fathers brings contact, conversations and ideas that may lift those horizons.
I congratulate my noble friend Lady Ashton and the Government on the priority being given to Sure Start. I hope that its professionals will work at building the bridges with parents to which I have referred. They can be places where self-confidence begins to grow and the proper dignity of parents is guarded.
7.7 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I follow two extremely impressive episcopal speeches, and another one is to come. It is fascinating how the Bishops are spreading around the House. If the present incumbent of the see of Canterbury scores a home run, we shall find the diamond full and one on our benches. That would be a welcome event.
The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, is right in saying that almost all parents want to be good parents. One sees that in the most extreme circumstances. Everyone in the House must recognise what an enormous benefit it is to children and to society at large that parents should be good parents.
There are two principle problem—image and access. The image of parenting education is that it is frankly naff, especially for fathers. The idea of going along to a parenting class strikes horror into most fathers' hearts and does not much appeal to mothers either, in my experience. However, it is possible to tackle that problem.
One sees several excellent examples in the voluntary sector, such as Pippin—the Parents in Partnership-Parent Infant Network—which works in prisons. People from that organisation say that few fathers attend conventional parent-craft classes and that those who do frequently feel out of place. That is certainly accurate, but Pippin is finding ways around that. Another organisation successfully getting round the problem is the Parenting Education and Support Forum, which the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, mentioned and which has pointed out that groups must be rooted in small communities and that leaders must be respected for their integrity. That was echoed by the noble Baroness, Lady Brigstocke, in her speech on Home-Start. I hope that she will add me to the mailing list for that organisation, as I have not had dealings with it to date.
868
I see the same tendency in Safe Ground, the prisons charity with which I am involved, which has just launched its latest venture. "Family Man" is a teaching pack for family skills in the Prison Service. Prisoners are a good example of group of bad parents who have put themselves in an extremely difficult position. It is wonderful to see how proud they become of being involved in such a course, of wearing the t-shirt, telling their fellow prisoners what they are doing and getting involved with their families again. Once one turns the corner of image, one can do a very great deal.
Access is the other problem for most of us. As the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, said, you almost have to be a criminal to get in touch with the available support services. Four months ago, I had the pleasure of becoming a father again. In the process of my wife's pregnancy and subsequently, no one pointed out a parenting class to me. I have learnt a lot today about their availability. However, it is not something that has been on offer to me in any way. It is generally not something that men talk about. I cannot recall having a conversation at a pub or anywhere else about the skills of parenting. So far as one can judge the matter from daytime television—which is something that you get used to when your wife is pregnant—women do not talk much about it either.
So what can the Government do? First, they can avoid being prescriptive. There are lots of different ways of bringing up children well. I remember sitting at the house of my parents-in-law when their friends, who had two young children, came to visit. The children got hold of the butter and the jam and were spreading it all over the furniture and carpets while their parents were sitting back with smiles of approbation on their faces. Those two children grew up to be the most courteous and most thoughtful young people that I know of in that immediate family. The furniture did not fare so well, but the children, despite that type of bringing up, turned out extremely well. There are lots of different ways of doing it. When people grow up in different cultures and different religions and have learned from their pa rents in different ways, you cannot cram them into one mould.
It is important that the Government should encourage lots of different voluntary sector organisations. There are lots of different ways of doing that, but the Government should get behind and encourage them. They should help publicise what is available. They should help spread good practice. As the most reverend Primate said, let us get some real evidence-based research on what works and how it works and spread that round the system. As the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, said, we should revisit the PHSE curriculum. A great deal can be done to involve children in the questions of parenthood. You just need to employ a little drama-based technique. Use a little role play. Get children involved and talking about it. After all, what we want to create for the future is children who will talk about these subjects, who will converse.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, said, we want to deal to some extent with current work practices. It is terribly difficult for a father. I hardly saw anything

869
of my first two children. I was working for an organisation that believed in starting at 8 a.m. and ending at 7 p.m., after which one became involved in the office politics and socialisation. I saw my children at weekends and when they were asleep. Now I have the great privilege of being able to look after my child half time. What I am noticing now is that there is remarkably little support. There is not a creche in this place, for example. I shall have to consult the Clerks on whether I am allowed to carry my child through the Division Lobby if one happens to occur when I am sitting downstairs in the family room.
The Government can do a great deal in setting an example. I have often come across the excellent work that they do in making room in the structures of work for those with disabilities or long-term illnesses. But there is no sign of that when it comes to families. By setting an example in their myriad of employees, the Government could do a great deal to set the tone for the rest of society.
Something can be done in television. I do not know how many noble Lords saw the series by the noble Lord, Lord Winston, in which he touched on some of the problems of raising children and on how parents can be shown to get round the problems that they allow to develop between themselves and their children. Just a little direction and counselling can make an enormous difference. So many of us know only how we were brought up and do not find our way to other things. "The Archers" has an agricultural story editor, but no clear evidence of anyone who understands family problems. Yet that programme has been taken as the worldwide pattern of how to educate people. A great deal can be done by encouraging that type of story line. It helps when the media deal with such matters in a knowledgeable way.
Finally, there are always little things that can be done. Prison can be made a much better place for families. We can stop imprisoning so many women with children; there is almost always a better way of dealing with them. We should look particularly at the number of foreign women whom we send to long prison sentences for drug offences, separating them from their families. Why not—it would be much cheaper—send them home to prison in their home countries? They can keep in at least some contact there.
Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I can draw his attention to a recent incident in the Australian Parliament, in Victoria, where a Member of Parliament was ejected from the Chamber for breast-feeding—not because breast-feeding was of itself illegal but because she had brought an unelected member into the Chamber.
7.16 p.m.
Baroness Greengross: My Lords, I add my congratulations to my noble friend Lord Northbourne on securing this extremely important debate. I add my
870
congratulations also to the most reverend Primate on an absolutely moving and inspiring maiden speech. It was truly a pleasure to listen to him.
I agree with my noble friend about the critical role of parents in bringing up children. It is still largely their responsibility, but many need to learn the skills appropriate to today. Many are also confused by the very many conflicting messages that they get from all sorts of sources. They need confidence to set the boundaries of acceptable behaviour and to use the authority of parenthood. They need to be able to do that without always worrying that what they are doing is wrong. Their responsibilities must be shared with other partners, as the noble Lord said, including schools, the health service and community health workers—especially health visitors, when the children are very young—in order to achieve those goals.
However, the responsibilities of parenthood are also extended to new types of partners today. Many underestimate the influence of mentors and role models. The difficulties can be exacerbated in the new types of families which are very familiar to all of us today. There is a very broad range of step-families, half-siblings and so on. I know of one example in Derby, in a deprived ethnic minority area. Parents from one of those communities decided to go on the school bus every day, where other people's children were running not, breaking windows and causing great harm and damage with their antisocial behaviour. By reasserting their authority as parents in their community, they were able to reverse that behaviour. Most people need help in getting the confidence to do that. They receive such help through an initiative, which I am proud to chair, called the Experience Corps.
Because of the huge increases in longevity that occurred at the end of the 20th century, which are continuing, families are increasingly multi-generational, and they will become even more so. Families are sometimes composed of four or even five generations. Many such families are called "beanpole" families, composed of single parents mothering and grand-parenting more single parents, usually women. People are also often -sandwiched" between the job of parenting children and the other job of looking after frail elderly relatives who are living for much longer.
The huge geographical spread of our families means that the extended families of today are really not like those of a former era. That situation makes parenting extremely complicated. We have to ask ourselves how much responsibility people should have for former relatives and their children who often live far away but whose expectations add to the stress of caring and parenting roles.
Parents have an important role in influencing their children's life course through health, diet and healthy living—a life course approach. If we do not act fast, rising longevity will reverse and today's children could be the first modern generation to live shorter lives than their parents. A recent BMJ report stated that a third of teenagers are overweight and 10 per cent are obese. I mention two examples in that regard. I refer to a well-known large prison where the prisoners' diet was

871
changed and to a large inner-city school where no sweets or fizzy drinks are now available for sale to the children and where anti-social behaviour has been rapidly reversed. There is much less aggressive behaviour and bullying in both those situations.
In The Times of 21st March an article by Camilla Cavendish stated that,
"parents know the life story of Beckham and how to send a text message but not to give their children a basic start in life".
Rather, they allow them to eat poorly, watch TV for hours on end, play on computers and so on. That is exaggerated, but there is more than a grain of truth in it. Such an approach makes life easier for parents who cannot face what they see as the tyranny of their children.
We know also about the importance of sport and drama in bringing out strengths in our children such as the confidence they need to acquire and feelings of self-worth. Yet much of that is no longer available in schools. The Cadbury Youth Sport Trust programme to encourage more children to take part in sport is a good example of a carefully crafted corporate social responsibility initiative. PE needs to be focused on accessible fun games and on sport which does not put off those who have not been brought up in a tradition of sport and team games.
We need to give support to parents and to make wider use of the excellent initiatives that have been mentioned such as Sure Start and Home-Start. Those are wonderful holistic approaches to the care of our young people where it is most needed in the areas of highest deprivation. The potential of citizenship courses in school must also be developed. That is an important initiative. Schools have an important role in enabling foster parents' networks to be set up, building on those established with the first child.
In conclusion, we should congratulate most parents on bringing up their children well, considering the pressures and difficulties they can face. We need to give more help to those who need it most. The Government are prioritising. I too congratulate those programmes which focus on areas of high deprivation and families with special needs.
Timely interventions are incredibly important—the earlier, the better. Preventive programmes are much better than those implemented at times of crisis, whether they involve the physical, social or psychological development of our children.
7.24 p.m.
Lord Rix: My Lords, as a parent and grandparent and, at some distance, a child, I welcome the initiative of my noble friend Lord Northbourne. My particular experience of parenthood is coloured by having a disabled daughter and a disabled grandson. I want, if I may, to focus on that disability dimension.
My noble friend Lord Northbourne asserts that 50 years ago the role of parents was clearly understood in our society. It was certainly clearly understood in the case of parents of learning disabled children with the heady expectation that both parents would be responsible for everything at all times.
872
Our daughter, Shelley, was born with Down's Syndrome in 1951. The obstetrician met me. He began, "Have you ever heard of Mongolism", which I had, albeit vaguely. He continued, "Please tell your wife". That was hardly necessary for the paediatrician, having examined Shelley, visited my wife and said, "I am happy to tell you that your daughter is a mongol". I think he meant that he was happy that he had reached a diagnosis. The combined advice of both those doctors and others was to put Shelley away, to forget her and to start all over again. After the tactful breaking of that news, I phoned the Minister of Health for some help and advice and I received an equally short but tactful—I am sure your Lordships would agree—written response
"You telephoned me about the services available for mentally defective children. I am assuming the mongol child you referred to will not be capable of education within the education system, and will therefore have to be dealt with under the Mental Deficiency Acts".
It was a further 20 years before the Education Act 1970 reversed that disgraceful decision.
Fifty years after our first child was born with Down's Syndrome, our younger son Jonathan and his wife Caroline had a second child, Robbie. By quirk of fate, not heredity, our delightful red-haired grandson also has Down's Syndrome. Jonathan has written something of his experiences as a parent in a book called Learning from each other to be published in the autumn by David Fulton for the Open University. If I may, I shall quote briefly:
"Comments from professionals, friends, family … show how much Robbie is marked out by his syndrome. It is what people see. It is where they begin their thought process … This is not just about comparison with siblings and peers, although there is plenty of that, but it involves targets and lists in every developmental area of his life, and therefore of our lives. In many ways, Robbie has been presented to us … as a syndrome. He is a tick list child. As soon as he was born, the tests began. Is it any wonder if as parents we focus on exemplars that rebut those symptoms? And is it any wonder if sooner or later we come to resent those boxes and the questions behind them?"
Jonathan goes on to present the challenge for parents of disabled children and points out that you need all these tests and labels although they are for the most part so horribly negative, because they pinpoint possibilities for action and open access to benefits and services, or at least they do now; 'twas not always thus.
At the same time, you want your child to be just a child, with all the unknown potential and unimagined possibilities that all children have. Moreover, while Robbie and others may well in time acquire a voice of their own, for many parents the stark reality is a lifetime of interpreting and speaking for their son's or daughter's best interests, particularly those with profound intellectual and multiple disabilities whose parents are virtually on 24-hour watch day in, day out, year in, year out until their extreme old age.
I turn now from real people to firm recommendations. First, can we all try just a little harder to see people with learning disabilities and their parents as natural partners? The Valuing People White Paper was very good in giving equal value to the two groups. The partnership is acknowledged in the education field but listening to parents does not always

