Sitting of 27 March 2003

Preamble
The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  TREASURY
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked—
  TREASURY

    Manufacturing Policy
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: If he will make a statement on the impact of his Department's policy on manufacturing. [105150]
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Paul Boateng): Manufacturers globally are facing difficult times as the world economy slows. This Government remain committed to delivering a stable macro-economic environment, which will allow businesses to plan, invest and grow, while at the same time taking a range of measures to boost productivity, enterprise and skills.
    Mr. Lloyd: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that the role of manufacturing industry is still massively more important for regions, for example, in the north of England, than it would be in the south-east? Of course, the present difficulties and problems that manufacturing industry is experiencing impact differentially in different parts of the country. I certainly give great praise to the Government for their policies on employment in relation to the manufacturing base, unlike the policies of the previous Government, which were devastating. Can we have a clear statement nevertheless that the future of manufacturing is fundamental to the future of the British economy and is central to the economic management proposed by the Government?
    Mr. Boateng: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to stress the importance of manufacturing, in which he takes a great interest in the north-west. It has a vital role to play in the productivity drive that must be the key to prosperity, not only in his region but throughout the UK. He will therefore welcome the emphasis that we have put on the role of the regional development agencies, and the £991 million over three years that his north-west development agency has been given, which will enable it to continue its work with universities and
    432
    local businesses in enhancing local skills and improving productivity and competitiveness. It is on that that the success of his region and the United Kingdom depends.
    Sir Nicholas Winterton: Following the question of the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), the Chief Secretary will know my interest in manufacturing. I had a brief working lunch yesterday with a number of important representatives of UK industry who expressed concern about the amount of regulation coming from Government. Given the increase in national insurance contributions, and the huge increases in many parts of the country in business rates, will he accept that manufacturing industry is finding it very difficult to be competitive, and much of it is relocating abroad to the detriment of employment in this country?
    Mr. Boateng: The hon. Gentleman makes his point about manufacturing and red tape. He will know, because I know that he studies these matters, that the Government have taken seriously the issue of red tape, and we have taken steps to deal with burdensome regulation. He will also be aware, not least because of the candour shown in this matter by the shadow Chancellor, who still maintains that labour market flexibility is the key, that this country has made progress in that area—that is never denied. He will also know that the best gift that we can give to manufacturing is a sound, stable macro-economic framework. That is what this Government have done and what his Government notably failed to do.
    Mr. Derek Foster: My right hon. Friend will know that in my constituency 50 per cent. of the jobs are in manufacturing. That gives us enormous strength when things are going well, but, over the last four years, there has been a continual leakage of jobs. I am enthusiastic about the exciting new futures that the Chancellor is laying out for regions such as the north-west and the north-east, but my constituents are saying, "We need some respite now." What will my right hon. Friends do about that?
    Mr. Boateng: My right hon. Friend will recognise that in his region, looking across the sectors, unemployment has in fact been falling. New jobs have been created—1.4 million new jobs—since this Government came to office. That is never a cause for complacency, but what we can and will do is make sure that we invest in regional development agencies and that we put the encouragement and incentives in place with our research and development tax credits. All of those make a contribution to en sure that we not only keep jobs in regions such as his but that we create them, too. We are doing that with considerably greater success than Germany or France, and that is something that we should celebrate.
    Mr. Mark Prisk: Despite the Chief Secretary's somewhat fanciful claims, in the real world, manufacturing companies are struggling to survive. Yesterday, for example, I spoke to a company in Buxton called Otter Controls, which has just announced the transfer of two production lines to Hungary, and, with them, 40 jobs. The reason that it

    433
    gives is the rising cost of Government regulations and taxes. Given that, why are the Government taking another £4.1 billion in national insurance from business next year? Does not he understand that this tax rise will either drive manufacturers out of business or out of Britain?
    Mr. Boateng: In the hon. Gentleman's discussions with business, he will recognise that what businesses value is the macro-economic stability that this Government have brought to their management of the economy. What they value is the determination that the Government have demonstrated to put in place the framework for skills and research and development that is the best hope of industry across the piece. That is something that this Government have done and that his Government failed to do, and that is why we have created in our five years in office 30,000 more new jobs than they were ever able to do in their last five years in office. That is our record of success, compared with their record of failure.

    Debt Relief (Africa)
    Ms Bridget Prentice: What proposals G7 Finance Ministers have for debt relief in Africa. [105151]
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): At the 12 April meetings of the G7, the IMF and the World Bank, I plan to propose additional funding for the World Bank trust fund to finance African debt relief, call for special help for the post-conflict countries yet to enjoy debt relief, propose action to tackle vulture funds exploiting debt relief and push ahead with our initiative for an international finance facility that will offer additional African debt relief.
    Ms Prentice: I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for that response, but given changing world circumstances, is he still confident that we will be able to achieve the millennium development goals, such as giving every child a primary education, reducing paternal mortality rates and reducing the proportion of people living on less than a dollar a day by 2015?
    Mr. Brown: When we came to power, only one country had the possibility of getting debt relief. Now, 26 countries are getting debt relief out of a possible 38. Almost all the other countries in Africa that are not getting debt relief are engaged in conflicts. We want to create a situation in which there is both an incentive for them to get out of conflict and special help for restructuring afterwards. This year, nine countries will complete their debt relief programmes. As a result of the actions that have been taken—I am pleased to say that they have had all-party support—it has been possible to release £62 billion of debt relief. That figure will rise to £100 billion if we can get the other countries in.
    So the debt relief programme has moved forward, but I agree with my hon. Friend, who has taken an interest in these matters over a long period, that we will have to do more than provide debt relief if we are to meet the millennium development goals. It is precisely for those reasons that we have put forward the new proposal for an international finance facility that would release an
    434
    extra £50 billion of aid each year. That would allow us to meet the development targets—every child in primary education, a two thirds cut in infant mortality and a halving of poverty. I hope that there is all-party support for those objectives.
    Mr. Andrew Mackay: While the whole House would support the Chancellor's effort to improve debt relief in Africa, does he agree that an exception should be made in the case of Zimbabwe due to the barbarous regime of Mugabe? Is he satisfied that his G7 partners are acting as he is in freezing the assets of the Mugabe regime and of those business men in Zimbabwe who are funding it?
    Mr. Brown: The right hon. Gentleman will know that Zimbabwe is not one of the 38 countries and would not qualify for debt relief. It is not engaged in the programme, so no international resources going to the debt relief programme will go there. I hope that he will accept that assurance about Zimbabwe. It is, however, important to recognise that many countries surrounding Zimbabwe need our help and the debt relief—and that relief should be speedy.
    Ms Julia Drown: Today, the Jubilee Debt Campaign and the Mothers Union went to Buckingham palace to present a petition of 121,000 signatures from across the Commonwealth. Some of the Africans who signed the petition could not write, but because they want their countries to have enough money to educate their children, they signed it with their thumb-prints. Will the G7 be moving beyond the existing heavily indebted poor countries initiative, which has linked sustainability criteria to the proportion of debt related to exports, and instead consider linking debt relief to the millennium development goals so that the goal of primary education for those people's children can be delivered?
    Mr. Brown: I applaud the work that my hon. Friend does on the all-party committee and equally her delegation this morning taking mothers to raise the case of debt relief. She is absolutely right; we have to go beyond what is called HIPC2, and that involves topping up, as we call it, at the end of the process. Where countries complete the debt relief process, they get extra money to make up for the loss of export earnings from commodities. We will be pressing for that at the 12 April meetings in Washington. Equally, she is of course right that debt relief is only part of the process; we must open up trade and investment and ensure that we can meet the millennium development goals.
    Mr. Roy Beggs: I welcome and fully support the Government's action to bring relief to the poorest countries in Africa and throughout the world. Will the Chancellor now congratulate the multinational companies that have forgiven debt in the poorest countries, and encourage others to follow their example?
    Mr. Brown: I understand that two companies, Nestle and Booker plc, have recently forgiven the debts they are owed in those countries, and I welcome their decision. However, we have an additional problem with

    435
    what are known as vulture funds: people are buying up the debts of the poorest countries and laying down conditions that it is very difficult for the international community to meet. I hope that all-party support will be given to our proposal of further action to give legal advice to countries hit by this problem, and a joint international approach to deal with creditors. It will be presented to the meeting in Washington on 12 April.

    International Finance
    Mr. Tony Clarke: If he will make a statement on the international finance facility. [105152]
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): At the April meetings of the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the G7, a joint proposal for a new international finance facility will be made by Britain as chair of the IMF committee and South Africa as chair of the development committee.
    There has been growing support for the British initiative: it is being discussed today at the meeting between President Bush and our Prime Minister, and it will be discussed at the G7 meeting in Evian later in the spring.
    I am allocating an extra £120 million from the reserve to the Department for International Development for humanitarian relief and reconstruction in Iraq, and I am today allocating a further £1.25 billion to increase the special reserves to£3 billion, to be drawn by the Ministry of Defence as necessary for action in Iraq.
    I think the whole House will want to make clear our gratitude to our armed forces and our determination to ensure that they are fully supported, and will want to send condolences to the families of the 22 British service men who have lost their lives.
    Mr. Clarke: I share my right hon. Friend's sentiments about our sympathy for those who have lost family members in the Gulf.
    My right hon. Friend should be congratulated on exporting the values of financial stability and security that he applies to the United Kingdom economy around the globe. When he meets the G7 and G8 countries, will he use his best endeavours to ensure that those participating do not allow their participation to rely too much on trade deals? Developing countries should be allowed free trade, and opportunities to trade and choose their own export markets involving the countries of their choice.
    Mr. Brown: One of the achievements since 1997 has been the untying of aid from trade, which means not making the aid that we give principally for education, health and anti-poverty programmes conditional on either trade or commercial agreements. I think my hon. Friend will agree, however, that if we are to achieve the millennium targets by 2015, it will be necessary to combine debt relief with the opening up of, in particular, the African countries that we have mentioned to trade and private investment, as well as the additional resources that will be made available by the international finance facility.
    436
    The agreeing of a new financing facility would be a major departure for the international community. It would be on a scale similar to that of the establishment of the World Bank in 1945, when it put extra funds into securing international development. That is why it is so important that we win international support for this facility.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: I welcome the additional moneys that the Chancellor has allocated to the Iraq effort. I especially welcome the announcement that the girlfriends and partners of deceased soldiers—common-law wives, as we would call them in Scotland—will now enjoy the same benefits as the widows of those active service men. Will the Chancellor confirm that the provision will extend to any children of what in Scotland, but not in England, is recognised as a common-law marriage?
    Mr. Brown: I am grateful for the hon. Lady's support for my announcement about funding. The Ministry of Defence will make further announcements on the specific matter that she has raised.
    Mr. John McFall: The Chancellor is aware that in May I will accompany the Scottish Catholic International Aid Fund to Zambia to see the work that it is doing in the western part of the country, the Shangombo region, where 100,000 people are starving. That country is spending 20 per cent. of its GDP on debt and only 2 per cent. on health and education. What message of hope can I take to the Government and those on the ground that the international financing facility and other issues are dealing with the needs of their country?
    Mr. Brown: I hope that the visit of my hon. Friend and the NGO concerned to Zambia will be a success. Zambia is one of those countries where one in every five children die before the age of five. Therefore, a huge amount of money has to be spent on health systems as well as education systems in that country. What he can say to the people whom he meets is that we are determined to move ahead with the debt relief that we promised and to build upon that money to enable the millennium development targets to be met. That means that every child in Zambia should be able to look forward to the possibility of schooling and that we should cut the infant mortality rate in Zambia, which is in one in five children, to a far lower level over the next 10 years, but it will require us as an international community to provide the funds.

    GDP Growth
    Mr. David Ruffley: What assumptions he used when making changes to his forecasts for GDP growth since the 2002 Budget. [105153]
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Ruth Kelly): The Government will publish updated forecasts for the UK and world economies in the Budget on 9 April, which will take into account all factors affecting

    437
    economic prospects. All relevant forecast assumptions will be detailed at that time in the "Financial Statement and Budget report".
    These are clearly challenging times for the world economy. However, the UK's sound economic fundamentals based on the Government's strong macroeconomic framework, leaves us in a far better position than in the past to weather those testing conditions.
    Mr. Ruffley: Last November, the Chancellor tried to explain away his dodgy forecasts by using smoke and mirrors. When next month he has to explain away that he has got his figures wrong for a second time, will he hide behind the fog of war?
    Ruth Kelly: The hon. Gentleman should look at the facts of the situation rather than get carried away by his own rhetoric. In 2001, 22 countries were in recession, including the United States, Japan and Germany. The UK continued to grow; it saw the fastest growth in the G7. That growth continued to be one of the fastest last year. Perhaps he should also look at the recent IMF report on the UK economy, which said:
    "This remarkable economic performance owes much to the government's strong policy framework."
    Mr. Peter Pike: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government's policy on long-term low inflation rates and interest rates has been crucial to GDP growth and has been of tremendous benefit to those on low incomes, whom we have also helped through the national minimum wage and other special measures?
    Ruth Kelly: I completely agree with my hon. Friend that this country has extremely sound long-term economic fundamentals, including the lowest sustained inflation for 40 years, the lowest unemployment in a generation, interest rates at their lowest level for 50 years and one of the lowest debt ratios in the EU. That is a consequence of the tough decisions that the Government took on coming to power.
    Matthew Taylor: Once again, the Chancellor ducks answering any questions on the state of the domestic economy, and no wonder. Would the Minister care to comment on a series of records that the Chancellor has set in this morning's GDP data? Those are an unprecedented seventh decline in manufacturing out of eight quarters, a record business investment fall of 8 per cent. and a record annual deficit on trade in goods. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has made it clear that last year, irrespective of war and not part of the general world economic situation, the Chancellor managed to achieve the notable and distinguished success, I presume the Minister will tell us, of a decline in investment in business worse than that in France, Germany, Japan and the United States. That is what the OECD has to say about the Chancellor's record.
    Ruth Kelly: The hon. Gentleman seems to have missed one crucial fact; that GDP growth was revised up this morning from 1.6 per cent. to 1.8 per cent., largely as a result of an increase in business investment. Of course I will comment on certain records that my right hon.
    438
    Friend the Chancellor has set—record low levels of unemployment, record low interest rates and a record for one of the lowest debt ratios in the EU.
    Mr. James Plaskitt: Does my hon. Friend agree that the increasing public investment made by the Government is itself making a positive contribution to holding up our GDP? How would she react to a proposal that that public investment should now be reduced by, say, 20 per cent.?
    Ruth Kelly: My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. The Government's policy of continuing to invest in our public services is supporting growth in incredibly difficult international times. It is important that we complement our policies for macro-economic stability with policies that will see growth in investment and support the manufacturing sector, rather than the policy advocated by the Conservative party of a 20 per cent. cut across the board.
    Mr. Michael Howard: First, I welcome the increased funding announced by the Chancellor a few moments ago for the war and for humanitarian help to the people of Iraq. I also associate myself with his remarks on the valour of our service men and women and with his expressions of sympathy to the families of those who have, sadly, made the ultimate sacrifice on behalf of our country.
    Why does the Chancellor hide away again when the economic forecasts of this country are the subject of this question? His forecasts for GDP growth in last year's Budget were higher than the average from independent forecasts at the time, so it was hardly surprising that, in the pre-Budget report, he was forced to admit that his forecasts on growth, revenue, his deficit and borrowing were all wrong. Yet his new growth forecasts in the pre-Budget report in November were, again, higher than the average from independent forecasters at the time. Why does the Chancellor keep thinking that he was right and everyone else was wrong?
    Ruth Kelly: I am afraid that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has got his facts entirely wrong. At the time of the pre-Budget report, two thirds of independent forecasts were either within or above the range predicted by this Government. If he insists on comparing this Government's forecasting record with that of his party when in power, he will see that this Government have been far better at predicting the economy. It continues to be the case that the economy in Britain grew faster than the G7 average last year and the year before.
    Mr. Howard: The question is about forecasts. The forecasts to which I referred were the average forecasts set out in the Government's own documents at the time of the Budget and the pre-Budget report. Why does the Financial Secretary think that independent commentators at the time were describing the Chancellor's figures as overly optimistic and rose-tinted? Why does she think that, at the time, they questioned his figures on business investment and cast doubt on his productivity figures? Has he not been warned about his forecasts by the IMF and by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, as well as by his own colleagues on the Treasury Committee? Is it not time for

    439
    the Chancellor to come to the Dispatch Box himself to accept responsibility for his forecasts and the failure of his policies?
    Ruth Kelly: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is trying to find an extraordinarily elaborate way of getting around the real economic success of the Government. The UK has continued to grow when every other major country in the G7 has fallen into recession, at a time when we have had the biggest world economic slowdown for 30 years. He dares to criticise this Government's forecasting record and challenges me on our forecast, but let us compare our downward revision of 0.4 per cent. with the downward revision of 2 per cent. during the previous recession in 1992. This Government have achieved remarkable economic success and we stand on our record.

    PFI (Health Sector)
    Mr. Nick Gibb: If he will make a statement on private finance initiative commitments in the health sector. [105154]
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Paul Boateng): PFI is helping to deliver the biggest hospital building programme in the history of the NHS. Of the 104 PFI hospital schemes announced since 1997, 25 are already operational and a further 23 are under construction.
    Mr. Gibb: It is clear from the various Red Books that our commitments under PFI are increasing inexorably. In the 1999 Red Book, for example, PFI repayments during 2007 are listed as £3.7 billion, but in the latest Red Book that figure has increased to £5 billion. Have the Government set themselves a golden rule for a maximum figure for such payments, or are they acting like an out-of-control shopaholic, with increasing credit card debt and monthly payments that are spiralling out of control?
    Mr. Boateng: What we are doing is investing in the NHS; what we are doing is actually building hospitals. We will take no lessons on PFI from Conservative Members, because the fact of the matter is that they did not deliver a single hospital under PFI. We have delivered 25, and there are 114 still being built. That is good news for the NHS, good news for patients and good news for clinicians. What we know would be bad news is the 20 per cent. cut that the "Flight plan" would involve.
    Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: My right hon. Friend is correct in not taking any advice from the Conservatives. During their years in office, the PFI was a total failure, and it has come to life under this Government. Is he aware that the PFI is making a vital additional contribution to the new hospital programme, and will he please ensure that the Coventry PFI project continues on course? I should be grateful for his confirmation on that.
    Mr. Boateng: I shall certainly now take a particular interest in the Coventry PFI hospital, but I am bound to
    440
    say that the whole House owes my hon. Friend a debt of gratitude for his contribution to the successful development and implementation of PFI.
    Adam Price: The Government's own figures show that the volume of PFI commitment in health in Wales is lower than in any other part of the country, which is due in large part to the Welsh Assembly Government's opposition to PFI. Will the Treasury allow the National Assembly to explore alternative funding mechanisms, including the issuing of a National Assembly bond, or is a lower level of capital investment in Wales simply a price that we have to pay because of our rejecting PFI?
    Mr. Boateng: Wales is receiving its fair share of the biggest increase in NHS investment that this country has ever known. The hon. Gentleman knows very well that we proceed on PFI on the basis of value for money, and on the contribution that it can make to the massive public investment that we are already making. That is reflected in Wales, as it is reflected elsewhere.

    Insurance Industry
    Mr. Nigel Beard: If he will make a statement on the prospects for the insurance industry. [105155]
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Ruth Kelly): The UK insurance industry is the largest in Europe and the third largest in the world, with £119 billion in annual net premiums, paying out some £240 million a day in pension and life insurance benefits, and £45 million a day in general insurance claims. The best basis for the long-term prospects for saving and the industries that it supports remains a strong economic policy framework, delivering a platform of low inflation and sound public finances.
    Mr. Beard: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is she satisfied that the accounts of insurance companies fairly represent their liabilities? Moreover, is she concerned that certain regulatory arrangements designed to ensure that companies can meet their liabilities have a cascade effect on equity prices, whereby several companies selling at once generate a fall in equity prices, which itself triggers further concurrent sales from insurance companies?
    Ruth Kelly: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. He is right to point out that an over-mechanistic approach to interpreting insurance company accounts could lead to a downward spiral and affect equity prices. The Financial Services Authority is closely monitoring the solvency of life insurance companies and recently wrote to them to emphasise that their main responsibility was to protect policyholders. The FSA made it clear that a breach of the statutory regulatory

    441
    margin did not represent insolvency. The letter is widely perceived to have alleviated those sorts of market pressures.
    Mr. John Bercow: What assessment has the hon. Lady made of the likely impact of the insurers' reorganisation and winding-up directive on purchases of reinsurance and on trade creditors?
    Ruth Kelly: We are aware of the situation regarding the winding-up directive. The Treasury is actively consulting insurance companies on how that directive can be implemented so as to minimise any potential difficulty.
    David Taylor: Last Friday, I spoke to owners of small care homes at the Caretalk conference at the county cricket club in Leicester. Those owners told me that the cost of their premiums for public liability and employers' liability was ballooning alarmingly. Is it not possible that the insurance industry, in a panic response to its problems, is escalating premiums beyond what is reasonable, and therefore driving some small businesses to the wall?
    Ruth Kelly: I am aware that small businesses have been severely affected in some instances by recent sharp increases in the cost of liability insurance. That may have been the result partly of underpricing the premiums in the past, partly of an increase in the number of claims and litigation cases, and partly of the fallout from 11 September on the insurance industry. Because of those concerns, the Department for Work and Pensions is leading a review. It will establish a basis of evidence before proceeding further on all of these issues. The Office of Fair Trading is also considering the evidence to see whether there are competition issues in the market. It will report later this spring.
    Dr. Vincent Cable: Is the Minister aware of the report of the accountant Colin Slater into the life insurer Equitable Life? The report suggests that, for the best part of 10 years, the company operated a pyramid selling scheme over declaring bonuses and concealing deficits. If Lord Penrose establishes that that is what happened, what action will the Minister take in respect of the negligence of the Department of Trade and Industry as regulator? Will policyholders be compensated?
    Ruth Kelly: I am aware of the report that the hon. Gentleman mentions. It is clear that the problems at Equitable Life are deep seated and go back for many years. That is why we set up an independent inquiry under Lord Penrose. However, the hon. Gentleman will have to be patient and await the outcome of what is, after all, an independent inquiry.