873
come easily to some professionals. In education we sometimes seem to want to take the big stick to parents although we have banned that for their children. In particular, during the years of transition, as disabled child moves towards disabled adult, it is good that parents should be surprised by what the young person achieves that they had thought impossible. It is not good that professionals and planners should be surprised by the young person's difficulties and support needs because they could not be bothered to listen to what parents had to tell them in the first place. Please can we capture and record the unique perspective of the parents, especially when the child will never be able to tell their own story and plan their own future?
My daughter inspired me to help make a contribution to the history of learning disability. Inspired by my grandson, my son Jonathan is doing the same thing. We shall watch with great interest to see what the Government say in the next few weeks about parents and families in their first annual report to Parliament on the implementation of the White Paper.
Rights, independence, choice and inclusion—the four key principles of the White Paper—have been the dream of parents for their disabled children for as long as I have been a parent. Please God we will not have to wait another 50 years for that dream to become a reality.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Chan: My Lords, I too congratulate my noble friend Lord Northbourne on securing the debate on the vital role of parents in meeting the needs of their children. I also warmly welcome the maiden address of the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, which was thought-provoking, especially on how Christian organisations help parents. I look forward to his future contributions in the House. It is also a pleasure to congratulate my noble and right reverend friend Lord Carey of Clifton, who will be making his maiden address as a life Peer. I look forward to his words of wisdom. I shall focus my attention on children of parents living in deprived communities.
I come from Merseyside and in particular the Wirral peninsula where one in four people lives in electoral wards that are among the 20 most socially deprived in England. I referred to them when we debated the gracious Speech on 19th November last year. The five electoral wards of Bidston, Birkenhead, Leasowe, Seacombe and Tranmere have the highest proportion of children and the highest frequency of teenage mothers in Wirral. In those districts, the nuclear family frequently comprises a teenage mother with her low-skilled male partner and one or two babies and young children under five years of age. They are dependent on state benefits for housing and basic necessities. Very few of those families come from ethnic minority groups.
874
That rather unpromising setting is where many of our children are raised by their young and inexperienced parents. If we do not support them, we will be guilty of neglect and continuing a cycle of deprivation and inequality. To their credit, the Government have given priority to the family by financial support, through improved child benefit and income-related benefits with the working families' tax credit and children's tax credit.
Flexible working hours will be introduced from April this year to help mothers of children under six years or disabled children to work in order to increase the income of families. I have my doubts about the wisdom of that legislation. Young mothers in Wirral need time to learn how to care effectively for their babies and pre-school children. They should be given the choice to concentrate on being successful mothers in the 21st century.
Above all, the Government should be congratulated on introducing the Sure Start initiative mentioned by my noble friend Lord Northbourne and the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sheppard of Liverpool. It has given support to low-income parents and low-skilled families by working with parents and their children through an integrated childcare service across traditional boundaries of government departments. Its purpose is to transform service delivery and to meet better the needs of children and their parents in vulnerable communities. The Government's longer-term aim is to establish a children's centre in every one of the 20 per cent most disadvantaged wards. I look forward to hearing from the Minister what progress has been made so far, how they will enhance the role of parents, and when we might see those centres established in north-west England.
Like the noble and right reverend Lord. I acknowledge the good work done by Sure Start. In the Wirral, Sure Start projects target mothers and young children in pre-school groups in all five disadvantaged wards. Sure Start staff, who have a variety of professional skills, work with pregnant mothers and their partners, parents and children to help them with parenting skills, good quality childcare and health services. Those services are being extended to ethnic minority families to help them, among other achievements, to acquire English language skills early.
Before Sure Start began, Home Start, which was described by the noble Baroness, Lady Brigstocke, and the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond, had been working with parents and young children in Birkenhead for nearly two decades. The advantage of Sure Start is its availability to many more families and the involvement of statutory services. I take note of what the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury said about that involvement.
There are derelict houses in our disadvantaged wards—some 900 in Wirral—but they are being renovated by the local council. Improved housing does not create a community that supports young families. That can come about only when local residents work with local government through their neighbourhood forum where they meet service providers to discuss their needs.

875
Nutrition and the availability of cheap food is another essential requirement of parents with young children. In Wirral, better quality food and lower prices are available in Birkenhead market rather than in supermarkets. But parents on low incomes have no car and need a reliable public transport service to take them to market to buy food. Buses provide such a service, but they are neither frequent nor regular, even though Birkenhead has Europe's first best-designed bus terminus.
Local health services need to be involved. Poor people have poor health and make more demands on those services than other residents. For young families, health intervention such as encouraging young mothers to breastfeed their babies will succeed only when every young mother has an experienced nurse, mother or midwife who has successfully breastfed her own babies to provide personal support. The public health unit of the Birkenhead and Wallasey NHS primary care trust, of which I am a non-executive director, has begun to work with local service providers and families to improve healthcare to young children and their parents living in our five most disadvantaged electoral wards, but our capacity is limited by financial and human resources.
I look forward to the Minister's response to these issues affecting our young children and their parents living in poverty.
7.37 p.m.
Lord Carey of Clifton: My Lords, a second maiden speech in your Lordships' House is, I suppose, an unusual occurrence, but it happens to be the fate of those who move from the Bench of Lords Spiritual to other sections of the House. However, it affords me the opportunity to express my gratitude not only for the support and friendship of noble Lords during my time as Archbishop of Canterbury, but for the welcome that I have received since re-entering the House as a life Peer. As Archbishop Rowan, the 104th incumbent in the See of Canterbury, will find, this is a very splendid place to be, not only for the friendliness of everyone who works here, but, as he will have already noted, for the quality of the debates and the effort made by everyone to make democracy work.
Whatever we may have achieved before entering the House, we can all re-echo the words of the American farmer who entered his old nag in the prestigious Kentucky Derby. When asked if he thought that his old horse had any chance of winning, he said, "No, not the slightest, but just think of the company he'll be in". In this House, we are in very good company indeed.
However, I think that we will all agree that the best company of all is the human family. The family is by far the most significant factor in developing the social capital that makes any nation great. We are all in the debt of my noble friend Lord Northbourne for introducing the debate and emphasising the importance of parenting. As he indicated, there is much to celebrate about the family, and our debate ought to recognise that fact. Some 80 per cent of dependent children still live in two-parent families in
876
the United Kingdom, and by far the majority of parents seek to be good at the increasingly difficult task of bringing their children up well. That is the good news, and we can and should build on that fact.
However, the word "family", as the most reverend Primate mentioned, is now becoming a portmanteau word for many different types of family associations: singe parents made so by death or divorce: solo parents by choice; and multiple families, in which children may meet several male parents and overlap with several step-siblings. It is when we pause to examine what has happened in our society since the mid-1980s that we might well conclude, as my predecessor has already hinted this evening, that we are witnessing a dramatic cultural revolution that will have profound consequences for future society.
In this quiet yet unmistakable cultural change, two things are happening: we are seeing the undermining of marriage as a contract between two people for life, and we are witnessing fatherless families becoming commonplace. Let us take marriage first, and let me get out of the way my total commitment to the traditional family, comprising a mother and a father in a monogamous relationship with dependent children. As a Christian leader, that is my preferred choice. However, there are many reasons for presenting that view uncompromisingly and without coyness, because its superiority over other forms of relationship are very clear to see. All studies—the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, invited comments on statistics—now point in one direction: lone parents are poorer and are more likely to suffer from stress and other health and emotional problems. Their children have more trouble at school, perform less well academically and are at greater risk of suffering physical and emotional abuse. The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, spoke feelingly about the loneliness of the lone parent.
Similar issues arise when we compare the traditional marriage with cohabitation. Marriage may be less popular these days, but cohabitees fare a lot worse than those who are married. The average cohabited relationship lasts less than two years and fewer than 10 per cent endure, compared with 60 per cent of those who enter marriage. It is sometimes said that it is children who make stable relationships. However, studies show that within five years of the birth of their child, 52 per cent of unmarried parents break up, compared with just 8 per cent of those who marry.
Central to those statistics is the absent father in the family relationship. We must note and celebrate that this coming Sunday is Mothering Sunday, when we emphasise the centrality of the mother in the heart of the family. That is good to celebrate. However, we must also acknowledge the importance of the father in bringing up his children. Again, the statistics tell a sorry tale, although there is no point in dwelling on them at length. In brief, the absent father suffers from separation from his children but the children fare far worse because there is no male role model to share the responsibility of guiding them into adulthood. The puzzle, whenever one is confronted by any social or

877
cultural change that threatens to undermine society, is: what can we do collectively about it? I offer two reflections.
First, even though we should and must support different forms of family relationship, as a nation we should be more vigorous in affirming the importance of the traditional family and seek to restore the cultural importance of life-long monogamous marriage. We should be unafraid to emphasise its emotional, economic and health benefits and seek to share that knowledge with teenagers who are on the brink of forming relationships which may make or break them.
Secondly, the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, is surely right to call for a closer partnership between the Government, parents, schools and voluntary organisations. The Government have already given a lead through such initiatives as Sure Start and the Lord Chancellor's Fund. We salute and applaud that. We should also celebrate the work of so many organisations that are doing such a wonderful sacrificial job. However, such organisations could do far more if more resources were at hand to help them. When I compare the social cost of broken families, which is said to be in the region of £15 billion, with the amount of money that is at the discretion of the Lord Chancellor, which I understand is £5 million, the latter seems derisory. If I may be allowed in this maiden speech to direct a question at the Minister, it is this: bearing in mind the social capital that healthy family life contributes to the nation and the economic costs of family break-up, is there any possibility that more funds could be made available to the voluntary societies that are at present hindered in their work by lack of resources? Does the Minister agree with the view of Mary MacCleod, chief executive of the National Family and Parenting Institute, that:
"We need to offer specialist help to more families much earlier and recent studies issue a challenge to Government to increase the resources for family support"?
Families are the basic, foundational units in any society. It is therefore in everyone's interests to help to create the most healthy environment in which they can flourish.
7.46 p.m.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, it gives me very real pleasure to follow the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Carey of Clifton, and to be the first to congratulate him most warmly. My congratulations are twofold. First, I welcome him on his return—or his rebirth, one might say, in light of the topic being discussed—to this House and on his arrival on these Benches. We are indeed happy and proud to have him. Secondly, I am sure that the whole House appreciated the wisdom and humanity of his perceptive second maiden speech. On a personal note, I say that the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Carey, is someone to whom I owe a very special debt for having given me the rewarding opportunity to serve as chairman of the Archbishop's Commission on
878
Cathedrals, and for his personal friendship and support thereafter. I am sure that all noble Lords look forward to hearing him on many occasions.
I also thank my noble friend Lord Northbourne for securing this debate. He has been long at it. The subject is one close to his heart and I am delighted to have an opportunity to participate in this debate.
The case for supporting, valuing and applauding families in their vitally important role as parents could not be stronger. None of us is necessarily born a good parent. We can, however, all benefit from and be grateful for expert help. I can certainly remember—like most young, and inevitably vulnerable, mothers—being absolutely delighted to see the health visitor. Being visited at home and being able to drop into a centre that was pretty well on your doorstep and which was full of colourful and stimulating experiences for young children and their parents—such as the impressive Sure Start pilot schemes which the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, and I visited today and last week—must add value, enjoyment and confidence to parents and children alike, whatever their background.
Facilities such as those would, as I said, be valuable for any families from averagely supportive backgrounds. Other noble Lords have already made that point. But they are much more valuable for parents and children, especially single parents from deprived backgrounds, whose own parenting role models may, in any case, have been poor or non-existent.
That is why I, like the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sheppard of Liverpool, find it especially encouraging that the Government are giving increased attention and extra financial resources—perhaps even more are needed—to less affluent areas around the country to enable local Sure Start partnerships to be set up.
The challenge will be, as it tends to be with many other initiatives, to see that it is rolled out equally well in all local authority areas. The emphasis—what is so good about Sure Start—is on partnership. It is about joined-up government in practice, with local authority, health, education and social services joined by voluntary organisations, of which I am sure Home-Start is one, and crucially, parents and grandparents—all of them involved in planning, implementing and deciding the priorities of the scheme. It appears that involving dads will be a challenge that has yet to be achieved.
Even more important than Sure Start from the perspective of my noble friend Lord Northbourne is that Home-Start operates from before birth right through to 14 years. As he has repeatedly stressed, help and support during pregnancy and the early months of a child's life can make a crucial difference to the child's later physical and mental health, development and behaviour. The need for support will not, of course, stop when a child reaches the age of 14. I am glad to see that the plan is to ensure continuing support by linking Sure Start to services for older children.