    World Trade
    Jim Knight: What plans there are to discuss progress on world trade agreements at the April (a) IMF and (b) World Bank meetings. [105156]
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): I have invited the director general of the World Trade Organisation to address the International Monetary Fund committee on 12 April to discuss the current WTO negotiations on a new trade round and also how we can meet the September deadline for progress on trade.
    Jim Knight: I am sure that my right hon. Friend agrees that it is vital for the poorer countries that good progress is made in world trade talks on issues such as fair trade, generic pharmaceuticals and agricultural reform. Will my right hon. Friend give us his assessment of what damage current international divisions may have done to the prospect of making progress on these important issues?
    Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for taking an interest in this. There are four areas where the WTO talks are behind schedule: the first is in agriculture, where we await the new European Union proposals; the second is in medicines, where it has been impossible to reach the agreement that was sought; the third is in services; and the fourth is in special treatment for developing countries. It will require an enormous push by all the major countries to reach agreements in Mexico in September.
    My hon. Friend raised the particular issue of pharmaceuticals. It is all the more important that pharmaceutical companies and Governments come together to see whether we can reach an agreement under which the poorest countries can enjoy access to medicines that should be available to them at prices that they can afford.
    Dr. Jenny Tonge: With all his troubles at home, the Chancellor must be very pleased that there are so many questions on international development today; indeed, it makes one think that there may be a reshuffle in the offing. At these meetings, will he take into account the under-representation of developing countries on all these international bodies, and will he tell the House what he hopes to do to increase their capacity, so that they can have better representation to put their case?
    Mr. Brown: We have just made a proposal on increased representation for the developing countries in the decision making of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. The hon. Lady will be interested to note that it is a British proposal, which is gaining considerable support.
    I am sorry that the hon. Lady thinks that it is not important for me to answer these questions. The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund have their spring meetings on 12 April. The G7 is meeting the day before. The World Trade Organisation talks have been stalling for some time and we need to make progress on debt relief and on the international finance facility. I happen to be the UK representative attending those meetings, and usually the hon. Lady supports us when we raise issues of international development.

    EU Economies
    Mr. Mark Todd: What assessment he has made of potential measures to improve the flexibility of the economies of the European Union. [105157]
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): I attended the European economic reform summit last Friday. European Union Finance Ministers agreed a joint statement on measures to improve the flexibility of the European economy, in particular the European patent, a review of labour market flexibility and a reform plan for research and development across Europe. The Government's own report on economic reform in Europe shows the additional reforms that still require to be made.
    Mr. Todd: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer, and for the robustness of that approach and of his past statements on the importance of increasing the flexibility of European economies before we consider joining the eurozone, which we all wish to do at some point when that is appropriate.
    Mr. Brown: It is absolutely important, for both the British economy and the rest of the European economy to grow, that we make changes to reform the labour markets, capital markets and product markets in Europe. The fact of the matter is that whereas a few months ago the European Union was predicting that the euro area would grow by over 2 per cent. this year, it is now likely to grow by less than 1 per cent. It is also true that the euro area economy has grown by more than 3 per cent. in only one of the last 10 years, compared with seven of the last 10 years in the case of America. That is what demonstrates the urgency of these economic reforms for economic prosperity.
    There is an understanding that greater labour market changes must be brought in. Some people will have seen the announcements by Chancellor Schröder in Germany over the last few days. European unemployment is more than 15 million. That is unacceptable and the reforms are essential to tackle it.
    Mr. Henry Bellingham: What assessment has the Chancellor made of the effect of the agency workers directive? Is he aware that the CBI has predicted that it may well cost 50,000 jobs? Why did Labour MEPs vote for it? Surely he will not get the flexibility back into those labour markets until we once again opt out of the social chapter.
    Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that we are in negotiations over the future of the agency workers directive, and we will be doing what we can to protect the British position in this matter. However, the hon. Gentleman should really read the words of the shadow Chancellor when he talks about labour market flexibility. He said:
    "Our labour market is … more flexible than that in other EU countries"
    and that
    "in almost every case, the UK is the most liberal in the EU itself."
    Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: My right hon. Friend will be aware that Germany is in serious economic difficulties and I am sure that if he were the German Finance Minister he would want to have some flexibility on interest rates, on fiscal policy and on the exchange rate, all of which are, of course, impossible to change. Will my right hon. Friend accept my congratulations for steering us clear of the greatest inflexibility of all: membership of the eurozone?
    Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is alluding to a question that is lower down the Order Paper, dealing with the assessment of the five tests on the euro. I can tell him that we are on course to complete the assessment of the five tests by June.
    Mr. Michael Howard: Of course it is true that this country's economy remains the most flexible in Europe, but does not the Chancellor realise that he is doing his best to destroy that? Does he not realise what a ridiculous figure he cuts when he lectures our European partners on the need for flexibility, while steadily undermining the flexibility of our own economy? How does the £15 billion a year in extra costs for British business, which result from his taxes and red tape, improve flexibility? How does his tax on jobs and pay, which comes into effect in 10 days' time, or the 15 new regulations introduced every working day since 1997, improve flexibility? Would not the Chancellor be listened to with a little more respect in presenting the case for flexibility if he started practising at home what he preaches abroad?
    Mr. Brown: I have here the report of the Heritage Foundation—the most right-wing institute in the United States of America—that says that the economy in Britain is more flexible under Labour than it was under the Conservatives. Did not the shadow Chancellor have to admit:
    "Conservatives … were less responsive to these concerns, and less effective in deregulating, than they should have been."?
    The fact of the matter is that we have created 1.5 million jobs. The shadow Chancellor said that the minimum wage was an act of regulation that would cost us 1 million jobs; instead, we have created 1.5 million.

    Millennium Targets
    Mr. Stephen McCabe: What he estimates will be the cost to (a) the Treasury, (b) other Governments and (c) international finance institutions of meeting the millennium target for reducing infant mortality. [105158]
    Valerie Davey: What estimate he has made of the cost to (a) the UK Government and (b) international finance institutions of meeting the millennium development target that all children have primary schooling by 2015. [105164]
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): The World Bank estimates that the additional cost of providing for health care is £12 billion a year and, for education, £10 billion a year.
    Mr. McCabe: Contrary to some other hon. Members, I think that my right hon. Friend deserves a great deal of credit for the dedication and commitment that he has shown to these matters. Will he continue to use his influence to ensure that the richer countries and the international financial institutions minimise waste and internal disagreements and maximise our chances of achieving those ambitious, but morally justified targets?
    Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those remarks. I think that he would agree with me that this is a time when we have to see not only the reconstruction of Iraq planned in a way that is satisfactory for the people of Iraq and the middle east peace settlement moved forward, but an act of statesmanship from the developed countries to the developing countries, so that they know that, as they invest, open up their markets and prepare for the modern economic world, we will support them with additional resources for health, education and anti-poverty programmes. I believe that this is the time when all major industrialised countries should be supporting the new initiative that my hon. Friend is talking about—an international finance facility that can release substantial sums—so that we can show people that, in addition to tackling the problems of terrorism, we are tackling the problems of poverty and injustice in the poorest countries.
    Valerie Davey: My right hon. Friend's positive response will be welcomed by many people in Bristol, West who support the millennium education project. What can my right hon. Friend and the other agencies involved do to ensure that as many girls as boys benefit from that exciting education development?
    Mr. Brown: More than 110 million children are not going to school today. Two thirds of those children are girls, as my hon. Friend will know. If we achieve our millennium development goals by investing more than £10 billion extra in education, the greatest beneficiaries will be those who have been discriminated against most in the provision of education—girls and young women. The fact of the matter today is that, in almost all the African countries that we are talking about as well as in Asia, far too few girls are getting the chance of education, and I believe that the expenditure that we are proposing for literacy, numeracy and enrolment in primary education can yield those results. In countries where money has been provided, such as Uganda, the pupil-teacher ratio has halved and there is a prospect that every young child—girl and boy—will have the chance of education.
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: Does the Chancellor agree first, that there is perhaps a great lesson to be learned from the most enlightened aspect of the Marshall aid programme, which was: to tie repayment levels to balance of payment surpluses, thereby creating a huge incentive for nations to trade freely; and secondly, that trade will always dwarf aid?
    Mr. Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising a useful analogy about moneys for developing countries. The Marshall plan provided 1 per cent. of America's gross domestic product to the poorer countries of Europe when reconstruction was planned
    446
    after the second world war. It started as a foreign policy initiative and ended up with the economic and social reconstruction of Europe that produced benefits not only because of the money that was invested in Europe, but the resulting extra trade. That is the exact analogy that we should use when considering money for developing countries.
    We must increase the amount of development aid, and I must tell the hon. Gentleman that America provides 0.1 per cent. of its GDP and the developed countries provide only 0.2 per cent. We would have to go a considerable way to reach aid figures that are equivalent to the Marshall plan. At the same time, however, benefits will include not only the amount of aid for the reconstruction and development of the poorest countries, but the greater benefits that result from a more open trading world from which all countries may benefit.

    Working Tax Credit
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: How many people in the eastern region will benefit from the working tax credit. [105159]
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Healey): Some 90,000 low-income families in the eastern region are expected to receive the new working tax credit and almost half a million in the region are expected to benefit from the new child tax credit. I am sure that my hon. Friend will recognise that no Government have given so much support to so many families as this Labour Government will from next month.
    Mrs. Campbell: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. It is certainly good news that working people without children or a disability will be able to claim the new working tax credit for the first time. Will my hon. Friend tell me whether there are any estimates of the number of likely non-claimants among those who are eligible? Will he describe the strategy that he is adopting to ensure that there is a good take-up of the working tax credit?
    John Healey: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In addition to the half a million people in the eastern region whom we expect to benefit from new tax credits, 6 million people will benefit throughout the UK as a whole. On take-up, I confirm that by the end of February, 3 million people had registered for the new tax credits, and a third of a million had done that online. The Inland Revenue is doing everything possible to ensure that those eligible get their claim in and benefit from the credit from day one.
    Mr. Richard Bacon: Does the Economic Secretary agree with Sir John Bourn that tax credits are public expenditure, and if not, why not?
    John Healey: We operate to conventional accounting rules and so the credits are not counted as public expenditure. We do not take the same view as Sir John Bourn.
    Mr. Bob Blizzard: Many people in my constituency will welcome the new tax credits that are coming into force. For too long, so many people who were in work suffered due to low pay, and there were many people in my constituency for whom work would not pay and so they were caught in the benefits trap. I congratulate my hon. Friend on the new system that will bring more money to more people and iron out some anomalies in the previous system. Will he do even more to encourage take-up by producing more publicity?
    John Healey: We are doing all that we can to encourage take-up, as I explained to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell). Any family with children that has an income lower than £58,000 a year is eligible for some support under the new child tax credit. We are introducing the system because it allows us finally to align the tax credit system with the tax system itself, which will make claiming simpler. We want to keep work incentives while ensuring that most income is paid to the main carer, which is what we are doing.

    ISA Tax Credit
    Mr. Bill Wiggin: What estimate he has made of the effect on the stock market of the removal of dividend tax credit. [105160]
    The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): It is not possible to attribute movements in share prices to the effect of particular Government tax changes.
    Mr. Wiggin:This Government have taken some £80 billion from the United Kingdom stock market—£5 billion a year through their pension taxes. They now intend to withdraw the individual savings account tax credit. Does the hon. Lady not think that her answer was extraordinarily complacent?
    Dawn Primarolo: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the removal of tax credit as part of the reform of corporate tax in 1997 was part of a long-term plan to tackle the distortions in investment. He will also be aware that ISAs retain the 10 per cent. protection until April 2004. I remind him that when his Government cut tax credits, they paid no compensation to the corporate sector or anyone else.
    Mr. Jim Cousins: Will my right hon. Friend consider extending the ISA tax credit beyond 2004? It is a difficult time for people who have equity ISAs and it is the wrong moment to encourage them to switch to bond funds. In all other respects, I support my right hon. Friend in taking a long-term view of shareholder value that does not depend on the volatility of asset values in the stock market at any given time and does not encourage financial engineering.
    Dawn Primarolo: As my hon. Friend is aware, the 10 per cent. of payable tax credit for ISAs was a transitional measure to allow investors to adjust their portfolios. I listened carefully to his comments on what might happen in future, although he would not expect me to announce anything from the Dispatch Box now. However, I shall certainly reflect on his concerns.
    Mr. Howard Flight: First, the stock market value of companies represents a multiple of their earnings, so a £5 billion reduction from aggregate dividend income at a price earnings multiple of 20 reduces stock market values by £100 billion per annum, which is roughly equal to pension fund deficits. Secondly, on the demand for UK equities driving prices, the Chancellor and the Paymaster General know well that the Chancellor's pension tax resulted in an acceleration of the closure of final salary pension schemes and a rebalancing of their portfolios, causing their equity holdings to fall from 53 to 39 per cent. Will the Paymaster General admit that the Chancellor's £5 billion pension tax has contributed materially both to the fall in the UK stock market and to the fact that the US stock market has outperformed the UK market by 50 per cent. since 1997?
    Dawn Primarolo: First, the hon. Gentleman again completely misses the point about the package of reforms undertaken by the Government, including cuts in corporation tax and numerous measures to help investment in the economy; and secondly, he completely ignores the Government's Green Paper on occupational pension funds and our continued support of those funds, which he continues to undermine. Thirdly, he is entirely wrong to assert that the UK stock market has fallen to a greater extent than European stock markets. That is simply not true and he knows it.

    Child Tax Credit (Watford)
    Claire Ward: How many families in Watford he expects will benefit from the children's tax credit. [105161]
    The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo):From April, the children's tax credit will be replaced by a new child tax credit. No figures are available for Watford. However, 460,000 families in the east of England are expected to benefit from the new child tax credit.
    Claire Ward:I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. It is a shame that we are unable to have the figures for my constituency, but I believe that a number of families will benefit from the new tax credit. I am concerned, however, that we monitor how many take up that option because a lot of people will not realise that they are entitled to it. What does she plan to do to ensure that there is a larger take-up campaign and that it is monitored over the coming months?
    Dawn Primarolo: My hon. Friend raises an important point. I am pleased to be able to tell her that the Inland Revenue will monitor the take-up of the child tax credit

    449
    and the working tax credit, and will publish statistics quarterly showing the numbers benefiting from one or both of the new tax credits. Those statistics will be published as part of the national statistics, which will enable us to see where the take-up is and whether any further steps need to be taken.

    Euro
    Mr. Win Griffiths: If he will make a statement on the publication of his reports on the five tests for euro membership. [105162]
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: If his assessment of the five tests for euro entry is going according to the timetable he has set. [105163]
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): As I said to the Treasury Committee in February, we are
    450
    on course to complete the assessment within two years of the start of this Parliament. When the assessment is completed, it will be published.
    Mr. Griffiths: May I press my right hon. Friend to give some indication as to whether we can expect to be campaigning on the referendum before the end of the year?
    Mr. Brown: That is a matter for the assessment. The assessment will be published and my hon. Friend can make his own judgment.
    Mr. Prentice: But if the assessment is no, will we have another assessment in six months or a year? Will we have rolling assessments? There is a big void there. No one knows what is going to happen.
    Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is once again trying to jump the gun. There will be an assessment, it will be published in full, and people will be able to make their judgment.

Business of the House
12.30 pm
Mr. Eric Forth: Will the Parliamentary Secretary give us the business for next week, please?
The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 31 MARCH—Remaining stages of the Railways and Transport. Safety Bill.
TUESDAY 1 APRIL—Second Reading of the Crime (International Co-operation) Bill [Lords].
Commons consideration of Lords Amendments.
WEDNESDAY 2 APRIL—Progress on remaining stages of the Criminal Justice Bill (Day 1).
Commons consideration of Lords Amendments.
THURSDAY 3 APRIL—Commons consideration of any further messages from the Lords that may be received.
Motion on the Easter recess Adjournment.
FRIDAY 4 APRIL—Private Members' Bills.
The provisional business for the following week will be:
MONDAY 7 APRIL—Commons consideration of Lords amendments followed by remaining stages of the Industrial Development (Financial Assistance) Bill.
TUESDAY 8 APRIL—Second Reading of the Anti-Social Behaviour Bill.
WEDNESDAY 9 APRIL—My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will open his Budget statement.
THURSDAY 10 APRIL—Continuation of the Budget debate.
FRIDAY 11 APRIL—Continuation of the Budget debate.
The House will wish to be reminded that consideration of the Budget debate will conclude on Monday 14 April.
Finally, last week I told the hon. Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs) that there was resistance within his party to the Northern Ireland Grand Committee meeting in Northern Ireland. That is not the case, and, following my letter to him of last Thursday, I would like to take this opportunity to correct the record. In mitigation, I can say that I took dodgy advice from the Front Bench—never a good idea!
Mr. Forth: I welcome not only the business statement, but that revelation, which comes as no news to us.
When will the appointment of a Leader of the House of Commons be announced? If one looks at the official description of the duties of the Leader of the House, one finds that he is not only a member of the House of Commons Commission—an important position in itself, which is vacant—but, even more importantly, as President of the Council, the Leader of the House has responsibility for the work of the Privy Council Office. What is happening in the Privy Council Office, Mr. Deputy Speaker? You, as a distinguished member of the
452
Privy Council, would take an interest in this matter. The Leader of the House is responsible for the arrangement of Government business in the Commons and for planning and supervising the Government's legislative programme. He also has responsibility for the reform of the House of Lords.
Perhaps most crucially, the Leader of the House upholds the rights and privileges of the House. The scandal is that the Prime Minister, with his usual contempt for the House of Commons, is apparently content that there is no one in place to uphold the rights and privileges of the House. When is this important position going to be filled, and what on earth is the Prime Minister doing?
While I am at it, where is the Minister of State in the Home Office, who is responsible for homeland security? Since the principled resignation of the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), another vacancy in the Government remains unfilled. What are we supposed to think about homeland security while there is no Minister in post to look after our interests? When is that vacancy to be filled?
Has the Parliamentary Secretary yet had an opportunity to read early-day motion 936? I will give him a chance to have a look at it now to refresh his memory.
[That this House deplores the derogatory comments made by the Deputy Prime Minister in relation to the resignation of Lord Hunt.]
Does the Parliamentary Secretary know who Lord Hunt is?
Mr. Bradshaw indicated assent.
Mr. Forth: Has the hon. Gentleman told the Deputy Prime Minister who Lord Hunt is? Has the Deputy Prime Minister apologised to Lord Hunt?
There is a huge gap in the Government's ministerial ranks. The national health service will sorely miss the expertise and services of Lord Hunt. When will appointments be made to those crucial vacancies and when will the Prime Minister start to take the House of Commons and, indeed, Parliament more seriously than he obviously does at the moment?
What has happened to the foundation hospitals Bill? It was, I thought, a flagship of the Government's legislative programme. Has it run aground? Is it possible that the reason for the non-appearance of the Bill is that the Government fear yet another huge rebellion in their ranks, so the health service is being denied the claimed benefits of foundation hospitals for grubby political reasons?
You will know. Mr. Deputy Speaker, that on 24 March the Secretary of State for International Development said:
"The fielding of a Foreign Office Minister was my decision; he had been recently involved in humanitarian issues. I am sorry, as I have said, that the briefing was inadequate and that the House was inadequately answered."—[Official Report, 24 March 2003; Vol. 402, c. 40.]
Does the Parliamentary Secretary agree with the analysis of the Secretary of State for International Development? Has he spoken to the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, his

453
hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien)? [Interruption.] The Parliamentary Secretary is being briefed by the Deputy Chief Whip—no doubt accurately. The Secretary of State having rather conveniently left the country when an urgent question was asked, but with her sidekick present in the Chamber, the hapless Minister from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office was put up to try to answer the questions—apparently inadequately, according to the Secretary of State. When will the Government treat the House and its procedures seriously, or will we continue to get that sort of contemptuous approach?
Mr. Bradshaw: On the right hon. Gentleman's last point, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development made a good and comprehensive statement to the House on Monday on the humanitarian situation in post-Saddam Iraq.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill. It will come in due course and will give us ample opportunity to analyse the difference in policy between the two parties—between Labour, which wants to invest and reform our public services, and the Opposition, who want to cut 20 per cent. of spending on public services.
The shadow Leader of the House also asked when there would be a new Leader of the House. There will be a new Leader of the House when there is a reshuffle. [Interruption.] However, it is staggering that the right hon. Gentleman can ask the question, "What is the Prime Minister doing?" The Prime Minister is conducting a war on behalf of this country and has other things on his mind at present. To suggest that the machinery of government suddenly comes to a grinding halt because some people are not in their posts is simply not the case.
I do know Lord Hunt; I worked with him when I was a Parliamentary Private Secretary in the Department of Health. He was an excellent Minister and I very much regret his decision to resign. The Opposition constantly advocate flexibility in the workplace outside Government, so they should be prepared to accept some flexibility within Government.
The right hon. Gentleman talked of what he called the contempt in which the Government hold Parliament. I simply point out that, earlier this week, his good friend, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) said on the wireless—[HON. MEMBERS: "Wireless?"] Yes, the wireless. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Government's record in keeping Parliament informed had been "quite good". Praise indeed from the right hon. Gentleman. I hope that there has not been another falling out on the Tory Front Bench.
Mr. Andrew Stunell: May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary, perhaps not with the exuberance of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), to convey to the Prime Minister the House's regret that no one has been appointed to replace the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) as Leader of the House? Perhaps it is a matter for political knockabout, but it is also
454
regrettable that the House has no advocate in the Cabinet and that the Government have no established Leader of the House to represent them.
Will the Parliamentary Secretary confirm that the Prime Minister will make a statement to the House on his visit to the United States, and that it will cover not only his discussions with the President but his meeting with the Secretary-General of the United Nations? Will he confirm that the key issues of humanitarian reconstruction and relief will be the subject of those discussions and that they will be reported to the House? Such issues are clearly increasingly important, not only to the Iraqi people and the middle east in general, but to the United Kingdom and its allies.
Mr. Bradshaw: I am sure that the Prime Minister will want to report back to the House at the earliest opportunity on his important discussions with President Bush and the Secretary-General of the United Nations. I simply point out to the hon. Gentleman that the Government have made more statements per sitting than the previous Government. The Prime Minister, like other Ministers, has been meticulous in reporting back to the House. Indeed, he is the first Prime Minister in history to subject himself to scrutiny by the Liaison Committee. The implied suggestion in his question, which almost repeated the shadow Leader of the House's accusation that the Government were treating Parliament with contempt, does not stand up to scrutiny.
Jeremy Corbyn: Could the acting Leader of the House let us know when a full debate will take place on Iraq? I appreciate and welcome the regular statements on the military situation, but we need a full day's debate to discuss the 200 Iraqi civilian casualties as well as the massive military casualties on all sides, and especially coalition forces' use of depleted uranium and cluster bombs, which will kill and maim many for decades. Those issues should be debated as well as the pressure from Arab nations to bring about a ceasefire and a peace process that does not mean the further destruction of civilian life in Iraq.
Mr. Bradshaw: My hon. Friend knows that coalition forces go to unprecedented lengths to avoid civilian casualties. I urge all hon. Members to treat with extreme caution the claims of the Iraqi regime about civilian casualties. We know from its record that such information is unreliable.
My hon. Friend mentioned weapons. He knows, because the matter has been discussed in the House often, that the weapons that our armed forces use are legal. The specific weapons to which he referred are used not against civilians but military targets. As he also knows, evidence for a health impact of depleted uranium on civilians does not exist.
Mr. John Wilkinson: On the accountability of Her Majesty's Government to Parliament on the conduct of the war, they have done well to provide for a series of statements from the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Defence. Since so much of our news comes from front-line television footage, which gives a particular perspective in each instance, will the Minister of State for Defence, who has