879
Equally important for community cohesion is the scheme's potential for the prevention of anti-social behaviour. One USA study—the US was ahead with schemes such as this—concluded that crime and violence could be greatly reduced by assuring vulnerable families access to school-readiness childcare programmes. If we look at the total cost of crime in the UK, which amounted to £60 billion in 1999–2000, it is clear that, as the report Delivering for children and families states, even a modest percentage reduction would have a large impact.
Many years ago, when campaigning for increased out-of-school recreational facilities, most schools were reluctant to play a greater role in providing community facilities out of school hours. Thankfully that is changing but, alas, not yet everywhere. With only 5 per cent of day nurseries so far based in schools and a falling birth rate—that is not the case everywhere, but nevertheless it is a falling birth rate—as the report states, there should indeed be both space and financial saving if more of the planned facilities for Sure Start projects could be housed in schools. An added advantage would be that parents and pre-school children would be more comfortable with, and feel less threatened by, familiar premises and staff when the time came for the children to start full-time schooling.
In the current debate about how to ensure that more children from disadvantaged backgrounds qualify for higher education, the universities and the White Paper point to the continued failure of schools to produce better results from children from less affluent backgrounds. Only 19 per cent, compared with 43 per cent from the higher socio-economic groups, have attained the required standards on moving to secondary education. So, once again, more resources and top-quality teachers are essential in these same Sure Start areas if more children with academic potential are to get to university without the kind of reverse discrimination that so many people find distasteful.
If we are not all born good parents, there is still far more that we can do throughout a child's life to emphasise how vital and how valuable to society as a whole his own parenting role will be when he, in turn, becomes a parent. Your Lordships need to be sure that enough emphasis is given to all aspects of parenting in the citizenship courses which are now part of the national curriculum.
I close by returning to the one single area where greater support is needed: high-quality, affordable childcare. That is even more essential for single parents and those with little income. It is important for government to achieve their target of getting 70 per cent of single mothers back into work by 2010 and of halving the number of children living in poverty. But it is also important in giving parents that vital choice of whether to work or to study for a later return to the labour market or, indeed, to stay for the present a full-time parent.
There has been progress, but, even now, 22 per cent of two-parent families and 29 per cent of single-parent families cannot find what they want when they want it.
880
Childcare should be geared increasingly to fit individual needs. What I would call "wrap around" childcare should be available during pre and post-nursery school hours to enable parents to work part-time, do shift work—whatever the hours—work or study in today's more flexible marketplace.
To match that, employers should have part-time work and flexible working hours far more tightly wired into the norm of their workplace practices. In other words, much more emphasis should be placed on employers providing family-friendly employment patterns for both women and men. Those patterns should not only form part of their social responsibility programmes—important as those are—but should be built into their own competitive, economic "bottom-line" thinking.
As for the rest of us, we need to show how, as a community and as individuals, we value and applaud the job that today's parents are doing in raising tomorrow's citizens. On a purely selfish note, your Lordships will be relying on them to ensure a relatively tranquil old age.
7.56 p.m.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow my noble friend Lady Howe of I dlicote. I could not agree more with so much of what she said. No doubt she is aware of the recent research published in the US which followed up the longitudinal study taken from 1951 in which two groups of children—one a control group—received high-quality childcare early in their lives. They had greater access to higher education, were healthier and less likely to smoke. There was a very positive outcome.
I am most grateful, too, to my noble friend for again calling our attention to the subject of parents. If I may say so, in his consistency he reminds me of a good parent who always keeps his child in mind.
I shall concentrate my remarks on childcare. The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health report, Helpful Parenting, concludes:
"A choice of affordable, high-quality, non-parental care with carers who can replicate the intimate and familiar care of confident parents, and who can engage with the parents and get on well with them is essential to support helpful parenting".
My observations will be informed by my regular visits to the Anna Freud Centre—a centre of excellence in the training of child psychotherapists. As many noble Lords have noted, and paid tribute to, Her Majesty's Government have taken a strong interest in improving the quality of early years provision. They have formulated the first national childcare strategy since the period of the Second World War.
Sure Start programmes have taken a welcome multidisciplinary approach in focusing provision in our most deprived areas on the first years of a child's life and even before birth. The Government have recently introduced new guidance—Birth to three matters—A framework to support children in their earliest years. They have given clear responsibility for early years provision to the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton of Upholland, and, importantly, have thus moved the early years portfolio to education.

881
As many noble Lords have said, Her Majesty's Government are now developing the use of children's centres—institutions which provide a range of professional services for children and parents. I welcome the important steps that the Government have taken, and I hope that their achievements may be adopted and sustained by future governments of whatever political persuasion.
The Daycare Trust recently arranged for the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, and myself to visit the Stepping Stones Nursery, run by Westminster Children's Society—a short walk from your Lordships' House. We learnt that at that nursery the same staff team has been in place for the past four years. That stability was attributed to the good training and general professional development provided to staff at the nursery.
Within the staff team there is both a member qualified to assess and a member qualified to train others for the National Vocational Qualification level 3 in childcare. Stepping Stones Nursery can therefore ensure that the training is of a consistently high quality. Furthermore, there is a highly experienced operations manager at the head office who provides effective supervision to the nurse manager.
I am advised that a secure attachment by an infant to a particular adult is crucial to a child's successful development. John Bowlby is the psychoanalyst who coined the term "secure attachment" in the 1960s. His understanding is now much employed in the care of children. A child with a secure attachment knows that there is one principal adult available to him, an adult who keeps him in mind and is able to meet the child's emotional and physical needs.
It was highly disconcerting therefore to learn from the nurse manager that there is a high turnover of workers in early years care. I believe the turnover is 25 per cent each year. The nursery manager described her dismay when she interviewed nurse officers from other organisations and found them unable to answer basic questions on health and safety matters.
My understanding is that the early years workforce is suffering from years of disrespect, of lack of attention to training and development and of low pay. Staff are now being drawn off into local Sure Start programmes and into work as teaching assistants in schools. Rising house prices in many areas is making the work, even for those with a vocation, unviable. As a consequence, such workers may lack the capacity to ensure that children in their care experience a secure attachment. That is my concern.
A child who has not experienced such an attachment may become less able to concentrate when he enters primary school and may be less able to manage his feelings; for instance, feelings of anger or sadness. It may be that much of the behaviour that the Youth Justice Board, our schools and our health service seeks to manage in adolescence, and increasingly earlier, is due to the failure to form secure attachments in early childhood. Without the experience of such an
882
attachment in early childhood children may be less likely to grow into adults who can act as good enough parents for their own children.
I have two questions for the Minister. What are Her Majesty's Government doing to ensure that children placed in childcare provision, particularly from birth to three years old, experience secure attachment? Are the Government ensuring that the principle of assigned workers—workers assigned to a particular child—and the principle of considering the need to understand the behaviour of a child, rather than merely cleaning and minding the child, permeate early years provision?
It is vital that we provide parents with childcare in which they can have confidence, especially from birth to three years old. I welcome Her Majesty's Government's achievement, but there is still much more work to be done to provide access to consistently good quality childcare in the early years.
8.3 p.m.
Lord Warner: My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, for initiating the debate. It has provided the opportunity to hear two distinguished maiden speeches. I was reassured to hear words like "resources" and "investment" appearing in those speeches because they are subjects extremely dear to my heart. I shall say more about them later.
I declare an interest as chairman of the Youth Justice Board—my day job. In that capacity I know only too well that it is the family circumstances of young people that are one of the three main predictors of offending behaviour. Parents and parenting skills are critical to success in preventing offending and antisocial behaviour by children.
I helped the Government to write their 1998 Green Paper on Supporting Families. From that time I well remember the memorable remark of Dr Mia Kellmer Pringle:
"Modern parenthood is too demanding and complex a task to be performed well merely because we have all once been children".
How much more complex and demanding has become the role of today's parents since that remark made in the 1970s. We have the reconstitution of families with new adult relationships for our children to handle; dual-earning parents trying to balance work and home; huge rises in one-parent families and child poverty; and greater social mobility with more families separated intergenerationally. Within that complex web of social change too often we forget the additional relentless pressures of commercialism, advertising and television on today's parents and children. Even the most confident and skilled parents struggle to establish socially constructive values in their children where the "must have" individualism of the other pressures is so strong.
To illustrate that, perhaps I can quote from some recent research that the Youth Justice Board commissioned on interviews with young street robbers. Some said quite openly that they stole items like mobile phones, often from other children, because they were "must have" items that defined them in their

883
capacity to participate in today's society. Helping those children to see the world differently presents a real challenge to many parents today.
Yet we have been slow to see parenting and parenting skills as something in which we should invest. For too long we have seen the area as the preserve of the individual and of groups and unsuitable for intervention by the state and public agencies other than at the time of birth and, to a more limited extent, in the early years. The Government deserve great credit for being bolder than many of their predecessors in funding tax credit schemes for low-income families, on the establishment of the National Family and Parenting Institute, the Sure Start scheme, which others have mentioned, and the expansion of parenting programmes and support through organisations like Parentline and the work of the Youth Justice Board.
There is still a long way to go and far too little of the work relates to helping parents in the difficult teenage years. The latest quarterly analysis of calls to Parentline, shows that the top two reasons, by some distance, for calling Parentline were the challenging behaviour of a child and the emotional state of a child. In nearly 80 per cent of cases it was the oldest child in the family causing concern and mainly in the early teenage years. Belatedly, we are finding that providing support can produce beneficial outcomes. Since 1999 the Youth Justice Board has been funding parenting programmes provided through youth offending teams. One may ask why. We were implementing some of these programmes because no one else was. In an evaluation of 3,000 parents who participated in the programmes in 1999–2000, over 90 per cent said they would recommend the programmes to others, even though many were actually on them as a result of a court making a parenting order. They reported improved communications with their children, improved supervision, a reduction in family conflict and better relationships with all the children in their family.
In the year, following a short eight to 10-week group programme, there was a 50 per cent reduction in the number of offences by children causing the parent to be on the programme in the following year. So, for very low investment, there was a huge benefit in those family dynamics and to society as a whole.
Those are the results from late intervention. How much better it would be to make these programmes more widely and easily available without having to threaten people with parenting orders. We will still need parenting orders—or the threat of them—for some, but these low-cost, mainly group programmes are some of the best investments the Government can make.
I would encourage the programme to invest more in this area of parenting support programmes. The forthcoming Green Paper on children at risk provides the Government with the opportunity to set out a bolder strategy on support for parents from the first 12 months of life onwards. We know that early child/parent bonding is critical. We need more home
884
visitation in the early days, easier access for parents to help and support at times of crisis during the school years, and particular help during the teenage years.
We badly need a more coherent strategy for investing in parenting help and support if we want to reduce the number of children at risk and curb the growth of antisocial and offending behaviour in the teenage years. Of course parenting orders may be required for some, but the great majority of people want to do a better job in bringing up their children and many need more easily accessible help and support programmes on a voluntary basis.
8.10 p.m.
Baroness Blood: My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, for this timely debate. Families are the key to our communities and our society, and parents are the linchpin that holds families together. They are the first educators and carers of their children and as such they have a right to expect support and encouragement from the state. The future of our society depends upon the success of parents in bringing up children and it is the foundation upon which good citizens and secure societies are built.
Yet, we increasingly see parents under stress. I refer to the competing demands of work and home, the changing nature of families and family structures, and parents who find themselves struggling to keep up with the world in which their children are living; and growing. The changes and opportunities that come with technological advances bring challenges to the normal values with which those parents themselves grew up. In that respect, Northern Ireland is no different. We can easily see evidence of the changing context and shape of families.
At 28 per cent of the total population, children and young people under 18 form a higher percentage of the population in Northern Ireland compared to other areas in Britain. We also have a higher percentage of households with young children under the age of five—17 per cent of all households compared to 13 per cent here in Britain; and an overall higher percentage of households with dependent children—30 per cent compared to 25 per cent. So the issues of parenting and parental support are particularly important for us.
Northern Ireland has, however, not been immune from other social changes that have impacted on parents. We have—at 23 per cent—a higher percentage of lone parents than Britain as a whole, which has 21 per cent, and an increasing number of women working both full and part time. Stresses such as poverty continue to have a huge impact on families in Northern Ireland, with 40 per cent of all children under 16 in Northern Ireland living in poverty.
A group of projects which work with parents and children in Northern Ireland has recently undertaken a consultation with parents on the issues that are important to them. They identified a number of key areas that cause concern. The majority of parents were concerned at the increased access to, and awareness of, drugs and alcohol among children and young people.

885
They felt they needed more support and information to deal generally with this issue and more specialist help if their child became involved in taking drugs.
Sectarianism and conflict in Northern Ireland was of particular concern to parents. Many of the communities most affected by the conflict have been excluded from the benefits of the ongoing peace process and many of these communities feel marginalised and isolated. An example of that—I know that your Lordships' House took a particular interest—was the Holy Cross issue, when we were trying to get some settlement to the issue from both sides of the conflict. Two issues that emerged from our consultation with groups were support for parenting and early years provision. Is that not odd in a conflict where every night there was rioting?
These communities also continue to suffer from inter-community violence. Parents often felt they were unable to protect their children or keep them safe in the way that they might wish. The trauma associated with the ongoing levels of violence also affected parents' and children's experience and hopes for the future.
Even for those parents not bringing up children in interface areas, the issue of sectarianism and its impact was of concern. Many parents felt that little help or support was available for them to address the issue. When Barnado's and Save the Children recently published a booklet about talking to children about prejudice and discrimination, the demand from parents for the booklet was overwhelming.
Parents identified technological advances as a cause of concern. They were aware of the dangers of the Internet, but felt ill-equipped to know how best to protect their children. Lack of access to computers and technology also caused a divide between families with the resources to make best use of them and those unable to afford them or without the necessary skills to use them.
Access to education and ensuring that their children had the best educational opportunities were of vital concern to parents. Parents sometimes feel that it is difficult to engage with their children's education or that they lack the appropriate knowledge and information to guide them.
Many parents who contributed to the consultation were parents of a disabled child or young person. One consistent theme was the sense that life with a disabled child was a constant struggle due to lack of support. The experience of many families was of a continual fight just to get access to basic service provision or information for their child. In fact, parents identified that struggle for services, rather than the demands involved in caring for their child, as the main issue.
Parents also felt that discrimination on the basis of their child's disability was rife in society—in education, the health service, local youth and community provision, future opportunities for education and employment, and generally, through society's low expectations of the potential of young disabled people.
886
Parents are probably under more stress than at any time in our history and need much support and encouragement; yet they remain of the same key importance to children as ever. Many parents felt that they received little or no preparation or training for one of the most important roles that they will ever undertake. The vast majority of parents said that they would be more than interested in ongoing access to parental advice, information, support and training.
Most first-time parents attend ante-natal classes, but they cover only pregnancy and birth. The opportunity could be taken to cover the first year of the child's life and what parents should expect in terms of the child's development at different ages and stages during the crucial first year. Researchers also tell us that those children most likely to be smacked are aged under one. That indicates a lack of information on child development and a misinterpretation by some parents of normal child behaviour as "naughty".
Education and information can make a real difference to parental stress levels and children's experience of childhood. My experience of being involved in an early-years project for many years shows the extent of the difference that education and information can make to both parents and children.
In Northern Ireland, we are eagerly awaiting the development of a children's strategy and we hope that this opportunity will be taken to highlight the need for a family support strategy and to ensure that the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety develops and resources such a strategy. When the Government introduced, consulted on and debated the Supporting Families policy, Northern Ireland did not. We have never taken an opportunity to focus on how parents and families might best be supported to undertake their role.
The lack of a clear, well resourced strategy can be seen in local communities across Northern Ireland. Services are primarily delivered by voluntary and community organisations on shoe-string budgets, while statutory services remain under pressure and more firmly focused on sharp-end child protection.
That situation is made worse not only by the lack of a coherent family support policy but by the continual under-spending on family and child care. Northern Ireland spends 30 per cent less per capita on family and childcare services than England. That is despite the fact that we have a significantly higher percentage of children in need. I urge the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety at home to consult on, develop and resource a coherent family support strategy as the first step to enable parents in Northern Ireland to undertake their parenting role as effectively as possible.
While pointing up the lack of a strategy, there have however, been some welcome individual developments. The introduction of Sure Start has provided some much needed support in local communities. However, much still needs to be done. I have been interested to hear Peers speak about Sure Start 0–14. In Northern Ireland, we are still at the 0–three stage.

887
We welcome the initiatives that have been undertaken by the Northern Ireland Executive to support children and families, including the Children's Fund and the creation of our Children's Commissioner. However, some schemes are notably missing from Northern Ireland, including Sure Start Plus and Connexions, which would be very welcome.
I know that my time is up, so I shall go to the end of my speech. For parents who are wholly dependent on social security, the replacement of Social Fund loans with grants would make a singularly substantial difference to the quality of life for both parents and children. I know from my experience of families the difficulties of managing on benefits. Social Fund loans create an additional burden on an already inadequate weekly income. I urge the Government to reconsider their position on this issue and to act to ensure that we do not reduce further the already basic income on which many families and children exist.
Overall, it is crucial that we recognise that to secure the future of our society, we put children first. A crucial element in doing that is to put parents first and to provide the kind of support and resources that will make a real difference in the lives of parents and children.
8.20 p.m.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, how grateful we all are to my noble friend Lord Northbourne for introducing the subject of families at this particular time. And what an interesting debate it has been. The only problem is that with each speech my own speech has become shorter and shorter, as I cross out something already said by someone else. Also, the Chamber has become emptier and emptier.
It must surely be a record to have two maiden speeches by what I can only describe as an absolute blessing of Archbishops. I should particularly like to congratulate my noble and right reverend friend Lord Carey on his second maiden speech in this House, and I agreed with everything that he said.
After God, of course, families—I use the word traditionally—are the basis of all that really matters in this world. At a time of war when there are so many orphans, we find ourselves thinking of them, and of the parents that they have lost, with so much love and sorrow in our hearts. And of course we think of our own families and of our own parents. Many of us in this House are already orphans. My daughter says that one cannot count as an orphan over the age of 16. All the same, I do so count myself, and so particularly enjoy the friendship of those who knew either of my parents. This has been a bad time of year for orphans—my daughter-in-law lost her bright and beautiful mother. My nephews and niece lost their active and jolly father, and my noble friend the Chief Whip lost his own father. We all cherish and love our parents, and we all feel lost and abandoned without them, however old we are.
Being a parent is not a sinecure. It can mean a great deal of hard work—I do not just mean nappies. Years ago when my children were young, someone once
888
asked me what was important in bringing up a child. "The important thing is to love them", I said. One of my children overheard this and said, "What Mum means is saying 'No', and going on and on about everything all the time". "Yes, it is", I agreed. "Doing all those things is a bore, and if I did not love you, I should not bother". A child is like a dog—for life and not just for Christmas.
Incidentally, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, should know that there is a families' room at the Peers' Entrance; that the refreshment staff in the Peers' Dining Room are very good at playing with small children, and have so with my grandchildren; that there is a plot afoot to provide two high chairs in the Peers' Dining Room; and that the Doorkeepers are absolutely brilliant at explaining things to slightly older children.
Being a parent and, indeed, a grandparent, is an enormous pleasure. It comes very high on one's list of blessing to count. Last month, I was in an aeroplane which appeared to have difficulty in getting its wheels down and we were flying around for over two hours before making an emergency landing. I was sitting beside a doctor and we spent the time so happily talking of our children, and also my grandchildren, that we hardly noticed two hours had elapsed. We were counting our blessings. She did not have grandchildren yet, but she had delivered over 1,000 babies.
At the moment, we are all praying for our brave servicemen and women. Our hearts are with them all the time and with the families that they have left behind. We pray for all the orphans and widows, British, American and Iraqi. And we hope that they will all find much love and comfort from their own families.
8.25 p.m.
Baroness Greenfield: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the most reverend Primate and the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Carey, on their valuable and powerful contributions to the debate. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, for giving the House the opportunity to debate this important issue.
Many noble Lords have alluded to the importance of the environment on the developing brain. As a neuroscientist, I root and endorse that view in the bump and grind of brain cells. You are born with most of the brain cells you will ever have. It is the growth of the connections between the brain cells that accounts for the growth of the brain after birth. What is exciting is that the environment will influence the configuration of those connections. So even if you are clone—that is, an identical twin—you will have a unique pattern of brain cell connections.
Genes play a part. I do not wish to denigrate genes; I merely wish to put them, despite all the hype, literally in their place. Genes make proteins, which are important biochemical baggage for brain cell circuits to work. But they are not a one-off; they are constantly being activated or switched off according to the caprices of the environment, whether it is the micro-milieu of the brain itself or the external environment in which you are moving.