455
responsibility for the armed forces, come to Westminster Hall regularly so that hon. Members who are worried about aspects of the conduct of operations can put questions and be brought up to date on the overall position? Hon. Members could subsequently transmit that accurate information to their constituents.
Mr. Bradshaw:The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the difference between this conflict and any previous conflicts, even the last Gulf war or the Kosovo conflict, because of the impact of 24-hour television and the embedded journalists with the coalition forces. I shall take his request on board. I emphasise that the Secretary of State for Defence was here yesterday and that he has made himself available regularly. Defence Ministers are obviously extremely busy, but a written brief is placed in the Library every day. It is a useful method of putting the record straight in the way that the hon. Gentleman would like.
Alan Simpson: May I ask for a statement on the targeting strategies in the war on Iraq? Many hon. Members will have been shocked to discover that coalition forces have redesignated Basra as a target area. It is a city of 1 million people, half of whom are children. For it to be so redesignated raises serious questions about who the war is targeted against. I should like the Minister, or a Minister, to be able to say categorically that the UK specifically opposes targeting civilian populations—their marketplaces, and their water and electricity supplies—as well as the intended use of non-lethal biochemical weapons on those communities.
Mr. Bradshaw: There is no targeting of civilians in this conflict. What my hon. Friend says about Basra is absolutely wrong. If he means that Basra is a target for liberation, it is: the most recent news reports that I saw before I came into the Chamber seemed to suggest that some of the civilians used as human shields by Saddam's forces in Basra have escaped the city. We shall have to wait for confirmation of those reports later in the day.
I can only repeat what Ministers at this Dispatch Box have said on a regular basis—that, with lawyers looking over the shoulders of every military commander making a decision, the targeting in this campaign is unprecedented in its care and accuracy.
Mr. Michael Jack: I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary will understand that the disposal of fallen stock is of great importance for farmers. I understand that the Government will bring forward regulations by the end of April to cover new procedures, but no details have been made available yet to farmers. Before the regulations come to the House, will the Parliamentary Secretary make available full details of the Government's proposals for consultation and discussion with farmers?
Mr. Bradshaw: The right hon. Gentleman raises a matter that I know is of great concern to members of the farming community, not least in parts of the country, such as my constituency, where livestock farming is an important pillar of the economy. I will get in touch with
456
my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and ensure that the regulations are published in good time.
Joan Ruddock: Does my hon. Friend agree that the blue flag of the UN rather than the stars and stripes will best represent the liberation of the Iraqi people once the war on Iraq is concluded? Although he has said that there will be a statement, will he reconsider the forthcoming business? I believe that we need a full debate in the House on how Iraq will be governed after the conflict.
Mr. Bradshaw: I think that the Iraqi flag would be a better symbol of the liberation of the Iraqi people than any other, but we o f course want the maximum support, internationally and from the UN, when it comes to the post-conflict redevelopment of Iraq. I am sure that there will be plenty of opportunities to discuss that in the House. At the moment, however, we are still involved in an armed conflict.
Andrew Selous: Did the Parliamentary Secretary hear this morning's Radio 4 interview with a senior Ba'ath party official? Will he take the matter up with his colleagues at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport? Having that sort of Iraqi propaganda on the BBC is very upsetting for the families of service men and women serving in the Gulf at the moment, but it is also extremely inappropriate in a time of war. We would not have allowed Goebbels this opportunity, so why are we changing policy now?
Mr. Bradshaw: In contrast to the Iraqis, we live in a free country. I would not approve of any form of censorship, but broadcasters have the responsibility to use their professionalism and ensure balance. I recognise that there is much concern about some of the media coverage of the current conflict. As a former broadcaster myself, I know that broadcasters take their professionalism extremely seriously. However, the hon. Gentleman may have a point in connection with the outrageous broadcasting by al-Jazeera of pictures of captured and dead British soldiers. That is intolerable, and against all the international broadcasting conventions.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Should we not have a debate on the humanitarian arrangements in Iraq to handle the current crisis? However hon. Members voted in relation to the war, surely we are all deeply concerned about the humanitarian crisis that exists in that country at the moment. For instance, Basra is the gateway to Iraq. It has an extensive dock marshalling yard and a railway line to Baghdad, and if it can be used properly for humanitarian provisions, that is all to the good. We should be able to debate those matters on the Floor of the House.
Mr. Bradshaw: My hon. Friend raises an important point, and he is right. I hope that even those Members who opposed the decision to take military action can rally behind the enormous humanitarian effort that will be required to redevelop Iraq after more than 20 years of misrule and dictatorship under Saddam Hussein. My hon. Friend may be pleased to know that in the past 48

457
hours real progress has been made by the Red Crescent and the Red Cross, which are doing a n incredible job of work in Basra, while the conflict is going on, to reconnect the water and electricity supplies. We are also confident that in the very near future we will be able to use the only deep water port, once the remaining couple of mines and a couple of old rusting hulks have been removed to make that passage safe.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: When senior Members speak from the Dispatch Box it is important that we can believe what they are saying, not think that they are taking part in stunts. Last Thursday, the Deputy Prime Minister said in relation to the fire dispute:
"I have concluded that the time has come for legislation".—[Official Report, 20 March 2003; Vol. 401, c. 1102.]
A Bill was published on the following day. The Parliamentary Secretary has given us the business until 28 April, but there is no Second Reading of that Bill, which we were told was important and urgent. Why not?
Mr. Bradshaw: That Second Reading will take place if and when the Government think that it is necessary. As the hon. Gentleman well knows, the situation in relation to the fire brigade dispute is fluid. I understand that the union's executive is meeting today. The executive made a recommendation to its membership to accept the pay deal, but it was sadly rejected by the conference. I hope that the executive will endorse an all-member secret ballot so that ordinary members of the fire brigade can settle for a deal that most Members on both sides of the House consider very generous.
Ms Meg Munn: My hon. Friend is aware of the tragic death before Christmas of my constituent, Daniel Hindle, who was aged 17, after having had his lip pierced. Is he aware that body piercing is not regulated outside London? What action do the Government intend to take to introduce legislation as soon as possible to ensure that body piercing is a much safer practice throughout the country?
Mr. Bradshaw: My hon. Friend raises an important point, and I congratulate her on her work on the matter following the tragic death of one of her young constituents. We are all aware of the problem from our constituency experience. She may be aware that the Local Government Bill will receive its Second Reading in the other place on 3 April, and she may like to try to arrange for a relevant amendment to be tabled there before then.
Norman Lamb: Will the Parliamentary Secretary explore the possibility of a statement from the Foreign Secretary on the situation in Kashmir? In the past week, there was the appalling massacre of 23 Hindu villagers, who were entirely innocent, preceded just a few days earlier by the assassination of the insurgent commander Abdul Majid Dar. The concern is that with the eyes of the world turned elsewhere, there will be increased tension between India and Pakistan, and it is important for the
458
House to know what discussions there might be with those two Governments about the situation there. To declare an interest, I visited Kashmir last October as part of a delegation funded by the Indian Government.
Mr. Bradshaw: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that the situation in Kashmir is extremely worrying, and he puts his finger on an important point: the danger that groups, factions or dictators—in the case of Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe—will exploit the fact that the international spotlight is on one particular issue to do things that they would not have got away with otherwise. I am sure that when the Foreign Secretary next comes to this House to make a statement, the hon. Gentleman will take the opportunity to question him on precisely that issue.
Dr. Ashok Kumar: Will my hon. Friend make some time available for us to debate in the House the future of the steel industry, which is going through a very difficult time? It has been announced that one or two of the three sites could be closed. Certainly, my area of Teesside could face redundancies of 3,000 direct jobs and 7,000 indirect jobs. We discussed manufacturing industry this morning, and it is a very important issue. Given that, will my hon. Friend find some time for us to debate the future of the steel industry?
Mr. Bradshaw: My hon. Friend raises an important point that I know is of great concern to people in his constituency who face the possibility of losing their jobs. I hope that the recent reduction in the strength of the pound will be of some comfort to our manufacturing industry in general and to our steel industry in particular. That said, there are very big difficulties in the steel market within the global economy. I cannot promise that we will be able to find time to have a debate on the steel industry on the Floor of the House, but my hon. Friend may like to apply for a debate in Westminster Hall.
Mr. Andrew Mackay: Although last Thursday it seemed churlish and carping of the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), to demand, on the day that war had started, that there should be new ministerial appointments, I do not think that any Member of this House, including the Parliamentary Secretary, would have believed that a week later the appointments would still not have been made. I put it to him that it is vitally important that those ministerial positions are filled quickly, otherwise the world will think that there is no needs for those Ministers or will assume that we are waiting for the end of the war and a reshuffle that includes the Secretary of State for International Development.
Mr. Bradshaw: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the machinery of Government and the work that is being done continues. The situation is not unprecedented. Recently, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) was not in her post at the Department of Health for several months after she had a baby, and that work was taken on by other Ministers. It is perfectly possible for that to

459
be done. We are in a very unusual situation: we have a military conflict going on, and we had a small number of ministerial resignations on the eve of that conflict. I urge the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues to have some understanding of the pressure that the Prime Minister is under. He needs to take great care over the way in which he reforms his Government, and at the moment the safety of our forces in Iraq is his primary concern.
David Winnick: If there is very shortly to be another statement on Iraq, would it not be a useful opportunity to remind ourselves that tens of thousands of Iraqis have been murdered over the years, and that what was said earlier should therefore be put into perspective? While this war is being waged against tyranny, and victory must indeed be ours, is it not absolutely necessary, in so far as it is possible, that genuine civilians should be protected? If what occurred yesterday was the result of American bombing, it is to be deplored.
Mr. Bradshaw: What happened yesterday represents a prime example of why we need to be extremely cautious before we jump to conclusions about what might have happened. In a situation like that, where there is claim and counter-claim, what we do know is that coalition forces take unprecedented steps to avoid civilian casualties, whereas Saddam Hussein deliberately locates military infrastructure in the middle of civilian populations, and he uses civilians as human shields—he has done so before, and he is doing so now.
Mr. John Taylor: When the Government initially embarked on their domestic airports consultation, it was on a presumption of suppressed demand in the south-east, with consequences for the other regions. Now that that has been reversed by the High Court, should not the midlands region, for example, be re-consulted on the revised assumptions? Is not the whole process now flawed and open to further challenge, and may we have a debate?
Mr. Bradshaw: We are committed to regional airports, and the High Court decision related only to Gatwick, as the hon. Gentleman knows. The consultation process is still going on, and I am sure that if he has not already done so—I suspect that he has—he will give his opinions and feed them into that process.
Jane Griffiths: Will my hon. Friend find time for a debate on better regulation to outlaw sharp practice by solicitors and estate agents in order to protect people such as my constituent, Mr. Cant, who has been the victim of a series of extremely threatening letters in an attempt to bully him into selling his home for a price that is some £60,000 less than its market value?
Mr. Bradshaw: My hon. Friend raises a point that I am sure that many of us have come across in our constituency casework. I am also sure that she will be aware that measures have been undertaken to improve the working of the Law Society, which is the organisation that polices the profession of solicitors.
460
She has made her point, and I hope that the firm in question has heard it. Again, she may wish to apply for a debate on the subject in Westminster Hall.
Dr. Julian Lewis: I sympathise with the difficulties of the Government in conducting a full-scale reshuffle of Cabinet and other ministerial posts while a war is going on, but I remind the hon. Gentleman that one post that is directly relevant to the war, as my right hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House pointed out, is that of Minister with responsibility for homeland security. The Opposition wanted a separate Department for homeland security, as this country is at risk of terrorism. Surely that appointment can be made now, without waiting for a full-scale reshuffle, even if one accepts the reasoning that the acting Leader of the House has put forward.
Mr. Bradshaw: The Home Secretary is in overall charge of homeland security and is doing an excellent job. The responsibilities that were in the portfolio of my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) have been passed to his colleagues in the Home Office, so my right hon. Friend's resignation does not mean that the job is not being done. Rather than carping about that we should congratulate our police and security forces on the work that they have done to ensure the safety of our citizens post-11 September and on what they have done to avert some serious incidents.
John Cryer: Will my hon. Friend find time for a debate on the impact of the council tax on people on fixed incomes? I am thinking particularly about pensioners. The formula and the workings of the council tax have been reviewed and have been changed to some extent, but that is a fairly superficial examination. The fundamentals of the present council tax have not been dealt with, and they owe far too much to its predecessor, the hated poll tax. That is why it is probably the most iniquitous tax that Britain has ever had. May we have a debate to examine those fundamentals?
Mr. Bradshaw: I am well aware of the problems faced by people on fixed low incomes, and particularly the elderly, when enormous council tax demands come through their letterboxes. We have had debates on the council tax, and it is Deputy Prime Minister's questions next Wednesday, when my hon. Friend may wish to raise that matter. As he is well aware, this Government have given local authorities a 25 per cent. real terms increase in grants since we came to power, compared with the 6 per cent. cut under the previous Conservative Government.
Pete Wishart: May I refer the Parliamentary Secretary to the code of conduct issued for civil servants for the duration of the elections to the devolved Administrations? In particular, section 8 states:
"Announcements on non devolved matters could have a bearing on the devolved elections. Ministers will be aware of the potential sensitivities in this regard and might decide, on advice, to postpone making controversial announcements until after the elections."
Government announcements do not come any more controversial than the Budget statement. Therefore, by having that statement smack bang in the middle of the

461
Scottish elections, the Government are breaking their own code of conduct for the elections. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Budget statement should be put back until well after the Scottish and Welsh elections?
Mr. Bradshaw: No, I do not think that many people would support that. To reassure the hon. Gentleman, this is an inevitable consequence of devolution. The comprehensive spending review sets the amount of money going to Scotland and Wales, and they both got a massive increase, as did most parts of the rest of the United Kingdom. It is not the Budget that sets those levels. We are aware of the problem to which the hon. Gentleman referred, and we are sensitive to such concerns. We have instructed our civil servants to exercise particular care in relation to any announcement.
Mrs. Anne Campbell: One of the great achievements of my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) when he was Leader of the House was the way in which he steered through the reforms of the House, particularly modernisation. I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that time is needed for those reforms to bed down. I hope that the resolution that was passed by the House, which said that the reforms should remain in place until the end of this Parliament, will not be reviewed at an early date.
Mr. Bradshaw: I quite agree with my hon. Friend. It will be a lasting legacy of my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston to this place that he was a great reformer. He got through a package of modernisation of the House of Commons that will last the test of time.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Will the Parliamentary Secretary consider finding time for a debate prior to the Easter recess on the important subject of civil emergency planning? Responsibility for this matter is fragmented among several Departments, notably the Cabinet Office, the Home Office, and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. The House will wish to be assured that all those Departments are properly co-ordinating their activities, and that local activities are properly co-ordinated between local authorities, primary care trusts and schools. It will also wish to be assured that the emergency services themselves are properly co-ordinating their activities, even to the level of sharing oxygen cylinders. Certain problems may arise that need to be considered. Will the Parliamentary Secretary please consider providing time for a debate on that important subject?
Mr. Bradshaw: I cannot promise that we will have time before Easter for such a debate but the hon. Gentleman raises a very important point, of which the Government are well aware: the need for us radically to modernise our civil contingency planning, which, as he rightly says, goes back to an era in which the sort of civil contingencies that we might have faced then were rather different from the ones that we face today.
David Taylor: Our Government, in their first six years, have introduced a
462
good number of initiatives and improvements in the parliamentary process, not least the multi-Department Question Times in Westminster Hall—recently, on younger people, and, today, on older people. Are further such sessions planned? Will the Parliamentary Secretary consider including in the parliamentary timetable one on the illegal occupation of land? Communities such as those in north-west Leicestershire, which are close to the motorway network, have to endure frequent difficulties caused by members of the travelling community who are sometimes involved in antisocial behaviour, criminality, and illegal tipping of prohibited materials.
Will my hon. Friend consider a cross-departmental session in Westminster Hall with representatives of the Home Office, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and other relevant Departments? It is a very important issue to the people of Castle Donnington and the many villages in the vicinity.
Mr. Bradshaw: I am not convinced that such a narrow issue would be appropriate for the kind of cross-cutting question time in Westminster Hall that my hon. Friend suggests. I am sure, however, that he will have an opportunity, when the Anti-social Behaviour Bill is introduced, to repeat those points. I am glad that he recognises, as do Members on both sides of the House, how successful the cross-cutting questions in Westminster Hall have been.
Mr. David Cameron: May I join other Members in calling for a debate on the humanitarian situation in Iraq? I do not know whether the acting Leader of the House heard the Secretary of State for International Development say yesterday that if we do not get a UN mandate, British troops will represent an occupying force, without
"the authority to reorganise institutions or establish a new Government."—[Official Report, 26 March 2003; Vol. 402, c. 277.]
Does that not strike him as rather different in tone from what other Ministers are saying, and as a tone that might be upsetting to our armed forces who are doing such a great job in Iraq? Is it not necessary to plan for every eventuality to rebuild the democratic and civilian Iraq, even if we cannot secure the UN mandate that, of course, we all want?
Mr. Bradshaw: My right hon. Friend made it quite clear that there are two distinct phases. In the military phase, under The Hague and Geneva conventions, our armed forces or those in the field are responsible for the well-being of civilians and the humanitarian situation. When that military phase is over, we will need the maximum international support for the redevelopment of Iraq. For that to happen, it would be extremely helpful to have explicit United Nations support, which we all want to see, including the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, who said as much yesterday.
Mr. Andrew Rosindell: I draw the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to early-day motion 963.
[That this House is appalled at the decision by some local authorities in the United Kingdom to ban hot cross buns from schools; believes the hot cross bun to be a

463
splendid Easter tradition that represents the Christian heritage of Britain; and encourages all schools in the United Kingdom to ignore such politically correct advice from local authorities and continue to serve hot cross buns.]
It relates to the absurd and ridiculous banning of the hot cross bun by Labour and Liberal-controlled councils. Will he make time for a debate on the damaging and divisive effects of that sort of political correctness?
Mr. Bradshaw: I must say that I have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman. Hot cross buns are a delicious and traditional part of our pre-Good Friday cuisine. I hope that people up and down the country will enjoy a great many of them in the run-up to Good Friday.
Mr. John Bercow: Further to the line of questioning pursued by my right hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House and the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell), can we please have an urgent debate in Government time on the security of tenure of the Chairman of the Modernisation Committee? Given that, as I understand it, the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) remains a member of that important Committee, would not a debate on the Floor of the House give us the chance to discover whether he wants to remain Chairman, whether the Government want him to do so and whether they will undertake not to seek to remove him from that post if the House judges that he has the intellect, skill and respect required to continue in it?
Mr. Bradshaw: I think that we have got rather more important things to debate over the next few days and weeks. As I said last week, the chairmanship of that Committee is a matter for the Committee itself.
Mr. Roy Beggs: May I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for his letter and the generous correction that he made earlier?
464
At this time, our thoughts and prayers are naturally with our armed forces, the families of coalition service men and women who have been bereaved and those injured in the campaign to bring freedom to the people of Iraq from the brutality of the Saddam Hussein Ba'ath regime. Does the Parliamentary Secretary agree that we must never forget those who still suffer the trauma of 30 years of vicious bombing and murder directed by Sinn Fein-IRA and some loyalist terrorist groups? Can time be provided so that we might debate those unsolved bombings and murders and what might still be done to identify and locate missing persons, and perhaps make suggestions to bring closure on the tragedies of the past 30 years for those who are still suffering?
Mr. Bradshaw: All Members of the House would want to join the hon. Gentleman in expressing our sympathy and condolences for everyone not only in Northern Ireland, but Iraq and other countries, who have suffered the ravages of terrorism or dictatorship. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, who is sitting next to me on the Front Bench, will bear in mind what he has said.