889
Hence your Lordships will appreciate that it is impossible to make the old and hackneyed division between nature a nurture. Rather we should think of a dialogue, an interaction, where there is no genetic controller orchestrating events but a ceaseless interaction between the environment and the molecular landscape of the brain. What is important is that the environment can determine how that landscape looks.
Let me take, for example, what may seem to be a counter-example. The condition Huntingdon's Chorea—named after the Greek for "to dance"—is so-called because it is characterised by a wild involuntary flinging of the limbs in a grotesque form of dance. The reason for choosing this example is that it is one of the few brain disorders that can be attributed to a single rogue gene. However, we know that even in mice that have had their genes tweaked so that they have the single rogue gene—they have the mouse equivalent of this movement disorder—the onset and severity of the disease can be offset. It can be made much more moderate and come along much later in their lives if they have a so-called enriched environment. For a mouse this means a few little ladders and toys with which they interact.
We know that adult rats exposed to ladders and toys and a so-called enriched environment will have more connections in their brains. The brain cells have more branches, which enable the brain cells to form more connections than their counterparts kept in simpler conditions. If this is the case for adult rodents playing with a few little ladders and wheels, how much more for the human brain?
The most marvellous aspect of being born a human being is that you are freed-up more than any other animal from the tyranny of your genes; you are freed-up from having to obey instinct. That is why we, as a species, occupy more ecological niches than any other species on earth. It is because we are supremely able, compared to any other species, to learn that we are freed-up from the demands of instinct. And if you have individual experiences, guess what? You become an individual.
We are born into the world, in the words of the 19th century psychologist William James, "as a booming, buzzing confusion". We evaluate it in terms of its primary sensory qualities—how sweet, how fast, how cold, how bright—but gradually these abstract sensations will coalesce into faces and objects. Gradually, as we get language, those faces and objects will acquire a name, a label. If they mean something to us they will feature in certain events in our lives that become memories. The more they feature, the more connections they will trigger and the more deep their significance to us will become.
As this happens, we personalise our brains; we develop a mind. It is this learning, this ability to see one thing in terms of another, that I regard as understanding. Far from being some airy fairy alternative to the squalor of the physical brain, I see the mind as the personalisation of the brain.
890
It is these personalised connections, sadly, which can be dismantled by conditions such as Alzheimer's Disease. As your Lordships may know, in such degenerative conditions the patient will gradually recapitulate childhood; gradually the world will mean less and less and gradually the patient will retreat back into the booming and buzzing confusion, where even people and objects that were very dear and close to the patient are no longer recognised.
The point I am trying to make is that the competence of our brains, of our mental abilities, rests on the integrity and the extent and number of our brain connections. It is these connections which, in turn, are dependent on the experiences we have in the world.
Noble Lords may have heard of a fascinating study recently undertaken with London taxi drivers. It is of course well known that London black cab drivers learn the "knowledge"; they have to remember all the streets of London in order to navigate about without using references. This is a huge burden on that particular ability, but it turns out that the brain scans of London taxi drivers, when compared with people of like age, show an enhanced area related to memory. That part of the brain is larger in taxi drivers than it is in other people. The fact is not lost on our London taxi drivers, most of whom have heard of the study. It is not the case that London taxi drivers are predisposed to having larger areas in this part of their brains. The longer someone works as a taxi driver, the more marked is the difference.
You do not have to be a London taxi driver to display plasticity in this way. It has been shown that non-piano players exposed for only five days to learning five-finger piano exercises will show an enhanced territory in the areas of their brains related to the digits than will the so-called controls. More remarkable still is that those who were asked simply to imagine that they were playing the piano demonstrated a similar structural change. I gather the same applies to golf. Apparently if you imagine that you are going to play golf and think about the golf swings, then when finally you go on to the course, you will find that you are more competent than would otherwise be the case.
Those examples shoot down the old dichotomy of mind and brain and show that the most airy of mental events actually does have a physical home among the connections. Not only can we see that this breaks down the barriers of nature and nurture, of mind and brain, and of the physical and mental, but every thought we have, however seemingly insubstantial and refined, has a physical base in the brain. It is therefore important to realise the huge power that the environment will have on our children, and in particular the parents who feature in that environment, because they will quite literally be leaving a mark on the brain.
8.31 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I should like to join other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, on initiating what has

891
been a really excellent debate. We have been privileged to hear a number of extraordinarily interesting speeches. Perhaps I may also congratulate the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury on a thoughtful and thought-provoking maiden speech. I congratulate too the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Carey of Clifton, on his "second" maiden speech, which I also very much enjoyed.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Greenfield, has just explained, the way in which we bring up our children is also the way in which we pass on our culture from one generation to another. How we as parents behave towards our children plays a vital part in the way in which they, in turn, will behave towards others. In society as a whole we have seen something of a crisis in regard to anti-social behaviour. Surveys of local populations often show that the issues which rise to the top are those affecting the neighbourhood. Worries are expressed about hooliganism, wanton vandalism, graffiti, petty crime and litter.
I shall turn to the area in which I spend most of my working life—education. Ofsted reports show that one in 12 secondary schools is seriously disrupted by bad behaviour. Four out of five secondary school pupils say that their classes are disrupted, often just by one or two pupils in the class. The same problems are being seen increasingly in our primary schools. What are termed as EBD children—emotionally and behaviourally disturbed children—form the most rapidly increasing category with special educational needs. Such children often exhibit violence, bad behaviour and bad language not only towards their peers, but also towards their teachers. Every day, over 50,000 children stay away from school without permission. Truancy sweeps that are carried out from time to time indicate that many of those children are in fact out with their parents.
The problems of hooliganism have often been discussed in this House. One of the four principal factors is the breakdown of family relations, a matter that we have dealt with in considerable detail. Between the ages of one and 16 years, four out of 10 children will experience family breakdown. The noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, mentioned the increasing incidence of what are called "beanpole families". Teenage mothers have children who themselves become teenage mothers. Over time, the family works out as an extended female line.
Poverty affects one in four children in this country—although, as the noble Lords, Lord Warner and Lord Chan, among others said, the Government's initiatives have done a great deal and have helped to alleviate childhood poverty.
Poor housing is linked to marriage break-up and poverty. There is, as everyone knows, a lack of good rented accommodation for those on low incomes.
Poor physical and mental health in parents are, again, linked to poverty and family breakdown, but with knock-on effects: one in 10 children themselves suffer from mental health problems.
892
As well as those four generally recognised features of the problems of family break-up, bad behaviour and so forth there is the problem mentioned by my noble friend Lady Thomas; namely, the problem of the work culture, and the fact that so many parents do not have time to spend with their children these days.
It is something of a vicious circle. Children who are abused verbally and physically at home tend to reciprocate when they are frustrated—hence the five year-olds in primary schools who hit out and swear when they do not get their own way. But it is not just the parents who are to blame. As the work of Michael Rutter at the Institute of Education has shown over the years, there are many other influences on children: peer group influences; the school; and, increasingly, the pressures of commercialism and TV—a point mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Warner. That underlines the importance of early intervention, of trying to break those habits before they become ingrained.
It is important to remember that one of the features of the Head Start experiment in the United States—which in many senses was the prototype for Sure Start in this country—was early intervention. The experiment indicated the so-called "sleeper" effect; namely, the intervention when children were young sometimes did not show up until the later years, but there was changed behaviour in those teenage years. The young people who had been through Head Start had fewer brushes with the law; they had a later start in terms of sexual activity; and there were fewer teenage pregnancies.
We have talked a great deal about Sure Start, and rightly so. The noble Baroness, Lady Brigstocke, and the noble Lord, Lord Wright, mentioned Home-Start. I am not certain whether Home-Start developed out of a post-Plowden experiment in the late 1960s called the Red House experiment. Head Start in the United States was based on the Red House experiment, where for the first time there was a bringing together of the day care centre, people going out visiting parents and teaching them how to play with children, how to have a toy library, and teaching them to read books to children. All those elements were brought together, and proved to be extremely valuable.
It is sad that the lessons from the Red House experiment, Head Start and Home-Start were so long in taking root in this country. It is extraordinary that it took until the mid-1990s, when the present Government came to power, for us to put down firm roots in terms of Sure Start. The Sure Start programme is now doing excellent work. But we must remember that it is not spread that widely. It is planned that it should work only in the 20 per cent most deprived wards in this country. Yet we are well aware of the fact that there is much deprivation in other areas; there are pockets of deprivation even in well-to-do middle-class areas such as Guildford. It is perhaps dangerous to concentrate the work too narrowly.
I want to put in a word for teenagers. A great deal of work is now being done to help parents in the early years. As the noble Lord, Lord Warner, said,

893
intervening early is essential. Yes, the earlier we can teach parents how to look after children, the better. That is an excellent approach. But there are very real problems in the teenage years. Are we doing enough in those years? Peer group pressure is very strong at that stage. It is necessary to provide teenagers with counselling on behaviour management—how to resolve disputes without violence, learning to work with and listen to others. The Connexions programme and mentoring are growing in importance in providing the ear of a sympathetic adult. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, asked, what place is there in the curriculum for parenthood and parenting? We also need to look at exclusion programmes and make quite sure that those who are excluded from school continue their education in one form or another and that we minimise the number of exclusions.
Are we doing enough to help teenage parents? The National Family and Parenting Institute has done a survey of what parents need. It came to the conclusion that many parents needed help but not, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said, prescriptive help. They were wary of the professionals and needed more help from basic family support networks. They would take advice from the TV and women's magazines but were fed up with being given lots of glossy pamphlets.
Too many local authorities have practically closed down youth activities, because they are non-statutory services, at a time when budgets have been extremely pressed. Looking after older people and children who need protection has used up all the budgets of these statutory services. We need to think much more seriously about youth services, the role of the school in extended school times, keeping schools open, after-school sports—much of that provision has now disappeared—after-school clubs and homework clubs. Furthermore, many such children do not have access to computers at home, so they should be able to go into school and use the computers there. All these options should be given greater prominence than at present.
Is there really enough joined-up thinking across the various sectors? What role are the proposed children's centres likely to have in relation to the children's trusts proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Laming? What has happened to the DfES behaviour improvement projects? Do they continue? Are they being tracked? If so, how, and by what criteria are they being judged? Are we doing enough to support teenage parents? Is enough thought being given to integrate the efforts of the Connexions service and the youth service with other services within the community?
8.42 p.m.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord North bourne, for initiating this important debate. His experience and commitment to family matters is well known to all, and on this occasion he has not disappointed us.
It is a measure of the profound pastoral issues which bear on the subject of this debate that two successive occupants of the seat of St. Augustine have chosen
894
each to make their maiden speech, or near-maiden speech, on it. It is customary in this House to pay exaggerated compliments to the speaker and to express the hope that the noble Lord will be heard on many occasions. I am sure that this sentiment is echoed tonight with acclamation. I am sure that neither they nor your Lordships will require me to declare an interest as chairman of the Friends of Lambeth Palace Library.
Some two years ago I took part in a debate—then, as now, initiated by the noble Lord. Lord Northbourne—to draw attention to the problems experienced by boys growing up without the care of a father. The theme running through that debate was the handicap suffered by so many boys who had grown up without the father role model.
Today's debate is in many ways complementary, but on a wider canvas. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, on departing from the possibly conventional view that it is all the fault of the education system or, if the children have been in trouble, the police. He rightly emphasised the responsibility of the parents in having an influence over the development of the child. But if I may say so, he is to be congratulated on his constructive approach in emphasising that help must be given to parents who are themselves often so terribly vulnerable. As he rightly says, many parent-child problems can be put down to two factors. The first is the environment in which the child is reared. The noble Baroness, Lady Greenfield, gave us a scientific line on that. The second is simply ignorance, which, sadly, can often come from lack of education. The basic skills agency produced the awesome statistic that in some parts of England nearly four adults in 10 cannot read or write properly or do simple sums.
There is a third factor, which is the vicious circle of parents who, in their turn, have suffered from an absence of role models of one or both of their own parents in their own childhood and who simply have no experience of a wholesome parent-child relationship. If unaddressed, that will perpetuate itself from generation to generation.
To take the subject of the debate at its most literal, we are here to see the parent from the child's point of view. The child will have no control over whether his or her parents are married, single, separated or divorced, as the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Carey, reminded us. We must address how the community—be it the state, the Churches or the voluntary organisations—can provide help, support and guidance to these parents. It is relevant and appropriate that we also look to some of the root causes of parental problems, as so many noble Lords have done this evening. For example, the noble Lord, Lord Chan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blood, have given us vivid examples of teenage pregnancies. In its very good pamphlet, Teenage Pregnancy, the Social Exclusion Unit highlighted the environment in which young boys grow up. Sexually active before the age of 16, nearly half the males interviewed cited peer pressure as a major factor. Many young men were reluctant to discuss or to use contraception. A survey

895
in America found that contraception was viewed as a purely female concern, while 40 per cent of the women relied on men to use contraceptives. That is a no—win situation.
That links back to the main theme of the debate. A key finding was that 12 months after the baby's birth, only half the teenage mothers were in a relationship with the father. The rest were usually single and without a steady partner. The important point is that research showed that young fathers often wanted to stay in touch with their children and play a proper part in their upbringing. That is the challenge facing us. Many speakers in the debate who are expert in the field are only too well aware of that.
The Government are to be commended on initiatives taken in the past two years on better personal, social and health education in schools, on the Sure Start Plus pilot projects that support teenage parents, on new resources for fathers to increase their involvement in the care of their children and, not least, on support for parents in talking to their children about sex and relationships. We can be thankful that we have moved on from the experiences of the noble Lord, Lord Rix, with Shelley half a century ago, but there is still a lot to be done.
The most reverend Primate issued a clarion call to the voluntary sector. Many noble Lords have spoken of the many voluntary organisations involved in the field. I shall add a further one, which is particularly concerned with very early crime and delinquency. My right honourable friend Mr Oliver Letwin has set out a strategy of what he terms early intervention. He has drawn on the research of Dr Stephen Scott of King's College, London, who found, in an initiative conducted in south London, that 15 per cent of children under five showed signs of anti-social behaviour, characterised by being oppositional and defiant, disliked by siblings and with poor relations with parents, who find them difficult or impossible to control.
One hundred and forty one children aged three to eight were referred with anti-social behaviour. The parents of 90 of them were allocated to parenting groups, with the remainder placed on a waiting list. The parents of the 90 were invited to attend a course of eight to 10 meetings in a pleasant environment for just one evening a week for 10 weeks. Attendance was voluntary, but the vast majority attended. Classes involved a structured sequence of topics introduced with video clips of parents with children. The topics covered included play, praise, incentives, setting limits and discipline. The course emphasised the promotion of sociable, self-reliant child behaviour and calm parenting and related this to the background experience and predicament of the individual parents.
The effect of the course was subsequently assessed, both by direct observation and interview. The anti-social behaviour of the children showed a marked overall reduction compared to those in the waiting group, which did not change at all. The noble Lord, Lord Warner, reported similar experiences from the Child Protection Unit.
896
We on these Benches would like there to be targeted intervention to help parents to handle children at a young age who show signs of disruptive and delinquent behaviour. We should like the programme to be extended to parents of teenage children who are showing similar problems. The programme should be holistic, drawing on the support of health visitors, social services, primary and secondary school teachers and, for children already in trouble, the police. I have described how that can work.
The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, gave us a telling statistic from the Youth Justice Board, which showed a 50 per cent drop in offending rates by young people whose parents attended parenting programmes. That was supported by the noble Lord, Lord Warner. That is an example of how the voluntary sector and various government-supported agencies can work together in that field.
The debate has been fascinating and informed and distinguished by speakers with a detailed knowledge of their subject. In thanking the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, again, I look forward to the Minister's response.
8.51 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Filkin): My Lords, what a good topic this has been for debate, and what an excellent example it provides of what this House can offer on an issue of this type. It is a privilege to be present in a debate of this quality, especially as we heard the maiden speech by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury and were able to relish a second maiden speech of the outgoing Archbishop.
I shall set out from the Government's perspective why this subject matters and perhaps open a discussion of the role of government in that respect. I shall touch on what we have done so far and signal some pointers as to the future. In the process, I shall try to answer the 30 or so questions that were raised.
We have all established clearly why this subject matters. First, children first learn about values, rights and responsibilities in their families and, if they do not learn, there are consequences for them and for society. Secondly, successful parenting helps children to achieve their full potential, which is clearly in the interests of children and society. Thirdly, successful early parenting is crucial for the effective emotional development of the child, as the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, pointed out, quoting the important pioneering work of John Bowlby in that respect. The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, emphasised the quality of early parenting as being crucial.
We know what we need to happen and what good parenting looks like; the problem is what happens when it goes wrong. What are the risk factors? Research carried out by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation identified several factors centred on the home that put children at risk of poor outcomes, such as drug abuse, crime, early pregnancy and school failure. They include weak parental supervision and discipline, family conflict, a family history of

897
behavioural problems, parental involvement or attitudes condoning behavioural problems, low income and poor housing. The noble Lord, Lord Chan, and others referred to those problems.
The research evidence also suggests protective actions to help to reduce the impact of those risk factors. We are beginning to tease out some clarity about the role of government in supporting families to reduce the risk factors and supporting parents in developing skills to be a success for their children and to make their children successful. Clearly, all noble Lords who have spoke see that as highly desirable.
The noble Lord, Lord Warner, is to be congratulated on the role he played in the Government's Green Paper Supporting Families in 1998, which introduced some reflective action by the Government as to how the state should support families without moving too far. It set out five areas for action: reducing child poverty; making it easier for parents to spend more time with their children; strengthening marriage; tackling the more serious problems of family life; and seeking to ensure that parents have access to advice and support. I shall touch on some of those later. All of that sits in the context of a commitment to try to provide public services of the quality and accessibility that families and children need to ensure they have the opportunity to achieve their potential.
In government policy and public services generally, however, there is a particular focus on the most disadvantaged. The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sheppard, spoke about Sure Start and the Children's Fund Partnership. Many have spoken about Sure Start. The Government, like the House, recognise that Sure Start has delivered better outcomes for all children. The Sure Start approach will be mainstreamed over the next 10 years. We are beginning to pilot how to mainstream it into the rest of society across Britain generally.
We have put in place a comprehensive strategy to improve the living standards of today's poorest children and to break the cycle of disadvantage. We want to go further in that respect. From April 2003, the new child tax credit will increase financial support to all low and medium-income families. The most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, and others spoke about the importance of work-life balance and ensuring that parents have the time and energy to devote to good parenting. Many of us know how tightly stretched one can sometimes feel when trying to manage two careers and two or more children at the same time, perhaps even with many compensating advantages.
We are putting in place a number of measures, from April 2003, to go further on that. First, families with children younger than six years old will have a right to expect and demand from their employer, or to negotiate with their employer, flexible working. We believe that they should. Next, there will be improved statutory maternity and paternity pay. Thirdly, there
898
will be an increase in paid and unpaid maternity leave, extending to 12 months the period in which parents can get maternity leave.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, challenged the Government as an employer to exhibit some of those practices. We are seeking to do so in the Home Office by running an innovative parenting course for our staff, both mothers and fathers. The course has been running for two years and has proved very popular. The noble Lord also signalled the importance of fathers—as did the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, and the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Carey—as well as the pain and suffering that can be experienced by children who do not know the identity of one of their parents or feel that they have lost contact with a mother or father. We recognise the important role that fathers play. We are making a start through key initiatives such as Sure Start and the Children's Fund and the family support grant. The Home Office family support grant involves funding for a number of projects that will support fathers.
The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Carey, spoke about the importance of marriage and of secure relationships, as did the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. The Lord Chancellor's Department funds the voluntary sector to provide marriage and relationship support services. In a number of areas, I think that the support is developing and improving as it needs to.
The noble Lord, Lord Chan, and the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, spoke about teenage pregnancy. That is clearly, as I signalled, on our agenda. We are seeking to address the root causes of teenage pregnancy and are committed to halve the rate of conception among under 18s by 2010, which we feel is a central thrust and focus for the work.
We then had, I was delighted to hear, a range of noble Lords speaking about the importance of the voluntary sector in providing parental support and contributing to these issues. I am delighted partly because I think that it is right, but also because I am delighted to be the Minister with the lead responsibility for the voluntary sector. So you are preaching to the converted. The most reverend Primate the Archbishop was not least in addressing those issues, some of which I shall touch on.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, talked about the importance of making parenting support available when it is most needed, when people become parents. I agree. The fifth annual national family support grant, worth £5.8 million annually, will support a wide variety of parenting support programmes. It will continue to fund innovative work, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, signalled. We try to fund a range of programmes in order to find out what works. We then try to support what works by rolling out the programmes when they have proved successful in early initiatives.
The most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury signalled the importance of an overview of the role of the volunteer and the voluntary sector. I strongly agree. The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Carey, challenged me to get the sack by saying

899
that the Government should give a commitment to make more resources available to the voluntary sector. However, I think I can support him without getting the sack by signalling that we seek to challenge both central government departments and local government to think more creatively about how they can harness the potential that is in the voluntary sector to address a range of societal problems, not least how to support families and children. I and my officials have worked on a range of initiatives to open up creative dialogue to determine where we can offer further support. I confidently expect that that will lead to a switch of funding and will result in more funding going into the voluntary sector where we identify—as I believe we shall be able to do—that it can make a bigger impact and consequently deliver more successful outcomes.
We are already doing a fair amount in that regard. The new Parenting Fund announced in July in the spending review is worth £25 million over three years for new services delivered in partnership with voluntary and community organisations. I am delighted to support the most reverend Primate the Archbishop in paying credit to the work of faith communities in providing support for parents. We already do so through providing funding for Care for the Family and Fathers Direct. No doubt we should be doing more, as I shall be encouraged to reflect upon.
This is a good opportunity to congratulate Home Start on its thirtieth birthday. The noble Baroness, Lady Brigstocke, and, I believe, the noble Lord, Lord Wright, signalled its importance and its achievements. The Home Office provides funding of £100,000 a year to it in recognition of the impact it has made.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, made the important point that one should not simply mount a range of initiatives but that one needs also to undertake serious research to evaluate what works, why it works, and to ascertain whether it can be developed further. Recently we commissioned the Policy Research Bureau to provide us with an up-to-date systematic overview of what works in parenting support. That will tell us what works and what is promising. Sometimes what appears possible should be supported just as much as what is certain, as what is certain is often too narrow. One has to have information and evaluation to inform the next stage of policy and service delivery.
Clearly, giving parents access to information when they need it and when they judge that it is necessary is an important factor. The old model of being able to talk to a grandmother is not always available. Therefore, we are supporting Parentline which is already receiving a quarter of a million telephone calls a year from parents. As noble Lords would expect, we are also supporting other departments in this respect. A website is to be launched in the autumn which will provide a one-stop shop for parents to be able to access advice and information from the Government on parenting issues.
900
The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, rightly mentioned anti-social behaviour and asked what happens when things have gone wrong in respect of parenting and discipline resulting in anti-social behaviour. Not all of that is caused by children or even teenagers. The Government's White Paper on anti-social behaviour had families and children at the very heart of its agenda. It seeks to ensure that parents face up to their responsibilities and are supported in doing so. I refer to parenting contracts whereby a parent is asked to sign a contract agreeing to attend parenting courses and achieve improvements in child attendance. We are encouraged that parents who have attended parenting courses, often unwillingly at first, have said afterwards that they valued and welcomed the experience. They have asked why they were not encouraged, pushed or cajoled into attending such courses sooner as they were helpful. In the light of that experience, we are not shy about taking such initiatives further.
Speakers were concerned about those most at risk. Recently, the noble Lord, Lord Laming, and others have drawn that issue to our attention. The noble Lord, Lord Warner, also mentioned the Children at Risk Green Paper which will be published in the coming months. That will consider the recommendations of the children's commissioner raised previously by the noble Lord, Lord Laming, and mentioned by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, although I cannot forecast at this stage exactly what it will say. Clearly, that is part of the jigsaw of action in terms of how we care for those in greatest need.
I was asked about the quality of nursery education and childcare. The noble Baroness, Lady Howe, raised the subject of expanding childcare. I have twice heard my right honourable friend Patricia Hewitt, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, emphasise the importance of developing better childcare arrangements, including when she spoke to regional development agencies about their programmes and made the point that regional economic development requires effective childcare if we are to harness the contribution of some fathers and mothers into our society. We are well on our way to meet our target of creating new places for 1.6 million children by 2004.
I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, raised the subject of nurseries. Free nursery education is universal for four year-olds, but it will also be for three year-olds by 2004, which we think an essential part of better support for parenting.
Not for the first time in the House, the noble Lord, Lord Rix, shocked us with his direct statements of how dreadful matters have been in the past. It would be good to think that all those dreadfulnesses were over, but we would be a complacent government if we believed that that was the case. That cri de Coeur—that experience of how individuals feel powerless in the face of the state at times—is a salutary reminder. Even so, we have seen evidence of it when the Government have sometimes tracked the experience of a parent with a disabled child. They have often had to negotiate with many very different parts of the public sector, which has shown no capacity to join up its services in a