BILL PRESENTED
  ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR
  Mr. Secretary Blunkett, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Prescott, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Straw, Secretary Margaret Beckett., Mr. Secretary Clarke and Mr. Bob Ainsworth, presented a Bill to make provision in connection with anti-social behaviour: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 28 March, and to be printed. Explanatory notes to be printed [Bill 83].
Orders of the Day
  Police (Northern Ireland) Bill [Lords]
  As amended in the Standing Committee, further considered.
  Police (Northern Ireland) Bill [Lords]
    Clause 23

      DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION AND HOLDING OF INQUIRIES
      1.12 pm
      Lady Hermon:I beg to move amendment No. 60, in page 16, line 1, leave out clause 23.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst):With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
      Amendment No. 61, in page 16, line 9 [Clause 23], at end insert—
      '(d) the information would, or would be likely to, prejudice the prevention or detection of crime or the apprehension or prosecution of offenders.'.
      Amendment No. 84, in page 16, line 9 [Clause 23], at end insert—
      '(d) the information would, or would be likely, to prejudice ongoing police investigations or operations.'
      Amendment No. 62, in page 16, line 16 [Clause 23], at end insert—
      '(d) the inquiry would, or would be likely to, prejudice the prevention or detection of crime or the apprehension or prosecution of offenders.'.
      Amendment No. 85, in page 16, line 16 [Clause 23], at end insert—
      '(d) the information would, or would be likely, to prejudice ongoing police investigations or operations.'.
      Government amendments Nos. 30 and 31.
      Amendment No. 59, in page 15, line 31 [Clause 22], leave out 'shall' and insert 'may'.
      Amendment No. 83, in page 15, line 46 [Clause 22], leave out paragraph (c).
      Government amendment No. 32.
      Amendment No. 52, in page 12, line 1, leave out Clause 18.
      Government amendment No. 9.
      Amendment No. 56, in page 12, line 8 [Clause 18], leave out
      'it appears to the Chief Constable that'.
      Government amendment No. 10.
      Amendment No. 78, in page 12, line 10 [Clause 18], at end insert—
      '(2A) Subsection (1) does not require the Chief Constable to supply any information to the Board if it appears to the Chief Constable that the information ought not to be disclosed on the grounds that it would, or would be likely to, prejudice ongoing police investigations and operations.'.
      Government amendment No. 11.
      466
      Amendment No. 53, in page 12, line 14 [Clause 18], at end insert
      'or is information that would or be likely to, prejudice the prevention or detection of crime or the apprehension or prosecution of offenders'.
      Amendment No. 79, in page 12, line 14 [Clause 18], at end insert
      'or would, or would be likely to, prejudice ongoing police investigations or operations'.
      Government amendment No. 12.
      Amendment No. 57, in page 12, line 19 [Clause 18], leave out 'in his opinion'.
      Amendment No. 58, in page 12, line 20 [Clause 18], after 'would', insert in his opinion'.
      Amendment No. 54, in page 12, line 21 [Clause 18], leave out 'or'.
      Amendment No. 55, in page 12, line 23 [Clause 18], at end insert
      'or
      (c) information that would, or would be likely to, prejudice the prevention or detection of crime or the apprehension or prosecution of offenders.'.
      Government amendments Nos. 13 and 14.
      Amendment No. 38, in page 6, line 10, leave out Clause 9.
      Amendment No. 70, in page 6, line 13 [Clause 9], at end insert—
      (1A) In subsection (2) at the beginning insert 'Except where subsection (2A) applies
      (1B) After subsection (2) insert—
      "(2A) Subsection (2) shall not apply where a longer period for the purposes of (2)(b) is not agreed by the Chief Constable and the Board.
      (2B) Where there is no agreement between the Chief Constable and the Board for the purposes of (2)(b) a report shall be made within a longer period as may be determined by Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary.".'.
      Amendment No. 71, in page 6, line 19 [Clause 9], at end insert—
      '(3A) The Chief Constable may refer to the Secretary of State a requirement to submit a report under subsection (1) if it appears to the Chief Constable that a report in compliance with the requirement would contain information that ought not to be disclosed because it would, or would be likely, to prejudice ongoing police investigations and operations.'.
      Amendment No. 72, in page 6, line 27 [Clause 9], at end insert—
      '(aa) exempting the Chief Constable from the obligation to 18], report to the Board information the disclosure of which, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, would, or would be likely, to prejudice ongoing police investigations or operations;'.
      Government amendment No. 3.
      Amendment No. 40, in page 6, line 38 [Clause 9], leave out 'or (b)' and insert (b) or (c)'.
      Amendment No. 41, in page 7, line 2 [Clause 9], at end insert
      'or
      (c) information that would, or would be likely to, prejudice the prevention or detection of crime or the apprehension or prosecution of offenders.'.

      467
      Amendment No. 73, in page 7, line 2 [Clause 9], at end insert—
      '(c) information the disclosure of which would, or would be likely to, prejudice ongoing police investigations or operations.'.
      Government amendments Nos. 4 to 7.
      Amendment No. 42, in page 7, line 32, leave out Clause 10.
      Amendment No. 74, in page 7, line 40 [Clause 10], at end insert—
      '(2A) The Chief Constable may refer to the Secretary of State the decision of the Board to cause an inquiry held under this section if it appears to the Chief Constable that such an inquiry ought not to be held because it would, or would be likely to, prejudice ongoing police investigations or operations.'.
      Amendment No. 43, in page 8, line 7 [Clause 10], at end insert
      'or
      (c) information that would be likely to prejudice the prevention or detection of crime or the apprehension or prosecution of offenders.'.
      Amendment No. 75, in page 8, line 7 [Clause 10], at end insert—
      '(c) information the disclosure of which would, or would be likely to, prejudice ongoing police investigations or operations.'.
      Government amendment No. 18.
      Amendment No. 80, in page 14, line 11 [Clause 21], at end insert—
      '(d) the Chief Constable informs the person that, in his opinion, the information would, or would be likely, to prejudice ongoing police investigations or operations.'.
      Government amendments Nos. 19 to 22.
      Amendment No. 81, in page 14, line 18 [Clause 21], at end insert—
      '(c) the Chief Constable informs the Board or the Committee under section 33A(6) or 59(4H) that, in his opinion, the information is information of a kind that would, or would be likely, to prejudice ongoing police investigations or operations.'.
      Government amendments Nos. 23 to 29.
      Amendment No. 86, in page 8, line 25, leave out Clause 11.
      Amendment No. 44, in page 8, line 36 [Clause 11], leave out subsection (4).
      Government amendment No. 8.
      Amendment No. 76, in page 10, line 10 [Clause 12], at end insert—
      (c) information the disclosure of which would, or would be likely to, prejudice ongoing police investigations or operations.'.
      New clause 21—Majority of Board to approve inquiries under section 60—
      '(1) Paragraph 18 of Schedule 1 to the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 (procedure for decisions of Board relating to Inquiries under section 60) is amended as set out in subsections (2) and (3).
      (2) For subparagraph (5) substitute—
      "(5) The Board shall not take any of the steps mentioned in subparagraph (1)(a) unless a proposal to that effect has been approved by a majority of members of the Board.".
      (3) For subparagraph (6) substitute—
      "(6) The required number of members is a majority of the Board.".'.
      Lady Hermon: I am very happy indeed that the Government are responsible for most of the amendments that we are going to discuss. My right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and I are responsible for a minority of them—I hasten to add that it is only a minority. I apologise for the absence of my right hon. Friend, who has commitments at home in Northern Ireland, although my colleagues will help throughout the afternoon. Of course, when Democratic Unionist party Members take up their positions at the end of the Bench—we hope that they will do so at some stage—they will make a very constructive contribution.
      Mr. John Bercow: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. Of course, we regret the absence of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), but may I assure her that this House, as far as I can tell, is never happier than when she is here and on her feet? [Interruption.]
      1.15 pm
      Lady Hermon: I thank the hon. Gentleman; I am so pleased with those remarks, especially as they appear to have been generously endorsed by the hon. Members for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) and for East Londonderry (Mr. Campbell). I am delighted that they have endorsed his comments.
      I should like to preface my remarks about amendment No. 60 and associated amendments by reminding the House and the Minister in particular of words that she used only a few days ago in relation to the Northern Ireland Assembly Elections Bill. On 17 March—that is, St. Patrick's day, when, if my memory serves me correctly, we were all blessed with great generosity of spirit in this House—she said:
      "there had been a catastrophic breakdown of trust"
      that
      "made the effective functioning of devolved government impossible."—[Official Report, 17 March 2003; Vol. 401, c. 641.]
      Thus, the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—now the Minister without Portfolio—had to make what was a difficult, controversial and, I think, courageous decision to suspend the Assembly.
      Against the background of a huge and dramatic breakdown in trust, which the Minister rightly identified, may I remind her and her colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office that it is absolutely essential to build back that trust? When we go to the Assembly elections, which are set in stone, concrete or whatever—they have been set in tablets in this House—for 29 May, if Sinn Fein decides to come into the Policing Board after acts of completion, as I hope it will, the composition of the board, which now has 19 members, will change. There are currently 10 political members and nine independents. After the Assembly election, the composition of the political members will inevitably change. If confidence is to be rebuilt in the communities, we must have confidence in the Sinn Fein members of that Policing Board.
      It is therefore not helpful that the Bill removes one of the four original grounds on which the Chief Constable could withhold information from the entire board, reducing their number to three. I shall not rehearse the arguments that we heard in Standing Committee, but the net effect of the amendments would be to restore the

      469
      Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 to its original form. Hon. Members will know that section 59 of that Act sets out the four grounds on which the Chief Constable is entitled to withhold information from the entire Policing Board and also from the police ombudsman and from inquiries following reports to the Policing Board. It states that information should not be disclosed
      "in the interests of national security … because it relates to an individual and is of a sensitive personal nature"—
      I emphasise that the word used is "personal", rather than "personnel"—
      "…because it would, or would be likely to, prejudice proceedings which have been commenced in a court of law, or"—
      this is the key point—
      "because it would, or would be likely to, prejudice the prevention or detection of crime or the apprehension or prosecution of offenders".
      In those four cases, the Chief Constable could exercise his discretion and refer the report to the Secretary of State rather than the Policing Board.
      I greatly regret that, to bitter opposition, the Bill deletes the fourth of those grounds. I know that the old excuse is trotted out that maintaining the three conditions and dropping the fourth more closely reflects the much quoted Patten report. However, paragraph 6.22 of that report makes this recommendation:
      "the Policing Board should have the power to require the Chief Constable to report on any issue pertaining to the performance of his functions or those of the police service … The grounds on which the Chief Constable might question this requirement should be strictly limited to issues such as those involving national security, sensitive personnel matters and cases before the courts."
      The Patten report has 20 chapters, chapter 20 consisting of a summary of all the firm recommendations. The exemptions applying to matters of national security, sensitive personnel matters and cases before the courts are not repeated as recommendations in that chapter. This is simply an explanation, rather than a definite, exhaustive list of circumstances in which the Chief Constable could withhold information from the Policing Board. I do not buy into the excuse—for that is what it is—that the Bill reflects the Patten report more closely than the 2000 Act did.
      The Government have attempted to deal with the change in another way as well. They propose the establishment of a special committee in the Policing Board. Government amendment No. 31 places a duty on the board to establish such a committee in certain circumstances, but we want a discretion rather than a duty. In fact, to be honest, we do not want special committees at all. It is regrettable that the Government should use and quote from the Patten report when it suits them, for purposes of political expediency. The report contains no recommendation for the establishment of special committees, and we will oppose that move.
      I ask the Government to reflect more carefully, and to reinstate the fourth ground on which the Chief Constable can withhold delicate information in the run-up to court proceedings. We do not want criminal proceedings to be jeopardised or undermined by the premature disclosure of such information to the board.
      470
      The Minister should bear in mind what she rightly said about the catastrophic breakdown of confidence. That confidence must be restored, and if Sinn Fein chooses to sit on the board the process must be carried through and must be seen to be carried through.
      Mr. John Taylor: I listened with interest to the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon). We all know of her knowledge of these matters.
      If I may say so, in a deliberately self-denigrating way, although I have been here for a number of years I have never entirely mastered the process by which amendments are called for voting purposes. I will leave it to the invisible ones to have a word with the Chair about the point at which my party would like to divide the House and express its view.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps I can reassure the hon. Gentleman. The visible one in the Chair will do his best to keep him informed.
      Mr. Taylor: I am utterly confident of that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am relieved to learn that, in biblical terms, the cup passes from me.
      My party is in considerable sympathy with amendments Nos. 60 and 61, to which the hon. Lady spoke so well, but I want to say something about amendments Nos. 84 and 85, tabled by members of my party. Clause 23 inserts a new section 76A in the 2000 Act, sometimes called the Mandelson Act, entitled "Disclosure of information and holding of inquiries". The new section would reduce the number of grounds for appeal by the Chief Constable to the Secretary of State under sections 59 and 60 of the 2000 Act from four to three.
      Section 59 currently requires the Chief Constable to submit reports whenever he is required to do so by the Policing Board, but if he thinks that a report would contain information that ought not to be disclosed, there are four grounds on which he can refer such a requirement to the Secretary of State. He can do that if he thinks that the information should not be disclosed

      "(a) in the interests of national security,

      (b) because it relates to an individual and is of a sensitive personal nature,

      (c) because it would, or would be likely to, prejudice proceedings which have been commenced in a court of law, or

      (d) because it would, or would be likely to, prejudice the prevention or detection of crime or the apprehension or prosecution of offenders".

      The same four grounds apply to the setting up of inquiries under section 60 of the Act.
      Under clause 23, the grounds on which the Chief Constable can appeal are that
      "(a) it is in the interests of national security"
      —not disclosing the information, that is—
      "(b) the information is sensitive personnel information",
      or information whose disclosure would be likely to put an individual in danger, and
      (c) the information would, or would be likely to, prejudice proceedings which have been commenced in a court of law."
      Crucially, the fourth ground has been abolished.

      471
      Throughout the Bill's passage so far, we have argued that the change could seriously undermine the operational independence and effectiveness of the Chief Constable, who would now have a statutory obligation to provide the board with reports relating to the conduct of ongoing investigations. That is unacceptable. Significantly, the Government have not pointed to a single deficiency in the current legislation, passed less than three years ago, that justifies the change. We appreciate the changes made to the Bill on Third Reading in the House of Lords, but they remain very much second best to retention of the existing appeal grounds.
      Following our failure to reinsert the existing fourth ground, our amendments Nos. 84 and 85 offer the Government an alternative wording—although that should not imply any less support for the amendments tabled by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and the hon. Member for North Down. For all practical purposes, our amendments are designed to achieve the same objective. They would give the Chief Constable a fourth ground for appeal, namely that the information requested under section 59
      "would, or would be likely to, prejudice on-going police investigations or operations."
      That ought to be unobjectionable to anyone whose primary objective is policing that is free from undue political interference.
      We are sympathetic to amendment No. 59, and we tabled amendment No. 83 ourselves. We cannot support the requirement in new sub-paragraph (1B)(c), proposed in clause 22(3), for any special committee set up to handle sensitive information supplied to it by the Chief Constable to be "as far as practicable … representative of the Board". Surely that is interfering too much in the internal affairs of the board. Put simply, we believe that that should be a matter for the chairman and deputy chairman of the board to decide. Surely, if we believe that the board is a grown-up body properly carrying out its functions, as Ministers have repeatedly said that it is, that sort of matter should be decided internally. That is what our amendment would allow.
      1.30 pm
      I turn to amendment No. 52, with which we are broadly sympathetic, and to our amendments Nos. 78 and 79. It will come as no surprise that those amendments have an objective similar to amendments Nos. 84 and 85. As right hon. and hon. Members are aware, clause 18 inserts new section 33A into the 2000 Act relating to the provision of information by the Chief Constable to the board. The clause sets it out that the Chief Constable is not required to supply information to the board on any of the grounds set out in the new section 76A and if it is information whose disclosure would be likely to put an individual in danger. That is not good enough, especially as new section 76A unamended contains only three restrictions and not the four that were in the 2000 Act.
      As it stands, therefore, the board could request sensitive information relating to an ongoing investigation or operation and the Chief Constable would be required to oblige. For that reason, amendment No. 79 would provide the Chief Constable
      472
      with the additional ground on which he is not required to supply information to the board—namely, that it ought not to be disclosed on the grounds that it
      "would, or would be likely to, prejudice on-going police investigations or operations."
      Again, we believe that to be a sensible additional safeguard for the Chief Constable, solely in the interests of efficient and impartial policing.
      Amendment No. 79 is basically consequential on amendment No. 78 in that, if amendment No. 79 were passed, it is right that the requirement set out in clause 18(6) should apply. That does exactly the same as Conservative amendment No. 78, except that it uses the wording for the ground of appeal in sections 59(3)(d) and 60(3)(d) of the 2000 Act, namely that
      "it would, or would be likely to, prejudice the detection of crime or the apprehension or prosecution of offenders".
      Accordingly, it has our backing.
      Conservative amendment No. 70 arises out of a commitment given on Third Reading in another place by the Lord Privy Seal, Lord Williams of Mostyn. Currently, the Chief Constable is supposed to respond to any request for information within one month, though that period can be extended if the board agrees, yet there may be occasions on which the board and Chief Constable disagree.
      As a result, on Third Reading in the Lords, Lord Williams indicated that the Government would change the code of practice on the conduct of the board under section 27(1)(a) of the 2000 Act, so that where there was no agreement between the Chief Constable and the board, and where the Chief Constable's concern relates to the impact of a particular time scale on the police's ability to prevent or to detect crime, that disagreement could be referred to Her Majesty's inspector of constabulary. Amendment No. 70 merely gives added strength to the commitment made by the Lord Privy Seal by inserting it in section 50(2) of the 2000 Act.
      When I moved the same amendment in Standing Committee, the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office said that she had much sympathy with the thinking behind the amendment and that there was not much between the Government and the Opposition on the issue. The hon. Lady agreed then to reflect on what I said and consider whether we should return to the matter on Report. That non-controversial amendment would help to give greater substance to the commitment already given by the Government.
      Conservative amendments Nos. 71 to 75 relate to clauses 9 and 10. Clauses 9 and 10 amend sections 59 and 60 of the 2000 Act relating to the provision of information and the holding of inquiries. Section 59 requires the Chief Constable to submit reports whenever required to do so by the Policing Board. If, however, the Chief Constable thinks that a report would contain information that ought not to be disclosed, there are currently four grounds under section 59(3) on which he can refer such a requirement to the Secretary of State. As the House is aware, subsection (2) of clause 9 restricts the grounds on which the Chief Constable can refer requests for a report to the Secretary of State to those set out in new section 76A in clause 23.
      Clause 10 makes similar changes to section 60 of the 2000 Act that deals with the initiation of an inquiry by the board following a report to it by the Chief

      473
      Constable. Without rehearsing the same arguments again, because the same arguments apply, we believe that that is mistaken. It could seriously undermine the operational independence of the Chief Constable, opening up the possibility of the board being allowed to conduct inquiries into matters that are currently the subject of police investigation. Our amendments would reinsert a fourth ground of appeal for the Chief Constable in sections 59 and 60 of the 2000 Act, so that he could refer requests for information or proposals for inquiries in circumstances where, in his opinion, it
      "would, or would be likely to, prejudice on-going police investigations or operations".
      Lady Hermon: May I ask the hon. Gentleman to reflect on a statement that was made by the Minister of State in Committee, on which he served, I am sure, very well, as he always does in Committee? She said that if anything that the board was doing should adversely affect the work of the police,
      "it would be open to the Chief Constable to seek judicial review of the reasonableness of the board's request".—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 25 February 2003; c. 67.]
      Would it not be most regrettable and unfortunate if the Chief Constable had to waste his resources and take legal action against his Policing Board for a power that should properly be in the Bill and that was in the 2000 Act?
      Mr. Taylor: I could not agree more. The hon. Lady is absolutely right. It should not be left open to the Chief Constable judicially to review the police board. The measure should be in the Bill as clear guidance to those concerned.
      I support the amendments in the name of the hon. Lady's party: Nos. 40, 41, 42 and 43. The amendments seek to achieve the same objective as the Conservative amendments by reinserting the fourth ground of appeal in clauses 9 and 10. Unlike our amendments, though, they use the wording from the 2000 Act.
      I turn now to amendments Nos. 80 and 81. I am sorry if I am taking a little time but I should like to cover the entirety of the first group of amendments in one trip to the Dispatch Box. The amendments relate to clause 21, which inserts a new section 74A after section 74 of the 2000 Act in respect of restrictions on the disclosure of information. Our amendments add to the grounds on which the disclosure of information is restricted to include information that
      "would, or would be likely to, prejudice on-going police investigations or operations."
      As in other parts of the Bill, we believe that to be a necessary restriction.
      Amendment No. 76 amends clause 12, which deals with matters relating to the functions and powers of the police ombudsman. The purpose is mainly one of consistency. Whereas clause 12(4) refers to information that ought not to be disclosed on any of the grounds mentioned in section 76A(1) of clause 23, we believe that added to that ought to be
      "information the disclosure of which would, or would be likely to, prejudice on-going police investigations or operations."
      474
      That would bring clause 12 into line with other parts of the Bill where we have moved similar amendments.
      In passing, I offer my support to amendment No. 44, tabled by the Ulster Unionist party, and turn to our amendment No. 86 and new clause 21. The purpose of the new clause is straightforward; it is to ensure that the initiation of any reports or inquiries by the Policing Board is undertaken by a majority of the board. As the Bill stands, clause 11 amends the existing paragraph 18 of schedule 1 to the 2000 Act, relating to the number of members of the board required to initiate an inquiry under section 60 following a report by the Chief Constable. Currently, no such inquiry can be held unless approved by the required number of members of the board, present and voting. Under paragraph 18(6) of schedule 1 to the 2000 Act, the required number of members of the board who need to be present is 10. That is a majority, as the board consists of 19 members.
      Under clause 11, the required number of members of the board that need to be present is reduced from 10 to eight, so long as that is a majority of members present and voting. I refer to clause 11(2) and (3). We believe that the existing arrangement should remain unchanged and that when the board consists of 19 members, it is perfectly reasonable and proper that the required number of members present and voting to initiate an inquiry should be 10.
      1.45 pm
      We believe that this is an unwarranted concession, aimed at making it easier for the board to initiate inquiries following a report from the Chief Constable. It makes it easier for those with excessive political zeal—or, indeed, those who wish the police no good whatever—to make the life of the Chief Constable intolerable. That is a particular worry, if and when Sinn Fein members take up their positions on the board. We believe that, taken with the reduction of the grounds on which the Chief Constable can refer such inquiries to the Secretary of State, this should be opposed.
      Lembit Öpik: Surely it cuts both ways; it is possible that there may be circumstances in which the hon. Gentleman might find it helpful to have an inquiry. There should be flexibility there, also. Secondly, why does he feel that this necessarily will favour Sinn Fein?
      Mr. Taylor: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has detected a slight partiality in my remarks. I do not intend to sustain that impression. I will content myself with the more objective view—that 10 is more appropriate as representing an overall majority. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson)—the former Secretary of State and largely the architect of the 2000 Act—said that he thought that 10 was possibly too small a number and that he heartily resisted any suggestions of going down to eight. I take the same stance and believe that he was correct.
      On Second Reading, the right hon. Gentleman said:
      "If one considers police authorities in most parts of the United Kingdom, most people would think it extraordinary that it would take only eight members of a board to bring about the instigation of what could be a very major and expensive inquiry with major