901
parent, child and client-centred way. That is one of the biggest challenges to government, and we must try to get better at it.
The noble Lord, Lord Chan, spoke about the children's centres that will bring together integrated childcare and early-years education, as well as parenting, family support and health services. We believe that to be a very interesting new experiment. The longer-term aim is to have a children's centre for every disadvantaged area, including north-west England, about which he inquired.
The noble Baroness, Lady Howe, asked about better use of schools. Extended schools are likely to be open to pupils, families and the wider community throughout the school day, before and after school hours, at weekends and during school holidays. That will come as some comfort to many noble Lords who have probably argued for 30 or 40 years that schools locked up seem a chronic waste of a public resource. We are not there yet, though; we have not got it totally cracked, although we are making progress.
The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, made a unique speech about the importance of emotional development, a subject that might not have had as much emphasis as one would have expected in the debate. He asked a couple of specific questions. I hope that he will bear with me if I write to him, as they would take too long to answer orally from the Dispatch Box.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blood, raised the question of Northern Ireland. Proposals for a children's strategy for Northern Ireland are being developed. We already involve a sizeable number of parents in Northern Ireland in discussions from the early stage of the process, to get their view on the measures needed in the strategies to support families. In part, involving the potential recipients of government policy is how that policy should be formed.
Not for the first time, I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, about being impressed by the work of Stephen Scott and others in the area. The recent White Paper, Respect and Responsibility, outlined plans to make parenting support available through parenting orders and parenting contracts, in many ways building on his important work.
That is a quick tour d'horizon of where we have been. In the two minutes or so left to me, I will speak very briefly about what comes next. Although the House has been generous in commenting that the Government have done quite a lot in the past six years, we do not claim that we have got perfection or solved the problems yet.
We believe that it is important to continue to ensure that policy across government is coherent and that we have a strategy for the future that appears to be evidence-based and building on what we have learnt so far. Four years after Supporting Families, which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Warner, it now appears to be time to take another look at family policy across the board. We must ensure that lessons are being learnt across government, that all the gaps
902
are being plugged and that government agencies and the voluntary sector are being harnessed as effectively as they can be. We therefore intend to carry out such a review to take stock of where we have got to since Supporting Families and to see how government policy in that respect needs to change and develop. I have no doubt that that process of review and reflection will be informed by the quality of this debate. It will be our responsibility to reflect on what has been said.
I hope that if we carry out that review without too much delay, we could do so by 2004, which is the 10th anniversary of the United Nations International Year of the Family. We therefore hope that the review of family policy will lead us into that with a firm foundation for how we make the next stage of movement to address this crucial problem. That involves trying to support families and children to have the success that they want in society and to find an appropriate role for the state in supporting them in doing so.
9.11 p.m.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, although there are a few minutes left, I will not delay the House at this hour. That was a brilliant debate and I am deeply grateful to everyone who took part. I thank and congratulate all the speakers. Much of the ground was covered with much knowledge and experience and in a lively and interesting way. I also thank my Cross-Bench colleagues for the very strong support that I received from them.
The most reverend Primate mentioned the difficulty of defining the family. Might I dare to suggest a formula that I recently heard from Sweden? It is that a family is any group that feeds out of the same fridge.
I am going to try to attract the attention of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord. I was saying that I have been in Scandinavia in student hostels at which all sorts of people feed out of the same fridge, but we were certainly not family!
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I am told that there are 11 departments of state whose decisions affect the fortunes of children and parents. In view of the quality of this debate, will the Minister undertake to ensure that the other 10 of his colleagues in the relevant departments read this debate?
Lord Filkin: Yes, my Lords, I will.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Social Security (Contributions) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations 2003
9.13 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 24th February be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving these regulations, I shall also speak to the Social Security (Contributions) (Re-rating and National Insurance Funds Payments) Order, which was laid on 5th February.
The two instruments represent the final changes needed to implement the increase in national insurance contributions announced in last year's Budget, as well as making the minor changes to rates and thresholds announced in the Pre-Budget Report. The Government's plan to use national insurance to raise money towards the cost of a major programme of improvements to the National Health Service was widely welcomed.
The Social Security (Contributions) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations make changes to the married women's national insurance contributions reduced rate, and other minor consequential changes to the national insurance contributions regulations. The provisions in the regulations and the re-rating order are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
Let me set out why the changes to the married women's reduced rate are dealt with in regulations when the changes to the main rates of national insurance were dealt with in the National Insurance Contributions Act 2002. That is because the married women's reduced rate can be varied by regulation under the existing primary legislation and, unlike the main contribution rates, there is no limit to the amount by which it can be changed. That means that primary legislation was not needed to increase it by 1 per cent.
Apart from some minor consequential changes to allow for the Budget changes to contributions, the main substantive change is in Regulation 6. This will ensure that married women who elected to pay national insurance contributions at the reduced rate before 1997 and are still paying at only 3.85 per cent will also pay the proposed extra 1 per cent national insurance contributions from this April. Approximately 80,000 married women are paying the reduced rate. It is only fair to other contributors that they should also pay towards the cost of an improved National Health Service. This will raise the reduced rate to 4.85 per cent. Married women paying the reduced rate will also pay 1 per cent on their earnings above the upper earnings limit.
The regulations also make a minor drafting change, arising from the National Insurance Contributions Act 2002, to the mariners regulations. Regulation 4 ensures that the calculation of a mariner's earnings period when on a voyage reflects the introduction of the main primary percentage and the additional primary percentage. We have taken the opportunity in
904
Regulations 10 and 11 to make a drafting correction to Regulation 156 of the contributions regulations to correct an oversight, not picked up at the time, which omitted the married women's reduced rate provisions applying in Northern Ireland.
The re-rating order makes two changes announced in last year's Pre-Budget Report. First, the annual small earnings exception below which a self-employed person may claim exemption from payment of class 2 contributions will rise broadly in line with prices from £4,025 to £4,095 per year. Given that the rate of class 2 contributions for 2003–04 will remain at £2 a week—a reduction in real terms—it may be that many low-earning self-employed people will choose to pay the contributions in order to protect their benefit entitlement.
Secondly, the draft order deals with the weekly rate of voluntary class 3 contributions, which allow those with insufficient contribution records in any given tax year to make up a "qualifying year" for benefit purposes. The rate of class 3 will rise this April by 10 pence to £6.95 a week—a standard re-rating in line with prices.
The review of contribution rates is accompanied by a report from the Government Actuary detailing the effects of the draft order and the draft order up-rating benefits laid by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on the National Insurance Fund. There is no expectation that the fund will need a Treasury grant. Nevertheless, we are making a prudent minimal provision of 2 per cent of all benefit expenditure. That is set out at paragraph 4 of the order.
As happened in the past two years, there is a single draft order for both Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland has a separate national insurance scheme from Great Britain, but the two schemes are closely co-ordinated and maintain parity of contribution rates. Following the transfer of national insurance to the Inland Revenue in 1999, Northern Ireland's social security legislation was amended to enable the draft re-rating order to include corresponding measures for the Province. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 24th February be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committed].—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining in detail what is before us. As he said, the regulations bring about changes to married women's reduced rate contributions to national insurance. Married women who have elected to pay a reduced rate of national insurance will also be subject to the 1 per cent increase that the Government propose.
As discussed in the First Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, the plan is that money raised from national insurance is put towards a major programme of improvements in the National Health Service. Sadly, however, we on these Benches believe that that policy is flawed and will not result in the

905
consequences that Her Majesty's Government envisage. Surely a system in which there are more administrators than beds is indicative of a structural problem which will not be solved by throwing money at it. Now married women too are having to pay the price of the Government's mismanagement of our public services.
The draft order deals with various national insurance contribution rates and thresholds. The regulations and the order are necessary steps for the Government to implement the increase in national insurance contributions announced in last year's Budget. It is not difficult to work out how we find ourselves in this situation when the Labour Party has pledged not to increase income taxes but, as a consequence of underestimating the slow down of the British economy, the Government are short of money. Tax revenues are not sufficient to bring about much needed improvement in public services.
The Government can see no way out of the dilemma apart from doing what they do best: taxing more and spending more. As income tax cannot be touched, the only alternative is national insurance contributions—a tax on jobs. Make no mistake: our people will suffer and business will suffer. It has been reported that the national insurance surcharge for employers would cost the health service and local government an estimated £600 million. In the long run, that is one more step down a road where Great Britain becomes less competitive as labour costs mount.
Both order and regulations must be accepted for the Government to implement their policy. While we may be unhappy with the way in which the Government are tackling the problem of public services, I recognise that the Government must get their business done, and we shall not oppose the order or the regulations.
Baroness Barker: My Lords, at this late hour and on this narrow subject I wish that I were in a position to speak on behalf of mariners everywhere and keep the Minister on his toes, but I am not. As he may have guessed, I shall speak briefly on the married women's stamp. We on these Benches support the 1 per cent increase in national insurance to pay for the health service. We believe that that is a much needed and wise investment. However, as my honourable friend in another place, Steve Webb, has argued, the imposition of an extra 1 per cent on those women who pay the married women's stamp compounds a long-standing injustice.
Those women who pay the married women's stamp currently pay 3.85 per cent compared to the full rate of 10 per cent, but in return they do not receive 40 per cent of the basic state pension. In many cases they receive just a few pence, and one woman who contacted my honourable friend receives just 1p. a week. They also lose entitlement to all contributory benefits. Many of the women are currently paying 3.85 per cent, and in return receive nothing.
This debate takes place in the context of the pensions Green Paper discussions that are taking place. Therefore, from previous discussions in the
906
House I understand that the Minister will argue that women made an informed choice in this matter. Our contention is that some women made an informed choice but many others did not. In May 2000 the then Minister in another place, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, admitted that the information given to women would not pass the plain English test. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, in October 2002 said:
"Women first entering the labour market in the 1960s and 1970s had to sign to elect to receive the reduced stamp; secondly, in 1977–78, they had all the information"—
through leaflets, newspapers, radio and so on—
"thirdly, they received further information in 1989; and, fourthly, they were given further information in 2000 associated with the changes in the lower earnings limit. So, on four occasions, married women paying the reduced stamp received fairly straightforward—I do not say that it was brilliant—accessible information on which to make an informed choice".—[Official Report, 15/10/02; col. 693.]
An example of that accessible information is the national insurance 1 leaflet of 1976 which stated:
"If you satisfy the first condition and (where it applies) the second condition, but you do not satisfy the third condition because the number of your qualifying years is less than required, you will not get a standard rate pension. However, you will get a basic state pension at a reduced rate provided that the number of qualifying years is at least a quarter of the number required for a standard rate pension. If the number of your qualifying years is less than a quarter of the number required, no pension at all can be paid on your own contributions".
The Minister was right. It is not brilliant.
A user said:
"I can remember having a letter many years ago…but it was written in the usual official jargon, which few understand, and it was certainly not drawn to one's attention as being of major importance".
She then made the key point:
"The DHSS must have realised from the lack of response that thousands like me had not understood the full implications and should have issued something about it in normal English, which spelt it out better".
This 1 per cent rise is about paying for the NHS. In that context we could consider this example, which was sent in by a man. He said:
"My wife has worked for the NHS as a registered nurse for more than 30 years, working normally four hours each week less than full-time … Earlier this year she was diagnosed with cancer … She received part of her salary and SSP for six months, and at the end of this period she applied for Incapacity Benefit. She has been refused this on the grounds that she has paid the married woman's stamp … She is very upset".
We believe that not only was the information unclear, but there was a culture among some employers automatically to make the election for women, and in some cases they did not even tell them. On top of that the advice from the DSS in some cases was that women would be better off to pay the married women's stamp. As the Minister said, 80,000 women still pay the married women's stamp. We contend that those women should be contacted and have their situation explained clearly while they still have time to make up contributions, which others do not.
As this discussion is in the context of the Green Paper, I want to take the opportunity to mention one other group of women. They do not make any