      475
      long-term implications for the police. I recall that there was huge pressure to agree to the paltry figure of eight in the original Bill, and the Government believed that the figure of 10 was very much on the low side. We made it absolutely clear that, if we conceded to an ever-lower figure, that would risk exposing the police to unreasonable political pressure that would reduce the credibility of any such decision by the board. After all, it is a major step to set up an inquiry and, if it can be agreed by eight out of 18 or 19 members, that is bound to reduce the credibility of the decision. If the power was unreasonably or improperly used, it could lead to an unravelling of confidence by the police and the public in the PSNI's governance. I have heard the reassurances offered by Ministers on that point, but I have yet to be fully convinced that this particular change is necessary or desirable."—[Official Report, 10 February 2003; Vol. 399, c. 684–85.]
      It is not just the right hon. Member for Hartlepool who supports our position. The Committee on the Administration of Justice—not an organisation that is always sympathetic to the pronouncements of Conservative politicians—in its submission to the Northern Ireland Select Committee said:
      "We believe that, while the holding of inquiries is an important power, there is no reason to lay down such weighted voting procedures in legislation and we would recommend that decisions to hold inquiries should be taken by a simple majority."
      As with other aspects of the Bill, the Government have not even sought to justify this change with regard to the efficiency of the board or the operational effectiveness of the police. They cannot point to any deficiency in the current legislation that warrants it. That is because this change is driven purely by politics and by the Government's desire to accommodate Sinn Fein and the SDLP at Weston Park in July 2001. The change proposed by the Government is unnecessary and potentially dangerous. Our new clause would restore common sense and basic fairness to the Bill.
      Mr. Roy Beggs: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a proposal that the membership of any committee should take a decision through a minority of its members can only be a recipe for dissension within the group as a whole, because those who opposed the minority decision could come back in force and reverse it? We would be creating conflict where we should be creating harmony.
      Mr. Taylor: I should probably go and sit in the fourth row back below the Gangway, because I am finding myself absolutely ad idem with the hon. Members who are currently in their places there.
      Mr. Seamus Mallon: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's observation that he might move to the fourth row back. This proposal does not deal with a simple minority of the committee but with a majority of those present and voting. The difference is crucial and should be remembered. How is it that the Government felt it necessary to deem the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) to have got it wrong on 14 substantive elements of the Bill that was written in 2000? That is why we now find ourselves going through another process of legislation. Can the hon. Gentleman explain that?
      Mr. Taylor: No, I cannot give the hon. Gentleman any explanation why what was right in 2000 is wrong now. The right hon. Member for Hartlepool moved heaven and earth to get the 2000 Act, in its present form,
      476
      on to the statute book, and the Government have produced almost no evidence that it needs amending. Many people who are much more likely to be listened to than me have described it as "Patten enacted". My party did not come to the Patten proposals with any great enthusiasm, but we are prepared to live in the world in which we are, and if the consensus is that Northern Ireland should be policed as faithfully as possible in accordance with the principles of Patten, it seems to me that the 2000 Act is closer to Patten than the measure that is now before us.
      Lady Hermon: I endorse entirely what the hon. Gentleman has just said. In defence of the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), who is not here but was a very good Secretary of State, it is a fact that, when the Policing Board was being set up in the autumn of 2000, the Irish Government, the British Government, the American Government and the Catholic Church all said that the 2000 Act and the implementation plan embodied both the letter and the spirit of the Patten report. It is, therefore, grossly unfair to criticise him.
      Mr. Taylor: Were it possible to gild the lily, that contribution just did. Once again, I completely agree with the hon. Lady. In the absence of the right hon. Member for Hartlepool, I would gladly speak highly of his discharge of his responsibilities as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. It was a case of an extremely able man doing his best, and his best was not bad at all.
      I have given way from time to time, and I accept that in the spirit of this place, but it is probably time for me to draw my remarks to a conclusion. I shall pick up the threads of what I was saying before I took those interventions, when I was addressing myself to amendment No. 86 and new clause 21. The Government should display some common sense and accept our new clause. Failing that, they should support amendment No. 86, which proposes to omit clause 11 and maintain the status quo, or support amendment No. 44, tabled in the names of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann and the hon. Member for North Down, which proposes to leave out subsection (4).
      I thank the House for its indulgence this afternoon. I dare say that this is the longest speech that I have ever made in the House of Commons—if it deserves the status of "speech", that is; it was probably more of a stream of consciousness. It is with that same consciousness and good attention that I shall listen with interest in due course to the Minister's reply.
      Mr. Mallon: It was very apt of the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) to talk about a stream of consciousness. Given the stream of amendments and new clauses that we have grouped together here, there will be a certain stream of consciousness in everyone's contribution. I sought advice from the Chair—prior to your taking the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker—and I wish to support, within this gaggle of amendments and new clauses, those tabled by the Government. I do so for various reasons, to which I shall turn very quickly.
      The hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) made a point about what was said by the Irish Government, the Catholic Church and others. I think that she got her years wrong. Those observations

      477
      actually stated that the Weston Park changes had the essence and the spirit of Patten. They were made post-Weston Park—not in relation to the 2000 Act—and very much in regard to the changes made at Weston Park in relation to the 2000 Act.
      I want to divide my comments into the three areas in which I am especially interested. They are the parts of the Bill relating to reports and inquiries, to the Policing Board seeking information and documents, and to the right—indeed, the duty—of the ombudsman to seek information in relation to the pursuance of her duty. I hope that I shall confine myself to those three areas. It is essential that we recognise that there are two different elements of the Bill: reports and inquiries on one hand, and the board's seeking information on the other. It is on that matter that some of the confusion arises, certainly so far as I have been concerned. The changes relating to reports and inquiries are now being clarified fairly quickly in the Bill.
      The important features of the special committee are crucial, and it is worth looking at them again. The first is that it must be representative of the board. I note that previous speakers said that there was a danger in that, but there is always a danger in everything when it comes to getting things done. I said in the Standing Committee, and I say again today, that nothing could be more damaging internally for any board than for a small group of people within it to be privy to special and sensitive information to the exclusion of others. That would create a running, festering sore within the board.
      Indeed, when the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) addressed this issue in Committee, he said that one of the problems with the old Police Authority was that it was run by an inner sanctum that had access to information that was not shared by other members of the authority. So, the wider the committee is and the greater the number of members it has, the more effective it will be. I welcome the fact that the Government have increased the number from five to seven; I sought that increase for many a long month, and again in Committee.
      The crucial difference in this Bill in relation to reports and inquiries is that information would not be withheld on the ground that it would put the life of an individual in danger. That actually applies now to the board's seeking information and documents, the substantive difference being that the Chief Constable will probably be able to deal with the confidentiality of the special committee in a much more effective way than any of the other proposed provisions would enable him to do. The Government have made it clear on a number of occasions that the purpose of the special committee and of this approach is to ensure that the Chief Constable can increase the provision of information to the Policing Board. I welcome that, because if the board is to deal with the many difficult matters that it will have to deal with, it must have people's trust in respect of such information.
      478
      2 pm
      I am not sure that it was necessary to rename the committee the "special purposes committee", but I can live with that change. The Chief Constable will be obliged to seek the agreement of the special committee to any summary of the sensitive information going to the board. That is crucial, because we cannot have two levels of people on the Policing Board: those who get information and those who do not. [Interruption.]Does the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Campbell) wish to intervene?
      Mr. Gregory Campbell indicated dissent.
      Mr. Mallon: It will be very difficult to run a Policing Board properly if there are those who get information and those who do not. In order to avoid that problem, the summary that the Chief Constable will send to the board should be agreed by the special committee. Doing so would also relieve the board of any obligation to establish the special purposes committee before the Chief Constable indicates that he wishes to do so. That is crucial, because it will not be a special purposes committee in waiting, as it were; as I understand it, it will be set up when there is a need for it. It will not be a special caucus of the Policing Board that is waiting for a function.
      I welcome these provisions, but I sound one note of caution. I am always wary of special committees, whether they are called "special purposes committees" or some other type of special committee. However, I recognise the difficulties, and this is one way of dealing with the problem of giving sensitive information. Although it may not be ideal, it is operative and fair, and it will protect the Chief Constable and his giving of sensitive information, and protect members of the board in terms of their dealing with it.
      Government amendments Nos. 9 and 10 deal with information sought by the board, and I welcome the fact that they include not only the word "information" but the word "documents". Indeed, 1 tabled such an amendment in Committee on this crucial issue. Without documents, information does not exist. As the Americans might say, "If it ain't on paper, it doesn't exist". Incidents such as the taking—or seizing, depending on what one wants to call it—of documents and information in recent times in the north of Ireland would have had no substance whatever had those documents not been there, so it is right that this change be made.
      It is interesting to note that the reason for the change came from the board itself. It asked for the change because during its short life, its request for sight of a Police Service report on the handling of the Omagh bombing had been refused. Ultimately, it did receive the report. It then became clear that if it were properly to fulfil its functions, it would not be enough simply for it to be given information, regardless of how that information was given; it is entitled to documentation, and it is on the basis of such documentation that it must make important decisions on crucial issues.
      I turn to the third and final issue on which I wish to comment. I am pleased to note the change to the ombudsman's accessing of information. The relevant

      479
      provision ensures that any sensitive information arising in the context of a report and inquiry can be given to the police ombudsman in the context of any of his functions. It used to be possible for the ombudsman to receive such information only in the context of his investigations into police policies and practices, as opposed to his other functions, including investigating criminal and disciplinary matters. That put the ombudsman in a totally invidious position, and left him in a huge vacuum in terms of his responsibility to investigate and to deal with the problems that any ombudsman must deal with. I welcome the inclusion of the word "any", which fills that vacuum and removes a great difficulty for the ombudsman.
      I will vote with the Government on the new clause and the related amendments. I have discussed such provisions and aspects of the Bill for a very long time and, happily, these changes enable me to say with some confidence that we are getting it right this time. In getting it right, we can be much more hopeful that in future, we can make the entire policing process work. For those reasons, I shall vote with the Government.
      Mr. Alistair Carmichael:Like the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), I shall confine my remarks on this abundance of amendments to a few specific areas that, I understand, are likely to cause the House to divide, rather than trying to emulate the tour de force of the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor).
      I turn first to the amendments in the name of the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) and her colleagues, of which I am broadly supportive. The restoration of the fourth ground for the non-disclosure of information is in my view important. In moving the amendment, the hon. Lady referred to the Patten report and to paragraph 6.22 in particular. It is worth emphasising the terms of that paragraph, which states:
      "The grounds on which the Chief Constable might question this requirement should be strictly limited to issues such as those involving national security, sensitive personnel matters and cases before the courts."
      In my view, the important phrase is "such as". It is clear that the detection of crime or the apprehension of offenders is very much of the same nature as the first three grounds.
      That takes me back to a point that I made yesterday about how we should approach the Bill. We must consider the signals that we send out. The House must ask itself what signal it will send out to the community in Northern Ireland if we say that we want to remove this ground—to do with the detection of crime or apprehension of offenders—from the Bill. Removing that ground would be a retrograde step. The hon. Member for North Down said that the list in Patten was descriptive and not exhaustive. She was absolutely right.
      The hon. Lady referred to the constitution of the special committees and reminded the House that the committees did not have their genesis in the Patten report. Yesterday, we spoke about sub-groups for district policing partnerships; today, we are talking about special committees. I am reminded of John Kenneth Galbraith's observation that the good Lord so loved the world that He sent His only son, and not a committee. Much of the Government's approach is
      480
      bureaucratic and a little top-heavy. The special committees seem to be yet another layer of bureaucracy. I see no particular reason for them and I hope that the Government will reconsider their position.
      The other matters on which I understand that the House may divide are Conservative amendment No. 86 and new clause 21. I made my position clear on this matter on Second Reading. The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh reminded the House that, although it is possible for the decision to be made by a minority of the total committee, it still requires a majority of those who are present and voting. We should not lose sight of that important point. For that reason, the Liberal Democrats will support the Government should the House divide on this point.
      Mr. Gregory Campbell: I will confine my remarks to new clause 21, in the name of the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) and other colleagues. The holding of inquiries in Northern Ireland is a controversial issue that should concentrate the minds of hon. Members. The Northern Ireland Policing Board has been praised—rightly—for its constructive work thus far. Some would argue that it has been able to work so constructively only because of the absence of those who would pollute its deliberations and undermine its activities—the Provisional IRA and Sinn Fein.
      The Policing Board has worked well on a number of issues. Much mention has been made of the implementation of the Patten report. The board—not only by a majority but unanimously—agreed in the early months of its life the establishment of the badge and logos. On those issues, the board went beyond Patten, yet the fervent advocates of Patten seem conveniently to forget that. None the less, the holding of inquiries by the board ought to be an issue that commands a significant amount of attention.
      In Northern Ireland, there is a preponderance of demands for inquiries. At times, the demand for inquiries can seem insatiable. A current inquiry, albeit not one that is under the auspices of the Chief Constable, is taking place just several hundred metres from the House. It will cost more than £150 million of public money, and it is being held because of the demand for inquiries in Northern Ireland.
      I have a significant amount of sympathy with the Government in that there must be a degree of reasonableness when considering inquiries. On the one hand, one cannot set the bar so high, or make it so difficult to hold an inquiry, that the community sees little point in asking for one; but, on the other hand, one cannot set the bar so low as to ensure that inquiries are demanded weekly. I was at a public meeting in my constituency earlier this week with the chief commissioner of the Human Rights Commission, Bryce Dickson. His view was that, if the Chief Constable is not able, under current legislation, to conduct certain investigations despite the demand for them, he could be in breach of the European convention on human rights. If that is the case—and I understand that discussions are to take place between the Chief Constable and the Human Rights Commission—an outcome will have to be sought. Depending on that outcome, people may be encouraged to make demands With the result that the Chief Constable will be severely constrained because of

      481
      resources and might be in grave difficulty with the European Court. There will have to be reasonableness in establishing how inquiries might be conducted by the board.
      Hon. Members have suggested that a reduction from 10 to eight in the number of members required to support a proposition is reasonable because of the requirement that there be a majority among members who are in attendance and voting. I suggest that the importance of inquiries, and the preponderance of demands for them, mean that the requirement for there to be 10 members should be retained. If inquiries are demanded and if new evidence is submitted—and my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Mrs. Robinson) and I have made demands for inquiries in cases where there is new evidence—there ought to be a sufficient number of members who are in attendance and voting at the Policing Board to ensure that at least 10 are in favour of the proposition. To lower the bar to eight would, I believe, open the door to an endless demand that would have, as its raison dêtre, martyrdom, the blame culture in Northern Ireland, and the need to dig up the past again and again and again.
      Mr. Nigel Dodds:My hon. Friend is talking about drawing a line under the past. Is he encouraged by the fact that, recently in this Chamber, the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) made exactly that point—that the time had come to draw a line under the past? Does that add weight to my hon. Friend's argument on inquiries?
      Mr. Campbell: I have heard the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) say that again and again and again. I hope that his colleagues and others will pay attention to it, so that we can move forward. We should be dealing with the issues of the present and the future, rather than constantly rehearsing the blame culture of the past.
      2.15 pm
      If Her Majesty's Government are going to have a rationale in the Bill that means that demands for inquiries and redress are constantly perceived to be coming from a particular section of the community, and if a response has to be made to those demands from that particular section of the community, obviously there will be resistance in the other community that feels that its demands are not being listened to and that it is not receiving a response. They will always get it wrong if they seek to redress an imbalance that is presented from one section of the community and one only. If demands for an inquiry are heeded when they come from one section of the community but not when they come from the other, there will be resentment within the other section of the community. For that reason, I would support new clause 21.
      The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Jane Kennedy):Hon. Members are already aware of the changes that have been made to the Bill. However, before I go into details I want to express my gratitude for the support of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh
      482
      (Mr. Mallon), and of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. Their encouragement is very welcome.
      The second ground of referral has been changed to information of a "sensitive personnel" nature. That relates to sensitive information related to the individual's holding of office or to their employment in the Police Service of Northern Ireland. I shall make it clear who would be covered. As hon. Members are aware, the following categories are already defined elsewhere in the legislation: police officers including reservists, police support staff, police trainees and police reserve trainees, traffic wardens and police cadets, and now secondees and designated contractors' staff under the Bill.
      The fourth ground of referral, which has generated the most discussion this afternoon, has been dropped under the Bill. It dealt with information likely to prejudice the detection of crime or prosecution of offenders. I will use the phrase that the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon)—whom I hesitate to call my hon. Friend but who is indeed a friend—suggested I should not use: by dropping that fourth ground of referral we are more fully implementing the Patten recommendations.
      The issue of the fourth ground of referral has been debated at length in Committee and in the other place, but I remind hon. Members that the Policing Board's primary statutory duty is to maintain an effective police service in Northern Ireland. It would therefore be contrary to that duty for the board to request information or a report within a time scale that could prejudice a major or an ongoing investigation. Under section 59 of the 2000 Act there is already provision for the board and the Chief Constable to agree a time scale for the production of a report. I have every confidence that both organisations would seek to reach a sensible accommodation to avoid prejudicing ongoing investigations.
      The hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) said that we had not presented any arguments in favour of that move. I shall attempt to explain the rationale for the change and invite the House to consider the issue from a different perspective. As hon. Members know, the grounds of referral, currently four in number, are a basis on which the Chief Constable, with the Secretary of State's agreement, could block a report or prevent an inquiry, and there is nothing on the face of the 2000 Act requiring the Secretary of State to give his reasons. There is a concern, particularly among constitutional nationalists, that these wide-ranging powers could be abused—if not by a Secretary of State, possibly by a devolved Minister of Justice—and the board thwarted in its proper role of holding the Chief Constable to account.
      It was against that background that the Government considered where the balance should properly be struck. We believe that the grounds as they are now set out in the Bill, when taken with the other safeguards provided by the Bill and existing legislation, get the balance right between ensuring that the board has proper access to information and protecting sensitive information appropriately.
      A large number of amendments seek to reinstate that fourth ground of referral. Unlike other hon. Members in the Chamber this afternoon, I may not avoid

      483
      commenting on them because I need to give the Government's response to some of them. Amendments Nos. 52 and 60, in the name of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), would also reinstate the fourth ground of referral by removing clauses 18 and 23 respectively, in their entirety. For the reasons that I have outlined, I do not believe that to be necessary or appropriate, and I am afraid that I cannot accept those amendments.
      (Mr Davies) Amendment No. 70, in the name of the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford, would apply when the Chief Constable and the board failed to agree a time scale for the production of a report under section 59. It provides that in that event Her Majesty's inspector of constabulary should determine the time scale. I have every confidence that the board and the Chief Constable would seek to reach a sensible accommodation on time scale. However, I would also draw attention to section 27 of the 2000 Act, under which the Secretary of State can issued—and, indeed, has issued—a code of practice on the board's conduct in respect of any of its functions.
      On this function, as we have made clear in another place, we propose to provide, through a code of practice, that if the board and the Chief Constable cannot agree a time scale for the production of a report, which may impact on the police's ability to prevent or detect crime, the board can refer the matter to HMIC. The inspectorate is an independent organisation and has extensive operational policing experience, so it is well placed to advise the board. The board would then be able to take account of the recommendation in finally determining that deadline. The Government believe that it is appropriate that this procedure should be provided for in the code of practice, rather than here in primary legislation, and for that reason I cannot accept the amendment, although I do feel that we are accepting the principle that the hon. Member for Solihull expounded.
      Lady Hermon: I presume that the Minister has consulted HMIC about this proposal. What response was received from Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary? What was the Chief Constable's response to the dropping of the fourth ground and allowing information prejudicial to an investigation to be given to the full board or a special committee? What was his feeling on the issue?
      Jane Kennedy: I know that Her Majesty's inspectorate will be willing to co-operate with the arrangements that we are discussing. I consulted the Chief Constable before these matters were considered in Committee, and I had another opportunity to discuss them with him after Committee, having heard the concerns that were raised there. He is satisfied with the safeguards in the Bill and he believes that the concept of a special purposes committee would work and that he could work within that structure. He has assured me that he feels that he would still be able to protect information that he regarded as sensitive, and work within the openness that he seeks to establish with the board, in that he wishes to share as much information as possible, within the constraints. I shall come to that in a moment.
      484
      I shall now speak to new clause 21 and amendment No. 86 in the name of the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford and amendment No. 44 in the name of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann. These amendments relate to clause 11. That reduces the threshold of members that is required to initiate an inquiry under section 60. We have heard some discussion about that already. New clause 21 and amendments Nos. 44 and 86 would undo the arrangements in clause 11.
      Hon. Members will recall that the Government have already outlined at length why we believe that this change is appropriate and why, as I believe, the fears of the hon. Members concerned are unfounded. The provisions set out in clause 11 have been made in response to a genuine feeling among some members of the board that the existing arrangements set too high a threshold. The clause does not give any member of the board, or any group within it, licence to force through unpopular or unrepresentative decisions. However, it provides a prospect that a group that perceives itself as a minority on the board might at least have an opportunity to seek to initiate an inquiry if the circumstances warrant it.
      Again, I stress that that will not enable a minority to force through an unpopular inquiry and that appropriate safeguards and guidelines have been set out in the 2000 Act to ensure that all board members are given adequate notice to attend any meeting to vote on an inquiry. The safeguards are set out in paragraph 18 of schedule 1 to the 2000 Act. The Government are content that the provisions in clause 11 are appropriate, and I will certainly resist those amendments if they are pressed to a Division.
      2.30 pm
      In Committee, a number of hon. Members commented on the complexity of the inter-relationship between the provisions of new section 33A and existing section 59 of the 2000 Act. I have since reflected on the issues raised, and in the amendments that we have introduced today, we seek, among other things, to streamline those interlocking provisions.
      We see new section 33A, which will be inserted by clause 18, as very much an everyday power of the board to request and receive information from the Chief Constable. It is not envisaged that sensitive information would be routinely supplied through that route, unless it was deemed appropriate by the Chief Constable. So the board is guaranteed access to any non-sensitive information it seeks through that route and, in certain circumstances, might also gain access to sensitive information, subject to the professional judgment of the Chief Constable.
      The Chief Constable may withhold information in respect of a request made under new section 33A, under criteria set out in Government amendment No. 10. In light of that change, I no longer see the need for the small committee, provided for under clause 22, to have a role in relation to new section 33A or to restrict the board's access to documents. That is why, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh has said, we have widened that provision.

      485
      Government amendment No. 11, therefore, will remove the provisions that related to the committee, and amendments Nos. 12 to 14, 18 to 20, 22 and 26 are consequential upon it. Government amendment No. 9 will give the board access to documents, as I have just said, as well as information. It may be worth saying that, based on our legal advice that subsequent references to information in the clause would encompass documents, as well as other information, the Government also seek to amend clause 12, with Government amendment No. 8, to make the legislation consistent.
      Amendments Nos. 56 to 58, tabled by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann, would delete the references to the Chief Constable's discretion in new section 33A. We believe that those amendments are inappropriate and that the existing formulation is consistent with other statutes, so I am afraid that I cannot accept those amendments either. We believe that it is right for the Chief Constable to be empowered to exercise such discretion since he is the best person to judge, within the parameters set by legislation, which information should or should not be shared.
      I shall briefly touch on the issue of the special committee for handling sensitive information. I paid careful heed to the criticisms of the arrangements that we have proposed that hon. Members, including the right hon. Member for Upper Bann, voiced in Committee. The amendments reflect some changes as a consequence of those debates. As I have said, we do not see the committee as having a role in relation to new section 33A.
      Under Government amendment No. 31, the board should have discretion over whether or not to set up a committee to deal with sensitive information, where it would be essential to establish such a committee to safeguard information that the Chief Constable or the Secretary of State determined should be shared with a limited number of individuals. That will give the board freedom to decide whether to establish a committee from the outset. The board can also decide whether it is a standing or an ad hoc committee. That proposal is very much in response to the points made, in particular, by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann and by the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire).
      That amendment will also increase the committee's size to seven members, and I shall take a moment to explain that. It will allow the board greater flexibility in its selection processes. We would expect that it would normally wish to include both the chairman and the vice-chairman, but membership could also include representatives from the political parties on the board, as well as independent members. All other terms of the constitution of that committee remain as previously set out in the Bill.
      By contrast, amendment No. 83, tabled by the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford, would remove the requirement that that small committee should be, as far as practicable, representative of the board. In my view, removing such a requirement is not appropriate in the context of Northern Ireland. The Patten report was clear on the need for a new beginning to policing in Northern Ireland, where the police service would be acceptable to and supported by the whole community.
      486
      The new beginning to policing is now well under way, very strongly underpinned by the cross-community nature of the Policing Board. In that context, I could not support an arrangement by which that small committee of the Policing Board did not reflect the spectrum of political opinion represented on the board. It is not for the Government to prescribe how the board should constitute the committee, but it is surely right that it should not be unrepresentative, which could be the effect of amendment No. 83. That might leave a majority of any hue able to skew the committee's composition.
      In reflecting on the maturity of the board so far, which has been mentioned by a number of hon. Members, and its possible future composition, I believe that amendment No. 83 would be inadvisable and, therefore, ask that it not be pressed to a Division, although the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford will make up his own mind on that.
      Amendment No. 59, tabled by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann, would also allow the board discretion about whether to establish a small committee for handling sensitive information. I have already outlined our proposals in relation that point. In particular, Government amendment No. 31 will allow the board the same discretion, while ensuring that the committee would be brought into being in particular circumstances. Amendment No. 59 is therefore unnecessary, and I will ask my hon. Friends to resist it.
      Government amendment No. 32 will give that small committee a specific title—the special purposes committee. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh for saying that he does not particularly quarrel with giving it a special name. The purpose of doing so was to clarify its special function and to make less cumbersome the references to it in the legislation. As a result of that change, we have tabled a number of consequential amendments.
      Clause 9 deals with the reports of the Chief Constable. Government amendment No. 6 will oblige the Chief Constable to seek to obtain the agreement of the special purposes committee to the terms of a non-sensitive summary of the information that he has supplied to it. In doing that, the Chief Constable must make real and demonstrable efforts to reach agreement with the special purposes committee.
      If and when agreement is reached, the summary will be provided to the board as part of the Chief Constable's report, under section 59 of the 2000 Act. I point out that that will put a greater onus on the Chief Constable in relation to the board than the previous formulation, which merely required him to take account of the committee's views. That is yet another step that we are taking in recognising the role of the board.
      Hon. Members will recall that I explained in Committee that I supported, in principle, the amendment introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh, which would have provided that it should not be an offence for the board, or any special purposes committee of it, to share sensitive information with the ombudsman's staff, in connection with any of her functions. Government amendments Nos. 24, 28 and 29 duly clarify that position, and I am grateful to him for his proposal in that regard.

      487
      The arrangements surrounding access to information, particularly sensitive information, are of necessity complex. Transparency and accountability are principles that have underpinned the establishment of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, but that is balanced by the need for appropriate safeguards on sensitive information. The Chief Constable has to reflect that balance, too, in relation to his duty to protect life, under section 32(l) of the 2000 Act. In addition, as a member of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, he, too, is bound by the code of ethics, under section 52 of the 2000 Act, and by the terms of the attestation to uphold fundamental human rights.
      There are already some safeguards in section 59 of the 2000 Act that allow the Chief Constable to refer certain requests to the Secretary of State. There are further safeguards in the amendments that we are introducing as part of the Bill that would allow him to limit the distribution of certain information within the Board.
      The issue is not whether the Chief Constable provides a complete report or no report at all. He would be obliged to provide information to the board in such a way as to avoid any risk to an individual's life. For example, he could ensure that he avoided mentioning vulnerable individuals by name or identifying them. That would protect an individual's right to life while ensuring that the board had access to information. The requirements are delicately balanced, but the Government amendments strike the correct balance and help to streamline the complex nature of the arrangements.
      I sense a growing interest in these matters in the House, so I commend the Government amendments to hon. Members.
      Lady Hermon: I hope that the Minister also gets the impression that we are not persuaded at all. Although she probably does not need reminding of this, hon. Members might be interested to know that the Patten report always anticipated that the Policing Board would be a robust institution of central importance. It was never recommended that it should have specialist committees, little ad hoc committees or add-on extras.
      I pay tribute to the Policing Board that we have at present. It has members from the Social Democratic and Labour party—I am glad that the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) is in the Chamber—the Democratic Unionist party and, of course, the Ulster Unionist party. They have worked as a unanimous team to make the Policing Board, quite frankly, an unexpected success. The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Campbell) referred to the unanimous agreement on the policing badge. The Patten report recommended that the policing badge should be neutral, but the Policing Board had the courage of its convictions and agreed to make the policing badge reflective of both communities' traditions. The Belfast agreement urged symbols to be used to show mutual respect, not neutrality. That meant that the recommendation in Patten was in breach of the agreement, so I was glad when the board reached a unanimous decision on the new badge.
      Given that members of the Policing Board are working so well together, the introduction of specialist committees would be divisive and counter-productive.
      488
      Therefore, with much regret, I must tell the Minister that we shall press amendment No. 61 to a Division. However, we shall not press amendment No. 60, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Amendment proposed: No. 61, in page 16, line 9, at end insert—
      '(d) the information would, or would be likely to, prejudice the prevention or detection of crime or the apprehension or prosecution of offenders.'.—.[Lady Hermon.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 147, Noes 241.

      Division No.143]

      [2:43 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Flook, Adrian

      Allan,Richard

      Forth, rh Eric

      Arbuthnot, rh James

      Fox, Dr. Liam

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Francois, Mark

      Bacon, Richard

      George, Andrew (St. Ives)

      Barker, Gregory

      Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

      Baron, John (Billericay)

      Gidley, Sandra

      Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

      Goodman, Paul

      Beith, rh A. J.

      Gray, James (N Wilts)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Grayling, Chris

      Bercow, John

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Greenway, John

      Blunt, Crispin

      Grieve, Dominic

      Boswell, Tim

      Gummer, rh John

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Hammond, Philip

      Brady, Graham

      Hancock, Mike

      Brake, Torn (Carshalton)

      Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

      Brazier, Julian

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

      Hawkins, Nick

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Hayes, John (S Holland)

      Burns, Simon

      Heald, Oliver

      Burnside, David

      Heath, David

      Burstow, Paul

      Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

      Cable, Dr. Vincent

      Hendry, Charles

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Hermon, Lady

      Cameron, David

      Horam, John (Orpington)

      Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Hunter, Andrew

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Jack, rh Michael

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Chidgey, David

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Chope, Christopher

      Johnson, Boris (Henley)

      Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Key, Robert (Salisbury)

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Kirkwood, Sir Archy

      Conway, Derek

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Lamb, Norman

      Cotter, Brian

      Lansley, Andrew

      Cran, James (Beverley)

      Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

      Curry, rh David

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Lidington, David

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

      Loughton, Tim

      Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

      Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Mackay, rh Andrew

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Dodds, Nigel

      Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

      Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

      Mercer, Patrick

      Doughty, Sue

      Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

      Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

      Duncan Smith, rh Iain

      Moss, Malcolm

      Ewing, Annabelle

      Murrison, Dr. Andrew

      Fabricant, Michael

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Fallon, Michael

      Öpik, Lembit

      Field, Mark(Cities of London&Westminster)

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Page, Richard

      Flight, Howard

      Paice, James

      489

      Randall, John

      Syms, Robert

      Redwood, rh John

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Robathan, Andrew

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

      Thurso, John

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Tonge, Dr. Jenny

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Tredinnick, David

      Ruffley, David

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Sanders, Adrian

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Waterson, Nigel

      Selous, Andrew

      Watkinson, Angela

      Shepherd, Richard

      Wiggin, Bill

      Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

      Wilkinson, John

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

      Wilshire, David

      Spring, Richard

      Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Stanley, rh Sir John

      Wishart, Pete

      Steen, Anthony

      Stunell, Andrew

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Swayne, Desmond

      Mr. Mark Hoban and

      Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

      Mr. Laurence Robertson

      NOES

      Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

      Crausby, David

      Ainger, Nick

      Cruddas, Jon

      Allen, Graham

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

      Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Davidson, Ian

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Austin, John

      Dawson, Hilton

      Baird, Vera

      Denham, rh John

      Barnes, Harry

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Barron, rh Kevin

      Dismore, Andrew

      Beckett, rh Margaret

      Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Berry, Roger

      Doran, Frank

      Blackman, Liz

      Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Drew, David (Stroud)

      Blizzard, Bob

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Efford, Clive

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

      Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

      Etherington, Bill

      Browne, Desmond

      Farrelly, Paul

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Fisher, Mark

      Burden, Richard

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Burgon, Colin

      Follett, Barbara

      Byers, rh Stephen

      Foster, rh Derek

      Cairns, David

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Caplin, Ivor

      Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

      Casale, Roger

      Gardiner, Barry

      Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

      George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

      Challen, Colin

      Gerrard, Neil

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Goggins, Paul

      Chaytor, David

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Clapham, Michael

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

      Hain, rh Peter

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Coaker, Vernon

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Hanson, David

      Coleman, Iain

      Healey, John

      Connarty, Michael

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Cooper, Yvette

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Heppell, John

      Corston, Jean

      Hesford, Stephen

      Cousins, Jim

      Heyes, David

      Cox, Tom (Tooting)

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Cranston, Ross

      Hodge, Margaret

      490

      Hope, Phil (Corby)

      Palmer, Dr. Nick

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Perham, Linda

      Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

      Picking, Anne

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Pike, Peter (Burnley)

      Howells, Dr. Kim

      Plaskitt, James

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Pound, Stephen

      Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Iddon, Dr. Brian

      Ingram, rh Adam

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

      Prescott, rh John

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Purnell, James

      Jamieson, David

      Quin, rh Joyce

      Jenkins, Brian

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Kaufman, rh Gerald

      Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

      Keen, Alan (Feltham)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Keen, Ann (Brentford)

      Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Salter, Martin

      Kidney, David

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Savidge, Malcolm

      King, Andy (Rugby)

      Sawford, Phil

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Sheridan, Jim

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Ladyman Dr. Stephen

      Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

      Lammy, David

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Singh, Marsha

      Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

      Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

      Leslie, Christopher

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

      Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

      Linton, Martin

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      McCabe, Stephen

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      McCafferty, Chris

      Soley, Clive

      McCartney, rh Ian

      Southwonh, Helen

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Squire, Rachel

      McDonnell, John

      Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

      McIsaac, Shona

      Steinberg, Gerry

      McKechin, Ann

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      McNulty, Tony

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      McWalter, Tony

      Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

      McWilliam, John

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Mallaber, Judy

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Mallon, Seamus

      Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

      Mandelson, rh Peter

      Tipping, Paddy

      Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

      Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Trickett, Jon

      Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

      Truswell, Paul

      Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

      Marshall Andrews, Robert

      Martlew, Eric

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Miller, Andrew

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Moffatt, Laura

      Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

      Moran, Margaret

      Vis, Dr. Rudi

      Morley, Elliot

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Morris, rh Estelle

      Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

      Mountford, Kali

      Watts, David

      Mudie, George

      White, Brian

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Naysmith, Dr. Doug

      Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

      Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

      Williams, Betty (Conwy)

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Winnick, David

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Woodward, Shaun

      Olner, Bill

      Wright Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      491

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Mr. Phil Woolas and

      Wyatt, Derek

      Gillian Merron

      Question accordingly negatived.

    Clause 22

      SPECIAL COMMITTEE OF THE BOARD
      Amendments made: No. 30, in page 15, line 29 [Clause 22], leave out 'and (1B)' and insert 'to (1E)'.
      No. 31, in page 15 [Clause 22], leave out lines 31 to 42 and insert—

      '"(1A) The Board shall constitute a committee of its members for the purposes mentioned in subparagraph (1B) if—

      (a) the Chief Constable informs the Board that he wishes to supply information to a committee of the Board under section 59(4D),

      (b) the Secretary of State informs the Board that he proposes to modify a requirement to submit a report under section 59(1) for the purpose mentioned in section 59(4A)(b), or

      (c) a person who is conducting or has conducted an inquiry under section 60, or who is assisting or has assisted in the conduct of such an inquiry, informs the Board that he wishes to disclose information to a committee of the Board under section 74A(5).

      (1B) The purposes are—

      (a) handling information supplied to the committee by the Chief Constable under section 59;

      (b) handling information supplied to it by a person who is conducting or has conducted an inquiry under section 60 or by a person who is assisting or has assisted in the conduct of such an inquiry.

      (1C) The Board may not constitute a committee of its members for the purposes mentioned in subparagraph (1B) if a committee of its members has already been constituted for those purposes under subparagraph (1) or (1A).

      (1D) A committee constituted under subparagraph (1) or (1A) for the purposes mentioned in subparagraph (1B) shall consist of 7 members of the Board.

      (1E) The members of a committee constituted under subparagraph (1) or (1A) for the purposes mentioned in subparagraph (1B)—'.

      No. 32, in page 15, line 46 [Clause 22], at end insert—
      '(4) In section 77(1) of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 (interpretation) at the appropriate place insert—
      ""special purposes committee" means a committee constituted by the Board under paragraph 24(1) or (1A) of Schedule 1 for the purposes mentioned in paragraph 24(1B) of that Schedule;".'.—[Jane Kennedy.]

    Clause 18

      PROVISION OF INFORMATION TO BOARD
      Amendments made: No. 9, in page 12, line 4 [Clause 18], after 'information', insert 'and documents'.
      No. 10, in page 12, line 9 [Clause 18], after 'information', insert
      'is—

      (a) information the disclosure of which would be likely to put an individual in danger, or

      (b) information which'.

      No. 11, in page 12 [Clause 18], leave out lines 11 to 17.
      No. 12, in page 12, line 18 [Clause 18], leave out 'or the committee'.
      492
      No. 13, in page 12, line 26 [Clause 18], leave out 'or the committee'.
      No. 14, in page 12, line 27 [Clause 18], leave out 'recipient of the information' and insert 'Board'.—[Jane Kennedy.]

    Clause 9

      REPORTS OF CHIEF CONSTABLE
      Amendments made: No. 3, in page 6, line 29 [Clause 9], leave out from 'to' to end of line 30 and insert 'a special purposes committee.'.
      No. 4, in page 7, line 4 [Clause 9], leave out from second 'to' to end of line 5 and insert 'a special purposes committee.'.
      No. 5, in page 7, line 6 [Clause 9], leave out second 'the' and insert 'a'.
      No.6, in page 7, line 7 [Clause 9], leave out from 'shall' to end of line 10 and insert
      'prepare a summary of the information.
      (4F) The Chief Constable shall try to obtain the agreement of the committee to the terms of the summary.
      (4FA) If the committee agrees to the terms of the summary, the Chief Constable shall include the summary in the report to the Board.'.
      No. 7, in page 7, line 12 [Clause 9], leave out second 'the' and insert 'a'.— [Jane Kennedy.]

    Clause 21

      RESTRICTION ON DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION
      Amendments made: No. 18, in page 14, line 3 [Clause 21], after '(2),', insert '(2A),'.
      No. 19, in page 14, line 11 [Clause 21], at end insert—
      '(2A) The circumstances are that—

      (a) the information is supplied by the Chief Constable under section 33A to the Board;

      (b) the Chief Constable informs the Board that, in his opinion, the information is information of a kind mentioned in section 33A(5)(a) or (b).'.

      No. 20, in page 14, line 14 [Clause 21], leave out '33A or'.
      No. 21, in page 14, line 14 [Clause 21], leave out from second 'or' to end of line 15 and insert 'a special purposes committee;'.
      No. 22, in page 14, line 18 [Clause 21], leave out
      'section 33A(5)(a) or (b) or'.
      No. 23, in page 14, line 22 [Clause 21], leave out from 'to' to end of line 23 and insert 'a special purposes committee;'.
      No. 24, in page 14, line 33 [Clause 21], leave out from 'Ombudsman' to end of line 34 and insert
      or an officer of the Ombudsman, in connection with any function of the Ombudsman;'.
      No. 25, in page 14, line 35 [Clause 21], leave out from 'to' to end of line 36 and insert 'a special purposes committee;'.
      No. 26, in page 14, line 42 [Clause 21], at end insert '(2A),'.
      No. 27, in page 15, line 1 [Clause 21], leave out from 'to' to 'to' in line 2 and insert 'a special purposes committee,'.

      493
      No. 28, in page 15, line 7 [Clause 21], leave out from 'Ombudsman' to end of line 8 and insert
      ', or an officer of the Ombudsman, in connection with any function of the Ombudsman;'.
      No. 29, in page 15, line 22 [Clause 21], after 'Schedule 1', insert
      ';and "officer of the Ombudsman" has the meaning given by section 50(1) of the 1998 Act'.—[Jane Kennedy.]

    Clause 11

      APPROVAL OF PROPOSALS RELATING TO INQUIRIES BY BOARD
      Amendment proposed: No. 86, in page 8, line 25, leave out Clause 11.—[Mr. John Taylor.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 117, Noes 275.

      Division No. 144]

      [2:57 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Gray, James (N Wilts)

      Ancram, rh Michael

      Grayling, Chris

      Arbuthnot, rh James

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Grieve, Dominic

      Bacon, Richard

      Gummer, rh John

      Barker, Gregory

      Hammond, Philip

      Baron, John (Billericay)

      Hawkins, Nick

      Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

      Hayes, John (S Holland)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Heald, Oliver

      Bercow, John

      Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Hendry, Charles

      Blunt, Crispin

      Hermon, Lady

      Boswell, Tim

      Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Horam, John (Orpington)

      Brady, Graham

      Hunter, Andrew

      Brazier, Julian

      Jack, rh Michael

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Burns, Simon

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Burnside, David

      Johnson, Boris (Henley)

      Cameron, David

      Key, Robert (Salisbury)

      Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Cash, William

      Lansley, Andrew

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Chope, Christopher

      Lidington, David

      Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Loughton, Tim

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

      Conway, Derek

      Mackay, rh Andrew

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Cran, James (Beverley)

      Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

      Curry, rh David

      Mercer, Patrick

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

      Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

      Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Murrison, Dr. Andrew

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Dodds, Nigel

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

      Page, Richard

      Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

      Paice, James

      Duncan Smith, rh Iain

      Portillo, rh Michael

      Fabricant, Michael

      Randall, John

      Fallon, Michael

      Redwood, rh John

      Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

      Robathan, Andrew

      Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

      Flight Howard

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Flook, Adrian

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Forth, rh Eric

      Ruffley, David

      Fox, Dr. Liam

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Francois, Mark

      Selous, Andrew

      Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

      Shepherd, Richard

      Goodman, Paul

      Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

      494

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Spring, Richard

      Waterson, Nigel

      Stanley, rh Sir John

      Watkinson, Angela

      Steen, Anthony

      Wiggin, Bill

      Swayne, Desmond

      Wilkinson, John

      Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

      Wilshire, David

      Syms, Robert

      Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Mr. Laurence Robertson and

      Tredinnick, David

      Hugh Robertson

      NOES

      Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

      Cruddas, Jon

      Ainger, Nick

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Allan, Richard

      Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

      Allen, Graham

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

      Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Davidson, Ian

      Austin, John

      Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Baird, Vera

      Dawson, Hilton

      Barnes, Harry

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Barron, rh Kevin

      Dismore, Andrew

      Beckett, rh Margaret

      Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Beith, rh A. J.