907
contribution. They are women prisoners. That issue has been raised in the media recently. They are not allowed to make NICs, so when they do come out, they inevitably have a broken contribution record and will have a lower pension. The Fawcett Society is currently embarking on research into women and the criminal justice system. While the whole issue of women and pensions is live, perhaps the Department for Work and Pensions might contribute to that research because when talking of women and pensioner poverty, surely those women are at the bottom.
At the moment there is a widespread debate about pension settlements. It is agreed that there is a need for clarity and responsibility on all sides in order to rebuild trust in pensions. We believe that enabling women to make contributions to restore their broken earnings record would begin to restore that trust for some women.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am not sure that I am grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Wilcox and Lady Barker, for their reception of the regulations and the order. Clearly, both noble Baronesses are concerned with much wider issues than those which are involved in these limited statutory instruments. The noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, did not quite say that she does not believe that the money would go into the health service, but she said that the money that went into it would be wasted on more managers, that it would not result in good value for money, and that what we are proposing here is a return to a tax and spend culture.
It is sufficiently clear from what has happened to the health service that the improvements are being made at the front line. Since 1997 we have gained 15,000 more doctors and consultants, 30,000 more therapists and scientists, and 35,000 more nurses, midwives and health visitors. If there is any question as to how the money has been spent, we have introduced independent audit procedures and scrutiny procedures, including scrutiny of patient complaints.
These national insurance contributions will help to fund the 7.4 per cent annual real growth in spending for the National Health Service, which amounts to £8.6 billion in the year 2003–04.
I am also confident that the way in which it is being raised is fair. It is right that the contributions should be from all employees—that is the Beveridge principle that people in work pay for benefits and health services that they will need when they are no longer in work. That has been the principle since the 1940s. It is also right that employers should contribute, since the Confederation of British Industry itself estimated that in 2001, workplace absence for health reasons cost employers £11.8 billion. This is good value for money for both employers and employees and I have no apology whatsoever for the policy behind it.
As for the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, I have of course read them all before: I read Steve Webb's speech and Dawn Primarolo's reply. I must tell the noble Baroness that this is not a debate about the Green Paper or about the principle of the
908
reduced rate; it is a debate about who should make contributions to the National Health Service. I noticed that she did not for a moment say that married women should not make their fair contribution to the National Health Service. My noble friend Lady Hollis and I should be happy to debate with the noble Baroness on any proper occasion the whole issue of married women and reduced-rate contributions, but that issue is not before us. The issue is who should contribute to increased funding for the National Health Service. On that, I am glad that we are in agreement. I commend the regulations to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Social Security (Contributions) (Re-rating and National Insurance Funds Payments) Order 2003
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 5th February be approved [11th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Child Benefit and Guardian's Allowance (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations 2003
9.32 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Hollis of Heigham)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Hollis of Heigham) rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 5th March be approved [13th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move that the Child Benefit and Guardian's Allowance (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations 2003 he approved.
I should have loved to extend the previous debate and suggested that, with hindsight, we all have 20:20 vision. I know from my experience of women who were required to contribute to pension schemes and may have objected at the time but were retrospectively jolly glad; but the reverse can be true. But I shall stick to my own regulations tonight, not trespass on my noble friend's territory, and ask your Lordships to approve the regulations.
The regulations transfer responsibility for decision making in child benefit and guardian's allowances to the Commissioners of the Inland Revenue, as provided for under Section 50 of the Tax Credit Act 2002. That Act transferred responsibility for the administration, of both child benefit and guardian's allowance to the board—that is, the Commissioners of the Inland Revenue.
In June 2001, the Prime Minister announced the transfer of responsibility for child benefit and guardian's allowance in Great Britain. That was followed a couple of months later by confirmation

909
from the Northern Ireland Assembly. The transfer there will occur on 1st April. So the policy intent of the regulations has already been well discussed and aired in your Lordships' House.
Child benefit and guardian's allowance will remain social security benefits and the rules that govern entitlement to them and how they should be administered will remain those set out in existing social security Acts. The four sets of regulations on child benefit and guardian's allowance laid on 3rd March, of which this set forms part, bring together in a consolidated set of regulations all the provisions in secondary legislation that govern those two benefits across the UK as a whole. That is the reason for their length. The new regulations are necessary as a result of the transfer of responsibility to the Inland Revenue.
In other words, there is no policy change; the regulations consolidate a whole set of regulations scattered across a whole set of social security legislation, further complicated by the fact that the current legislation applies both to Great Britain and to Northern Ireland, and we are bringing them together into one.
The new sets of regulations ensure that those claiming, or advising claimants on these benefits, as well as the Revenue itself, will need only to refer to a single set of up to date provisions that clearly set out the extent of the Revenue's powers in relation to those benefits.
The particular set of regulations before your Lordships today replace those provisions in the current Social Security and Child Support (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations, and the Northern Ireland equivalent, relating to child benefit and guardian's allowance. They create a consolidated set of regulations governing all decisions made by the board in relation to child benefit and guardian's allowance in Great Britain and Northern Ireland, including when decisions can be changed, information can be requested, payment can be suspended or entitlement terminated and finally when and how claimants can appeal those decisions. I repeat that there is no policy change. It is consolidation—something that usually your Lordships anxiously ask us to pursue.
I am sure that your Lordships would like me to make it clear that appeals against decisions on these benefits will continue to be heard by the same appeals tribunals as now. They will be governed by the Social Security Act 1998, as now, and there is no intention of changing that.
These regulations merely replace the existing regulations in Great Britain and Northern Ireland—a consequence of the transfer of responsibility. They do not change the nature of any of the rights, nor the responsibilities or powers provided for in the existing regulations. That was not the intention of the transfer.
In practice, therefore, claimants will see no difference as a result of the new regulations. They will have the same rights and responsibilities under these new regulations as they do now. They will be able to appeal against decisions in the same way and to the
910
same appeal bodies as now. In Great Britain, that means an appeal tribunal or the Appeals Service and in Northern Ireland its equivalent. But those who rely on understanding the precise powers that apply to decisions of the Inland Revenue in such cases, such as local advice groups, legal advisers and the Revenue's own decision-makers, will be able to rely on a single, clear set of provisions, because we are consolidating them.
In line with the principles of the Tax Law Rewrite, we have tried to ensure that these new regulations are written in simple, plain English to make them as easy as possible to follow, given the complex situations that they need to cover. We also felt that taking the opportunity to consolidate the regulations was preferable to relying on ad hoc amendments to the existing regulations to ensure maximum clarity and accessibility.
As I have said, these regulations make no substantive changes to claimants' rights and responsibilities. But I hope that your Lordships will agree that that is a useful clarification. They are necessary because of the development of new tax credits and the implications for children.
In conclusion, I am satisfied that these regulations are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. I commend the regulations to your Lordships, noting that they are essentially a bundle of technical changes transferring policy responsibility from the Department for Work and Pensions to the Board of Inland Revenue. The appeals and decision-making process remains unaltered, policy remains unaltered, and consolidation should increase clarity. With that, I hope that these regulations will be warmly welcomed.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 5th March be approved [13th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)
Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her canter through the draft Child Benefit and Guardian's Allowances (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations 2003. I am happy to accept these regulations which transfer the administration of the payment of child benefit and the guardian's allowance from the Department for Work and Pensions to the Inland Revenue. For benefits to reach those who need them most, it is essential that the system is as simple and as user-friendly as she described. I understand from the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation that these regulations go quite a way to achieving that.
I note that those individuals who are currently responsible for the administration of child benefit and guardian's allowance will still be responsible after the transfer, in the same location and in the same job. The only change is that they will be part of the Inland Revenue. There should therefore be no additional training costs or significant costs resulting from the

911
transfer of responsibilities, but I should like to seek reassurance from the Minister on that. That apart, I am pleased to support these draft regulations.
Baroness Barker: My Lords, I, too, support the regulations. I agree that they are a model of clarity. Clearly if it is the same person writing these regulations as in 1977, she is now a pensioner and not a married woman. I welcome the simplification of the administration. We hope that it will set a precedent that the Government may wish to follow by transferring many more of the Child Support Agency processes to the Inland Revenue, something we have advocated for a long time.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am grateful for the rapid welcome that has been given to the regulations. I understand why the responses were both welcoming and rapid.
912
The noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, asked me about training costs. My understanding is that they will continue as now. We are merely consolidating, given the Inland Revenue's responsibility for child tax credits and the way in which child benefit lies as a building block alongside that. It makes sense for the customer to have one body handling these functions.
I welcome what the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, said about clarity. As to her point about the Child Support Agency, at this stage I shall merely say that she is misguided. No doubt we shall enjoy debating the issue on a future occasion—and I emphasise the word "enjoy".
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at nineteen minutes before ten o'clock.

  Afghanistan
  Afghanistan
  Civil Court Debt
  Civil Court Debt
  Foreign Nationals in Prison in England and Wales
  Foreign Nationals in Prison in England and Wales
  Iraq: Legality of Armed Force
  Iraq: Legality of Armed Force
  Kosovo: Theft of Computer Records
  Kosovo: Theft of Computer Records
  Bosnia: Export Approval
  Bosnia: Export Approval
  Iran: Export Licences
  Iran: Export Licences
  Iraq: Protection of Cultural Property
  Iraq: Protection of Cultural Property
  Depleted Uranium
  Depleted Uranium
  Defence Fair, Amman
  Defence Fair, Amman
  Illegal Meat Imports
  Illegal Meat Imports