      Doran, Frank

      Berry, Roger

      Doughty, Sue

      Blackman, Liz

      Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Drew, David (Stroud)

      Blizzard, Bob

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Efford, Clive

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

      Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

      Etherington, Bill

      Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

      Ewing, Annabelle

      Farrelly, Paul

      Browne, Desmond

      Fisher, Mark

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Burden, Richard

      Follett, Barbara

      Burgon, Colin

      Foster, rh Derek

      Burstow, Paul

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Byers, rh Stephen

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

      Cable, Dr. Vincent

      Cairns, David

      Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Gardiner, Barry

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      George, Andrew (St. Ives)

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

      Caplin, Ivor

      Gerrard, Neil

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Gidley, Sandra

      Casale, Roger

      Goggins, Paul

      Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Challen, Colin

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Hain, rh Peter

      Chaytor, David

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Chidgey, David

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Clapham, Michael

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

      Hancock, Mike

      Hanson, David

      Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

      Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

      Coaker, Vernon

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Healey, John

      Coleman, Iain

      Heath, David

      Connarty, Michael

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Cooper, Yvette

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Heppell, John

      Corston, Jean

      Hesford, Stephen

      Cotter, Brian

      Heyes, David

      Cousins, Jim

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Cox, Torn (Tooting)

      Hodge, Margaret

      Cranston, Ross

      Hope, Phil (Corby)

      Crausby, David

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      495

      Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

      Olner, Bill

      O'Neill, Martin

      Howells, Dr. Kim

      Öpik, Lembit

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Palmer, Dr. Nick

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Perham, Linda

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Picking, Anne

      Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Hutton, rh John

      Pike, Peter (Burnley)

      Iddon, Dr. Brian

      Plaskitt, James

      Ingram, rh Adam

      Pollard, Kerry

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

      Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

      Pound, Stephen

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Jamieson, David

      Jenkins, Brian

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Primarolo, rh Dawn

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Purnell, James

      Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

      Quin, rh Joyce

      Kaufman, rh Gerald

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Keen, Alan (Feltham)

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Keen, Ann (Brentford)

      Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Rendel, David

      Kidney, David

      Roche Mrs Barbara

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      King, Andy (Rugby)

      Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

      Kirkwood, Sir Archy

      Salter, Martin

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Sanders, Adrian

      Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Lamb, Norman

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Lammy, David

      Sawford, Phil

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

      Sheridan, Jim

      Leslie, Christopher

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

      Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

      Linton, Martin

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Singh, Marsha

      Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

      Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      McCabe, Stephen

      Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

      McCafferty, Chris

      McCartney, rh Ian

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      McDonnell, John

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      McIsaac, Shona

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      McKechin, Ann

      Soley, Clive

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Southworth, Helen

      McNamara, Kevin

      Squire, Rachel

      McNulty, Tony

      Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

      MacShane, Denis

      Steinberg, Gerry

      McWalter, Tony

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      McWilliam, John

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Mallaber, Judy

      Stunell, Andrew

      Mallon, Seamus

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

      Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

      Martlew, Eric

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

      Thurso, John

      Miller, Andrew

      Tipping, Paddy

      Moffatt, Laura

      Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

      Moran, Margaret

      Tonge, Dr. Jenny

      Morley, Elliot

      Trickett, Jon

      Morris, rh Estelle

      Truswell, Paul

      Mountford, Kali

      Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

      Mudie, George

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Naysmith, Dr. Doug

      Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

      Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

      Vis, Dr. Rudi

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

      496

      Watts, David

      Woodward, Shaun

      White, Brian

      Woolas, Phil

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Williams, Betty (Conwy)

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Wyatt, Derek

      Wills, Michael

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Winnick, David

      Gillian Merron and

      Wishart, Pete

      Derek Twigg

      Question accordingly negatived.

    Clause 12

      INVESTIGATIONS INTO CURRENT POLICE PRACTICES AND POLICIES
      Lady Hermon: I beg to move amendment No. 45, in page 9, line 8, [Clause 12], leave out 'he has' and insert
      'the Board and the Secretary of State have'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord):With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
      Amendment No. 46, in page 9, line 8, [Clause 12], leave out from 'he' to end of line 9 and insert
      'is of the view that the policy or practice should be considered given that a member of the police service acting in accordance with that policy or practice has committed a criminal offence, or is responsible for conduct that gave rise to disciplinary proceedings.'.
      Amendment No. 47, in page 9, line 14, [Clause 12], at end insert—
      '(2A) No investigation under this section shall extend to events or incidences that occurred before the coming into force of this section.'.
      New clause 7—Exceptions to limits on complaints and references to Ombudsman—
      'In section 64 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 (c. 32) (regulations) after subsection (2A) there shall be inserted—
      "(2B) The Secretary of State may only prescribe exceptions pursuant to subsection (2A) above if the circumstances are both grave and exceptional.".'.
      Lady Hermon: I am entirely encouraged by the closeness of the vote on the Ulster Unionist amendment, so much so that we shall keep going with our arguments to ensure that the Bill leaves the House in a different state from that in which it arrived. I appreciate the support that we received for our earlier amendment.
      The amendments and the new clause deal with an important issue: the investigations that can be conducted by the ombudsman. I have always been supportive of the creation and setting up of the office of an independent police ombudsman. That comes from personal experience. Indeed, I declare an interest in that while my husband was Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary—as it was properly called—there were several controversial investigations, especially the Stalker and Sampson inquiries. Although both inquiries found that there was no shoot-to-kill policy, suspicion and disbelief continued in a certain quarter of the community in Northern Ireland. Having come through that experience, I welcomed the report of Dr. Maurice Hayes in 1997, which recommended the creation of the office of police ombudsman. The office was set up by the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998.

      497
      However, there is concern about the growing number of inquiries, which relates to a point that was sincerely made by the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Campbell). There is a perception that we have a one-sided truth commission, in various guises, in Northern Ireland. We must ensure that the office of the police ombudsman is held in high esteem and has the confidence of all sections and people in Northern Ireland.
      Hon. Members know that the police ombudsman has a substantial budget. On Monday, the Irish News reported:
      "The Police Ombudsman's Office investigates an average of 3,500 complaints against the police every year and has been allocated a budget of £7.4 million for the coming financial year."
      That is a substantial remit and a substantial budget.
      The effect of amendments Nos. 45, 46 and 47 can be summed up neatly. Clause 12 states:
      "The Ombudsman may investigate a current practice or policy of the police if … the practice or policy comes to his attention under this Part, and … he has reason to believe that it would be in the public interest to investigate the practice or policy."
      That is far too subjective. It leaves deciding what is in the public interest to the police ombudsman. The commander of a district command unit in North Down could decide that he should target drugs smuggling and abuse in North Down as a policing priority and allocate resources to that. Why should the ombudsman exercise his discretion and decide that it might be in the public interest to examine that? The remit is too wide and too subjective.
      Our amendment would provide for the Policing Board and the Secretary of State to determine whether there should be an investigation of current practice or policy. Amendment No. 46 would provide for an investigation by the ombudsman if the board and the Secretary of State are
      "of the view that the policy or practice should be considered given that a member of the police service acting in accordance with that policy or practice has committed a criminal offence, or is responsible for conduct that gave rise to disciplinary proceedings."
      That is a modest change to clause 12. However, it makes it obvious that the practice or policy stems from police impropriety or improper behaviour. That is better than allowing the ombudsman to determine what is "in the public interest"—a broad, seeping term—without any checks or balances.
      New clause 7 is important. The Irish News included an article that stated that the Minister had met the police ombudsman. It was entitled "Funds to investigate killings are refused". The ombudsman had made a request to investigate three incidents. One happened 12 years ago, another six years ago and the third was not given a date but took place in the past. The Minister did not approve funding for those inquiries. The families who have lost loved ones are entitled to closure and will feel a sense of grievance. However, it appears to have gone unnoticed that when the police ombudsman's office was set up under the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998, regulations—the RUC (Complaints etc) Regulations 2001—were also published. That shows that the name has changed for only operational, not
      498
      legal purposes. [Interruption.] That is quite right. [Interruption.] Perhaps DUP Members would like to intervene rather than snipe from the sidelines.
      Mr. Gregory Campbell: If the hon. Lady believes that the name has been changed only for operational purposes, perhaps she could elaborate on the rationale behind new clause 15, which the hon. Member for South Antrim (David Burnside) tabled.
      3.15 pm
      Lady Hermon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for intervening rather than commenting from a sedentary position. The question is properly directed at my hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim (David Burnside). I am sure that he will be delighted to answer it.
      In the meantime, perhaps hon. Members would care to examine section 1 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000. It states clearly, in black and white—it is therefore not an invention of the Ulster Unionist party—that the title was changed to the Police Service of Northern Ireland for operational purposes. The legal title remains the "Police Service of Northern Ireland (incorporating the Royal Ulster Constabulary)". If the hon. Member for East Londonderry wants or needs any proof of that, he should refer to the High Court case in July last year of Mark Parsons v. Chief Constable PSNI (RUC). That is the proper title. However, now that I have adequately dealt with all DUP Members' queries, let us move swiftly along.
      Mrs. Iris Robinson:Does PSNI (RUC) appear on police headed paper?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) is being led astray. It is not her doing. We will consider the matters raised later in our proceedings.
      Lady Hermon: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall be guided by your advice.
      Mr. Peter Robinson:No answer.
      Lady Hermon: I hope that hon. Members will abide by the Deputy Speaker's ruling.
      Mr. Robinson: There is no answer.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We have had enough comments from a sedentary position. Today is not the time to deal with the matter.
      Lady Hermon: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      The RUC (Complaints etc) Regulations 2001 set out the powers whereby the police ombudsman can conduct an investigation. It includes a general rule that
      "actions, behaviour or conduct to which the matter relates took place not more than 12 months before the date on which the reference was made".
      The police ombudsman is not therefore allowed to trawl back through cases from many years ago.

      499
      However, regulation 9 provides for an exception. It states that the general rule does
      "not apply where the matter is not the same or substantially the same as a previous complaint or matter and the Ombudsman believes that a member may have committed a criminal offence or behaved in a manner which would justify disciplinary proceedings, and the Ombudsman believes that the matter should be investigated because of the gravity of the matter or the exceptional circumstances."
      Again, matters are left to the ombudsman's discretion. We do not believe that that is right. Our modest amendment in new clause 7 would ensure that the Secretary of State would determine whether the circumstances were grave and exceptional.
      The amendments are intended to encourage confidence in the police ombudsman's office. They are not intended to encroach on its independence. That would be most regrettable. The police ombudsman's independence is of the utmost importance to everyone in Northern Ireland.
      Lembit Öpik: New clause 7 states:
      "The Secretary of State may only prescribe exceptions pursuant to subsection (2A) above if the circumstances are both grave and exceptional."
      To a certain extent, I agree that we should not be trailing through misdemeanours that happened decades ago, as there is probably not much benefit in so doing. There are no winners in that, and it could stir things up. On the other hand, there remains a lot of anxiety in Northern Ireland about injustices that occurred at the beginning of the troubles, even though that is more than three decades ago. When the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) returns to her feet, will she give an example of what would constitute "grave and exceptional circumstances"?
      Jane Kennedy: I shall begin by responding to the specific amendments in this group. Amendment No. 45 would prevent the ombudsman from investigating a current practice or policy unless the board and the Secretary of State believed that it would be in the public interest to do so.
      Patten was clear that the ombudsman should have the right to exercise her investigative powers. I believe that that implies that she should be able to do so independently of the board and the Secretary of State. The ombudsman is capable of making the judgment of whether there is a public interest justification for an investigation, without having to rely on the board or the Secretary of State. Patten clearly recommended that the ombudsman should have operational independence in these matters.
      I recognise that such investigations bring the ombudsman into territory that would otherwise fall exclusively to the board. However, the ombudsman role focuses on issues relating to police conduct; the Board's role goes much wider than that. Nevertheless, it will be important for both organisations to take steps to minimise duplication. I do not consider it appropriate to prescribe this through primary legislation, but I hope that both organisations will draw up a protocol or memorandum of understanding to deal with the matter, and I encourage them to do so. Therefore for the reasons that I have discussed, I am afraid that I cannot accept amendment No. 45.
      500
      Similarly, amendment No. 46 would restrict the ombudsman to investigating only when a police officer has committed a criminal offence or is responsible for conduct that has given rise to disciplinary proceedings. The Bill as it stands provides for an investigation where the ombudsman has reason to believe such an investigation would be in the public interest.
      I understand the concern that has prompted the tabling of this amendment, but I hope that I can reassure the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon). There is a difference between something that is in the public interest in the sense that it is for the genuine good of the public at large, and something that is of interest to the public—for example, something that satisfies public curiosity. That is why the wording of the clause was amended in another place: the phrase "of significant public concern" was changed to "in the public interest". The present wording of the Bill therefore prevents artificial public concern from being whipped up by interest groups in order to provoke an investigation.
      Amendment No. 46 goes too far in limiting the ombudsman's powers to investigate, however. It is clearly inconsistent with the recommendations of Patten. It would unnecessarily and unhelpfully limit the powers of the ombudsman.
      Amendment No. 46 would mean that the ombudsman would not be able to deal with a situation where she was concerned that, if a policy were to be applied, it might result in an offence being committed. The amendment clearly would hamper her powers both to prevent offences and restore public confidence in the PSNI. It is contrary to Patten, and I therefore cannot accept it.
      With regard to amendment No. 47, the Government's intention is that the power to investigate police policies and practices should not be retrospective. Our amendment introduced in another place made it clear that the ombudsman's power was restricted to current policies and practices.
      In investigating current policies and practices, it would, of course, be natural for the ombudsman to inform herself of the way in which officers have conducted themselves in applying these policies and practices. If we were to agree to amendment No. 47, however, she would not be able to look at officers' conduct, in applying current practices and policies, which had, for example, occurred only the week before Royal Assent.
      Lady Hermon: I have listened carefully to what the Minister has said. Given that financial powers have been devolved to district commanders, it is possible, for example, that the North Down district commander could exercise his discretion and give priority to dealing with drug abuse. What is there to prevent the ombudsman from saying that she would like to inquire into that current practice, in the public interest? What grounds for judicial review of her decision would the wording of clause 12 offer, if she said that such an investigation was in the public interest?
      Jane Kennedy: If the ombudsman felt it appropriate to launch an investigation such as the one that the hon. lady has described, I am not sure that it would be a particular problem. I am puzzled as to why the decision

      501
      of a district commander to introduce a policy to deal with a specific issue—such as drug abuse in a particular area—would cause the ombudsman such anxiety that she would consider it in the public interest to investigate. However, I cannot prescribe the circumstances in which the ombudsman may investigate: she needs to have the freedom to examine policies and practices, especially if it has been suggested to her that their application is not in the public interest. Who knows what may grow out of the relationships between DPPs and the local district commanders?
      I cannot see the circumstances in which the example given by the hon. Member for North Down would arise. I do not believe that it would be the problem that she suggests. It is important that we be pragmatic, and I confess that I am struggling to follow the logic of the example that the hon. Lady has given.
      Lady Hermon: I am genuinely grateful to the Minister for allowing me to intervene again, but the difficulty is that the wording of the clause is so subjective. Anyone who wishes to complain and take judicial review proceedings will find it very difficult to succeed in those proceedings because of the width and subjective nature of clause 12.
      Jane Kennedy: We are talking about "the public interest", a phrase that is widely used in legislation. It is pretty well understood, and I do not believe that there will be the degree of difficulty that the hon. Lady has described. I feel that, on this occasion, her fears are ill founded.
      The hon. Lady gave the example of a drugs policy being implemented in a particular district command. It is likely that such a policy would be agreed under the local policing plan and subject to scrutiny by the local DPP. That would be in line with targets set by the board. A district commander is highly unlikely to follow a policy that would be so far out of kilter with what was happening elsewhere in the PSNI that it would cause so much concern.
      Lady Hermon: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again, but this is a very important point. Yesterday in this House we discussed thoroughly the powers of district policing partnerships. DPPs, in North Down and elsewhere—although, after yesterday, I cannot speak for Belfast—do not have executive decision powers; they have only advisory and consultative powers. They will not bind the district commander, so the district commander could make a decision to direct resources in North Down to a particular policy without an executive agreement from the DPP.
      Jane Kennedy: Indeed, there is nothing in the Bill that would limit the operational independence of district commanders, but they always work under the direction of the Chief Constable, who always works within the remit of the policing plan developed by the Policing Board and, indeed, of the policies established by the Secretary of State. The hon. Lady's example gives rise to undue concern. We want the ombudsman to focus on the present, not on the past. We do not want to tie her
      502
      hands in such a way as to make it impossible for her to operate. That would be the effect of the amendment, so I cannot accept it.
      3.30 pm
      I turn to new clause 7, which deals not with the new power to investigate policies and practices, but with the ombudsman's core role of investigating complaints. Under section 64(2A) of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998, the Secretary of State may by regulations prescribe a time limit within which a complaint must be made or a matter referred if it is to be investigated by her office. The regulations may prescribe exceptions to the time limit; we discussed that at some length in Standing Committee. The regulations that have been made under that provision set a time limit of 12 months and provide for certain exceptions. In particular, the ombudsman must believe that a member may have committed a criminal offence or have behaved in a manner that would justify disciplinary proceedings, and in most cases there is also a condition that the matter must have grave or exceptional circumstances.
      The effect of the new clause would be that regulations could provide only for exceptions to the time limit where the circumstances were both grave and exceptional. Although I have some sympathy with what the hon. Lady is trying to achieve, if it is intended to facilitate society in looking forward—a point that has been made in another context by the Chief Constable in the very recent past—paragraph 5(19) of the Patten report states:
      "we are in no doubt that the RUC"—
      as it was then—
      "has had several officers within its ranks over the years who have abused their position … It is not satisfactory to suggest, as some people have, that one should somehow accept that every organisation has such 'bad apples'. They should be dealt with."
      I agree with that. However, there is a balance to be struck. It is not the role of the ombudsman to conduct a series of witch hunts, nor does the present post-holder have any such intention. But our judgment is that the current wording of the regulations made under section 64 of the 1998 Act, as amended by section 65 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000, reflects the appropriate balance. As part of the confidence-building process in policing, it would not be right to dilute the powers currently vested in the ombudsman by placing a further restriction or an additional condition on the use of those powers.
      I want to touch briefly on the issue of resources that the hon. Lady raised. Although I turned down the request for further resources that the ombudsman's offices made, I did not say that she may not conduct any of the inquiries that she suggested that she would like to carry out. Her office has received an increase in funding of more than 40 per cent. and has received all the funding that it bid for in the Budget round this year. The ombudsman's office is therefore very well resourced. It is for her office to determine how those resources are managed, and I made that point when I discussed the matter with her last week.

      503
      I hope that I have been able to allay some of the hon. Lady's concerns; given the exchanges that we have had, I guess that I may not have allayed them all. However, I shall certainly ask my hon. Friends to resist the amendment if it is pressed.
      Lady Hermon: I appreciate the lengths to which the Minister has gone to try to allay my fears, but she can tell from the look on my face and from my interventions that I have not had my fears allayed at all. The Minister quoted a section of the Patten report about particular RUC officers. It is better to remember that the subtitle of the Patten report is "A New Beginning: Policing in Northern Ireland". I am fed up, to put it mildly, with sections of the Patten report being quoted by the Government when it suits them, and other parts not being quoted. If it is to be a new beginning to policing, it is grossly unfair that the ombudsman has a subjective power or ability to decide what is grave and what is exceptional. New clause 7 would make the process more objective; it would not undermine the independence of the ombudsman at all.
      The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) asked me to give an example of grave and exceptional circumstances. What come to mind are the serious allegations, which were not upheld, about police officers' handling of warnings in relation to the Omagh inquiry. Had that been 16, 12 or however many years ago, clearly, that is a grave and exceptional circumstance.
      If we truly mean that there should be a new beginning, we do not want to give rise to the perception that there is a one-sided truth commission. I will press the amendments to the vote, as the Bill must be improved. I return to what the Minister said in the debate in this place on the Northern Ireland Assembly Elections Bill on Monday last week, in relation to the catastrophic breakdown of confidence in the community. We must focus on rebuilding confidence in the police ombudsman's office, in the Policing Board and in all policing structures.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 7, Noes 266.

      Division No. 145]

      [3:35 pm

      AYES

      Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

      Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

      Dodds, Nigel

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Hermon, Lady

      David Burnside and

      Hunter, Andrew

      Mr. Roy Beggs

      NOES

      Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

      Beith, rh A. J.

      Ainger, Nick

      Berry, Roger

      Allen, Graham

      Blackman, Liz

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

      Blizzard, Bob

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

      Austin, John

      Browne, Desmond

      Baird, Vera

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Banks, Tony

      Burden, Richard

      Barron, rh Kevin

      Burgon, Colin

      Beckett, rh Margaret

      Burstow, Paul

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Byers, rh Stephen

      504

      Cable, Dr. Vincent

      Hanson, David

      Cairns, David

      Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Healey, John

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Heath, David

      Caplin, Ivor

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Casale, Roger

      Heppell, John

      Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

      Hesford, Stephen

      Challen, Colin

      Heyes, David

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Chaytor, David

      Hinchliffe, David

      Chidgey, David

      Hodge, Margaret

      Clapham, Michael

      Holmes, Paul

      Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

      Hope, Phil (Corby)

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

      Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

      Coaker, Vernon

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Howells, Dr. Kim

      Coleman. Iain

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

      Connarty, Michael

      Cooper, Yvette

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

      Corston, Jean

      Hutton, rh John

      Cotter, Brian

      Iddon, Dr. Brian

      Cousins, Jim

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

      Cox, Tom (Tooting)

      Cranston, Ross

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Crausby, David

      Jamieson, David

      Cruddas, Jon

      Jenkins, Brian

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

      Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

      Kaufman, rh Gerald

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Keen, Alan (Feltham)

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Keen, Ann (Brentford)

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Davidson, Ian

      Kidney, David

      Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Dawson, Hilton

      King, Andy (Rugby)

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

      Dismore, Andrew

      Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

      Kirkwood, Sir Archy

      Dobson, rh Frank

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

      Doran, Frank

      Lamb, Norman

      Doughty, Sue

      Lammy, David

      Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Drew, David (Stroud)

      Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Leslie, Christopher

      Efford, Clive

      Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Linton, Martin

      Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Etherington, Bill

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Farrelly, Paul

      McCabe, Stephen

      Fisher, Mark

      McCafferty, Chris

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      McCartney, rh Ian

      Follett, Barbara

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Foster, rh Derek

      McDonnell, John

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      McIsaac, Shona

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

      McKechin, Ann

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Gardiner, Barry

      McNulty, Tony

      George, Andrew (St. Ives)

      MacShane, Denis

      Gerrard, Neil

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Goggins, Paul

      McWalter, Tony

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      McWilliam, John

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Mallaber, Judy

      Hain, rh Peter

      Mallon, Seamus

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Mandelson, rh Peter

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

      Hancock, Mike

      505

      Martlew, Eric

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

      Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

      Merron, Gillian

      Michael, rh Alun

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Miller, Andrew

      Moffatt, Laura

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Moran, Margaret

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Morley, Elliot

      Soley, Clive

      Morris, rh Estelle

      Southworth, Helen

      Mountford, Kali

      Squire, Rachel

      Mudie, George

      Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

      Mullin, Chris

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Naysmith, Dr. Doug

      Stoate, Dr. Howard

      Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

      Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Olner, Bill

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

      Öpik, Lembit

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Thurso, John

      Palmer, Dr. Nick

      Tipping, Paddy

      Perham, Linda

      Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Trickett, Jon

      Pike, Peter (Burnley)

      Truswell, Paul

      Plaskitt, James

      Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Pound, Stephen

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Vis, Dr. Rudi

      Primerolo, rh Dawn

      Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

      Purnell, James

      Watts, David

      Quin, rh Joyce

      White, Brian

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      Raynsford, rh Nick

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

      Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

      Rendel, David

      Williams, Betty (Conwy)

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Wills, Michael

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Winnick, David

      Ruddock, Joan

      Woodward, Shaun

      Salter, Martin

      Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Sawford, Phil

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Wyatt, Derek

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Joan Ryan and

      Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

      Mr. Phil Woolas

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Amendment made: No. 8, in clause 12, page 9, line 36, leave out—
      ', or information contained in a document,'.—[Jane Kennedy.]

    New Clause 4

      APPOINTMENT OF CONSTABLES WITH SPECIAL POLICING SKILLS
      '(1) The Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 (c.32) is amended as set out in subsections (2) to (5).
      (2) In section 36 (appointments to the Police Service of Northern Ireland) after subsection (3) (training requirements for persons appointed to rank of constable) insert—
      "(4) Subsection (3) does not apply to a person appointed in pursuance of an authorisation under section 47A(1)."
      (3) After section 47 insert—
      "47A Appointments to Police Service of Northern Ireland in special circumstances

      (1) The Board may if requested to do so by the Chief Constable authorise the appointment to the rank of constable in the Police Service of Northern Ireland of a specified number of persons—

      (a) who have a specified policing skill, but

      (b) who have not complied with the requirements in paragraphs (a) and (b) of section 36(3).

      (2) The Board shall not give an authorisation under subsection (1) in relation to persons who have a particular policing skill unless it is satisfied—

      (a) that the requirements of subsection (3) are met;

      (b) that any further requirements which are specified by it under subsection (4) and which apply in relation to the giving of the authorisation are met.

      (3) The requirements are—

      (a) that there is a need for more persons who have the policing skill to be appointed to the rank of constable in the Police Service of Northern Ireland;

      (b) that the need cannot be met by the appointment of persons who have complied with the requirements in paragraphs (a) and (b) of section 36(3).

      (4) The Board may specify further requirements which apply in relation to the giving of an authorisation under subsection (1).

      (5) Any requirements specified under subsection (4) may apply in relation to the giving of all authorisations under subsection (1) or to the giving of a particular authorisation or description of authorisation.

      (6) In this section "specified" means specified by the Board."

      (4) In paragraph 17(4) of Schedule 1 (procedure for Board decisions) for "paragraph 18" substitute "paragraphs 17A and 18"
      (5) After paragraph 17 of Schedule 1 insert—
      "Authorisations under section 47A(1)
      17A The Board shall not give an authorisation under section 47A(1) unless a proposal to do so has been approved by each member of the Board present and voting on the question at a meeting of the Board."
      (6) The preceding provisions of this section expire at the end of a period of two years starting on the day on which this Act is passed.
      (7) The Secretary of State may by order amend subsection (6) by substituting "four years" for "two years".
      (8) An order under subsection (7) may be made only with the prior authorisation of the Board.
      (9) The Board shall not give an authorisation under subsection (8) unless a proposal to do so has been approved by each member of the Board present and voting on the question at a meeting of the Board.
      (10) In paragraph 17(4) of Schedule 1 to the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 (c. 32) (procedure for Board decisions) after "18" insert "and section [Appointment of constables with special policing skills](9) of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2003".
      (l1) An order under subsection (7) may not be made after the end of the period of two years specified in subsection (6).'.
      —[Jane Kennedy.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Jane Kennedy: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment (a), in line 43, leave out 'each member' and insert—
      'a majority of the members'.

      507
      New clause 8—Appointments to the Police Service of Northern Ireland—
      'In the event that—

      (a) the Chief Constable is unable to appoint his required number of police trainees or police support staff, or

      (b) the number of serving officers is below that intended at the time of consideration

      the Secretary of State shall, at the request of a majority of the Police Board and acting on the recommendation of the Chief Constable, make an Order to suspend the provisions of section 46 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 (c. 32) for a period of six months.'.
      New clause 12—Encouragement of a representative police service—

      '(1) Part 6 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 (c. 32) shall be amended as follows.

      (2) In section 44 (recruitment arrangements: trainees and support staff), subsections (5) to (7) shall be omitted.

      (3) For section 46, there shall be substituted—

      "46 A representative police force
      It shall be the duty of the Chief Constable to take all steps he considers appropriate to secure that the Police Service of Northern Ireland, in its composition, represents the population of Northern Ireland."
      (4) For section 47(1) (meaning of "temporary provisions"), there shall be substituted—
      "(1) In this section "the temporary provisions" means the provisions of section 45.".'.
      New clause 20—Period of retention in a pool of qualified applicants—
      'In section 46 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 (c. 32) (discrimination in appointments) after subsection (1) insert—
      "(1A) Where a person from the pool of qualified applicants is not appointed under section 39 (appointment of police trainees) because—

      (a) there are insufficient numbers of qualified applicants from persons who are treated as Roman Catholics; or

      (b) there are insufficient numbers of qualified applicants from persons who are not so treated

      they shall, subject to their consent, remain within the qualified pool of applicants for a period not exceeding eighteen months".'.
      Amendment No. 88, in clause 19, page 12, line 33, after 'person', insert—
      'who is a member of the Garda Siochana in the Irish Republic'.
      Amendment No. 89, in page 12, line 36, at end insert—
      '(2A) In making such appointments the Chief Constable shall appoint an even number of persons of whom—

      (a) one half shall be persons who are treated as Roman Catholic;

      (b) one half shall be persons who are not so treated.'.

      Jane Kennedy: This is not the first time I have had to deal with a new clause four. On this occasion, however, I shall treat the new clause as though it had been moved formally, in order to allow others who have tabled amendments to speak to those amendments.
      Mr. Quentin Davies:We are all grateful to the Minister for giving us a little more time for debate.
      The new clauses and amendments deal with the important practical issue of the level of policing in Northern Ireland and the numbers and resources
      508
      available to the police. As we all know, the Patten report proposed that, in conditions of peaceful normal life—very far from what we have at the moment—the strength of the Police Service of Northern Ireland should be 7,500. The last figures that I saw—the Minister of State will have the latest figures, I am sure—showed that the regular service was down to 6,900, below levels that Patten saw as indispensable in conditions of normality, and at the moment the demands on the police are exceptional.
      There is, thank heaven, the full-time reserve. Under pressure from us, the Government agreed to renew its contracts last September. The latest figure for the reserve that I have seen is about 1,900. Even so, at present in Northern Ireland the police are overstretched. There is no doubt about that. Their prime tasks must be the priorities, which are, first, to maintain order and therefore to deal with the rioting and difficulties that we have seen all too frequently in the past year, including in recent months, particularly in Belfast; and, secondly, to deal with organised crime and paramilitarism. We all strongly congratulate the Chief Constable on the arrests that he has been able to make among serious paramilitary organisations, particularly in west and north Belfast over the past few months.
      Given the need to prioritise those two objectives, it has not been possible for the Police Service of Northern Ireland, to anything like the extent that is desired—including, I think, by every hon. Member—to engage in what Patten calls community policing but what I prefer to call neighbourhood policing, which is an essential part of getting the Province back to normality. Neighbourhood policing means to my mind the bobby on the beat and policemen and policewomen moving around their communities and addressing the challenge of law and order in an anticipatory way, rather than simply responding to calls and crises.Against that background, for reasons that, I think, are understood in the House but are a matter of great controversy here, the Conservative Opposition have accepted the need for the short temporary period to contribute to the essential task of creating a police service in Northern Ireland that genuinely is felt to be owned by both communities in Northern Ireland equally, to represent both communities equally and to be outside politics, in no sense sectarianised or politicised.
      The sad history goes back many decades; I suppose it goes back to the old Royal Irish Constabulary before 1922. The difficulty is getting away from that legacy, the misunderstandings and caricatures of the past that are deeply imprinted, sadly, on many people's minds. It was necessary to take dramatic action. It is not reasonable anyway to have a situation where 90 per cent. of a police force comes from one half of the community, so we have accepted, but very reluctantly and conscious of the fact that in doing so we are overriding some fundamental principles of human rights, that there should be a quota system for recruitment to the police service over a temporary period. That is provided for in section 46, if I recall correctly, of the Mandelson Act—the 2000 Act—which provides that there should be 50 per cent. recruitment of people deemed to be Protestants and 50 per cent. recruitment of those deemed to be Catholic.
      The new recruitments started at the beginning of last year. Although the first recruitment drive was rather encouraging and we had quite a lot of Catholic

      509
      applicants, there have not been many Catholic applicants in subsequent recruitment exercises. Therefore, we find a considerable crisis in the numbers in the PSNI.
      There are some people who react. The Unionist Members here, both Ulster Unionist and Democratic Unionist, will I am sure, take that line. They respond to this situation, understandably, by saying that we have to go back on the 50–50 arrangements in section 46, but I do not think, for the reasons that I have just mentioned, that that is a sensible solution, so we must find some other way forward.
      Mrs. Iris Robinson: For accuracy, it is not 50 per cent. Catholic, 50 per cent. Protestant, but 50 per cent. Roman Catholic, 50 per cent. "other", which includes all others.
      Mr. Davies: I am familiar with the clause and the hon. Lady is right, but I am using shorthand, as is conventional on these occasions. I had to explain to a colleague that part of the absurdity of the situation is that, in Northern Ireland, an atheist or a Jew is regarded as an honorary Protestant for the purposes of section 46.
      Lembit Öpik: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not stick to that shorthand, which is offensive to a lot of people who are neither Catholic nor Protestant. As the hon. Lady said, it means 50 per cent. Catholic and 50 per cent. not Catholic, and quite explicitly lumps all other groups together, but does not assume that they are all Protestant.
      Mr. Davies: I have just made that point, and the hon. Gentleman and I agree. He is trying to censor my use of language. He is good at intervening on Members of the official Opposition or Ministers, who find themselves subject to his well-intentioned censorship. We are told at times that we cannot use certain words; the Minister of State got into trouble with him for using the word "community". I understand exactly where the hon. Gentleman is coming from.
      Mr. Hugo Swire:Since the scheme came into being, there have been 250 non-Catholic applicants and 26 Roman Catholic applicants, so plainly it is not working. Is my hon. Friend aware of any support that the Government are giving to the Chief Constable to overcome this, as the situation is going to get worse?
      Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend is right, and the situation is serious. Understandably, and rightly, when the new Police Service of Northern Ireland came into being, generous redundancy arrangements were offered to those with a full service record in the RUC who wished to take advantage of them. Inevitably, a large number did; more or less all those with 30 years of service have done so. Financially, it would have been irrational not to do so. We have faced an exceptional haemorrhage of officers, particularly experienced officers. That is another problem.
      To answer my hon. Friend, the Government are trying to do something with new clause 4. The question is whether that is sufficient to solve the problems that he
      510
      set out. The Ulster Unionist party has proposed new clause 8, which is an alternative way of solving the problem.
      New clause 4, at first sight, is entirely unexceptional and welcome. It provides that while the PSNI remains under-strength because of insufficient Catholic recruitment, although theoretically it could be because of insufficient recruitment of Protestants and others, given the provisions of section 46, the Chief Constable should have the right, with the consent of the board, to recruit constables for a two-year period outside the quota system in section 46 of the 2000 Act. The phrasing is something like "the board at the request of the Chief Constable". That would last for two years, and could be renewed for up to a maximum of four years. The unanimous approval of the board would be needed for the Secretary of State to make such a proposal, which would have to be brought before a statutory instrument Committee. That is satisfactory, in that it provides a way of relieving the pressure, and it appears to address the problem. It is also temporary, which we feel very strongly is right. We do not want the 50:50 system to be permanent—it must be temporary—but we do not want it to be set aside definitively, because that would unravel an important part of the peace process.
      Many aspects of the clause strike me as entirely favourable and well thought-through, and it is not our intention to oppose it in principle. However, three problems arise from our reading of it, and I ask for the Government's responses to them before we take a definitive decision on this—or, indeed, before we take a decision whether to support new clause 4 or the rival solution, new clause 8, which certainly does not contain the three problems that I am about to mention.
      The first problem arises from new section 47A(1)(b) and (3)(b) in new clause 4. The effect of those provisions is to relax the requirement in section 36(3)(a) and (b) of the Mandelson Act that constables should have undergone training. The Act states:
      "A person shall not be appointed to the rank of constable unless he has—

      (a) completed such a period of service as a trainee (a "police trainee") as may be prescribed by regulations under section 41(3); and

      (b) complied with such other conditions relating to training as may be so prescribed."

      It seems dubious to provide for a power—albeit against the background of the pressures and the rationale that I have described—that allows for recruits to come into the Police Service of Northern Ireland who have not met the training provisions. I want to know why the Government are proposing that. Perhaps I am misreading the new clause, in which case we need an explanation and all will be well. But if I am not misreading the effect of the provision in this respect, why do the Government think that it is judicious—or, indeed, acceptable—to provide for the recruitment of people who have not gone through the appropriate training preliminaries?
      I can see several reasons why that would be undesirable. The pressures on police constables in Northern Ireland are greater than on those in England, the Republic of Ireland and other normally stable societies. We do not want to recruit people whom we might regard as not quite up to the grade required

      511
      elsewhere. To dilute standards in that way seems contrary to our objective—which I think we share with the Minister—of doing everything possible to promote the morale and sense of high standards in the new Police Service of Northern Ireland.
      It would be particularly undesirable if constables were recruited into the mainstream regular police service without having had the same training as constables in the full-time reserve. Those constables often feel that they are unfairly discriminated against, vis-à-vis regular officers. They have had the same training and perform the same tasks. These days—this might not always have been true—they have very much the same responsibilities. It would therefore be invidious to introduce such a provision, and I would like the Minister to explain the rationale behind this relaxation of the training provisions in the 2000 Act in respect of constables recruited under the new procedure as foreseen in new clause 4.
      I must say openly that I am not addicted to conspiracy theories, even when dealing with this Government, with whom we have had differences on their tactics in Northern Ireland. However, when reading the new clause, it occurred to me that it could give rise to certain, no doubt entirely unfounded, suspicions. So as to ensure that they are not only unfounded but, we hope, will not arise at all, I would be grateful for an explicit comment from the Minister on this matter. There could be suspicions that the purpose of this formulation—of allowing the board to approve the recruitment of constables outside the clause 46 framework, and without the training that would otherwise be required—is to allow a massive infusion of republicans to dilute the Police Service overnight. We know that an unacceptable part of republican demands during the peace process—the Government seem to agree that it was unacceptable—has been that the Police Service of Northern Ireland should somehow absorb former paramilitaries. We want to make absolutely certain, however, that in the highly charged climate of Northern Ireland, no suspicion can arise that this provision could turn into such a Trojan horse. [Interruption.] I should like to tell the Minister, if I may have her attention for a moment, that that is the second matter on which I would like an explicit explanation before we take a decision on this important new clause.
      The third issue that arises—for us, at least—in looking at this new clause is the provision for unanimity, whereby the board can trigger the Chief Constable's use of these exceptional powers to recruit outside the clause 46 framework only if there is unanimity among board members, or at least among all those members present at the meeting. The relevant provision is new clause 4(5), which would insert into the 2000 Act the following:
      "The Board shall not give an authorisation under section 47A(1) unless a proposal to do so has been approved by each member of the Board present and voting on the question at a meeting of the Board."
      If there were truly a danger of those who have not met the training requirements, and who are inappropriate for the other reasons that I have mentioned, being allowed into the Police Service of Northern Ireland through the back door—an extremely serious and sinister threat, were it to emerge—it would of course be highly desirable, as a brake and a protection, for just one member of the board to be able to veto the whole
      512
      process. However, I assume that the Government are about to tell me that my fears are entirely fanciful, that no such abuse or Trojan horse effect could arise, and that the new clause contains sufficient protections—at least, I certainly hope that I will be told that. In the light of that, it makes no sense to provide for unanimity, because doing so gives a veto to any member of the board who may, for whatever reason, not want the Police Service of Northern Ireland to be reinforced, and who may want to use this provision to apply some form of political leverage. They would be able to say, "Whatever the needs of the Chief Constable and of policing in Northern Ireland, I oppose the recruitment of constables outside the 50:50 procedure."
      Anything to do with the 50:50 procedure is highly controversial in Northern Ireland—on both sides of the divide. Perhaps the Liberal Democrats do not want to allow me to use the word "divide", but I am afraid that such a divide exists. Like them, I hope that it disappears tomorrow, but for the time being we probably have to use that phrase. It seems self-defeating to include in new clause 4 a provision that will almost certainly ensure that it never takes effect in practical terms. There will probably always be someone who will have some reason or other to veto it. It is very dangerous to allow members of the Policing Board to veto things, because if a single veto can affect such decisions, the pressure from the outside community on members of the board who might be considered potential candidates for exercising such a veto becomes very great.
      My problem with the veto leads me to my third question. I should like the hon. Lady to explain the rationale for the veto as fully as she can when she explains the rationale for the new clause. In the meantime, we, as a responsible Opposition—we do not only criticise and find fault but to remedy where we see deficiencies—have come up with our own proposal. Amendment (a) to new clause 4 would delete from it the phrase "each member" and insert
      "a majority of the members".
      That amendment would mean that what is a sensible arrangement for dealing with an emergency or crisis in numbers in the Police Service of Northern Ireland might be of practical use and is more likely to be effective.
      The new clauses and amendments in this group have been selected very rigorously, if I may say so, Madam Deputy Speaker. The fact that they all relate to one another contributes to the coherence of our debate. The next new clause that I wish to speak about is new clause 8, which is the Ulster Unionist party's answer to the same examination question. It is a much better answer than the Government's new clause 4 and avoids the three problems that I mentioned. New clause 8 does not relax the training standards, and provides that a majority on the board is required. We therefore prefer it. If the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) presses for a Division, we shall support her. If new clause 8 becomes part of the legislation, the House will have done a good afternoon's work. The new clause not only avoids some of the perils of the Government's proposal, but has been much more clearly drafted than the somewhat convoluted text of new clause 4.
      Moving logically on, again, I come to the new clause proposed by the Democratic Unionist party. It is slightly insidious because it is drafted in such a way that

      513
      at first reading it might persuade any reasonable man or woman that there was nothing to object to. It seeks to insert into the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 the sentence:
      "It shall be the duty of the Chief Constable to take all steps he considers appropriate to secure that the Police Service of Northern Ireland, in its composition, represents the population of Northern Ireland."
      I find nothing to quarrel with in that; in fact, I congratulate the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) and his colleagues on avoiding what I am sure the Liberal Democrats would have put in. They would have put in the usual modish mantra of political correctness about ethnic balance, balance for homosexuals, balance for people who are left-handed or have red hair or green eyes, and whatever. New clause 12 offers altogether a better formulation.
      Mr. Carmichael: That was pitiful. Go for the Government for once.
      Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman is less than fair. Had he followed our Northern Ireland debates, he would have seen that I rarely do anything else. However, I hope that I do so constructively. We oppose only when we think that there is a need to oppose. We are happy to support the Government—even on difficult matters, such as the 50:50 arrangements in section 46—when we think that it is right to do so. Of course we oppose when we see the Government making mistakes; and we ask questions, as I have been doing, when we think that there is a possibility of the Government making mistakes in legislation.
      Let me return to the main thrust of the DUP's new clause. A second reading of it reveals the sleight of hand. The sentence that I read out is intended to replace the whole of section 46 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000, thus removing the 50:50 mechanism. I know that the hon. Member for North Antrim and his hon. Friends have consistently opposed that mechanism. I have said before from the Dispatch Box that there is not only a cogent intellectual argument, but a strong moral argument for opposing any discrimination of that kind. Because a balance must be struck between alternatives—neither of which is ideal—we have concluded that we ought to allow derogation, at least temporarily, from the principle of non-discrimination. That is why we support the 50:50 mechanism. We have taken that decision, so it will come as no surprise to the hon. Member for North Antrim and his hon. Friends that we shall be consistent with that decision today. We are therefore unable to support new clause 12.
      Lembit Öpik: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the Conservative party was in error to oppose the 50:50 mechanism in the past?
      Mr. Davies: I have been asked that question before—I think, by the hon. Member for North Down. It seems extraordinary that I should be asked, by the Liberal Democrats of all people, a question about consistency, a virtue to which I and my right hon. and hon. Friends subscribe. There is an irony in that question.
      4.15 pm
      Mr. Carmichael: Answer the question.
      Mr. Davies: I must be allowed to make that introductory comment, but of course I intend to turn to the question. I have said in the past that this is a very difficult decision. Indeed, I have never mentioned this point without saying that it has been a difficult decision for my party. I quite understand the strong reservations that members of my party have about this matter, and the fact that a different view has been taken in the past.
      I speak from the Dispatch Box in support of my right hon. and hon. Friends. The Conservative party feels that we do not live in an ideal world; we live in a world that is never completely ideal, and there is sometimes a conflict between desirable objectives. There is a conflict between principles to which we are attached, and one must have the courage to face up to that honestly and say what one is going to do. One has to prioritise these principles; there must sometimes be a hierarchy of objectives.
      We have also taken the view that the need to make a success of the peace process in Northern Ireland and to establish a Police Service in Northern Ireland that, for the first time since partition, if not before, really has a chance of gaining the allegiance of the whole population, is a sufficiently important objective to warrant a derogation, which must be temporary—I have always insisted on the word "temporary"—from the principles to which, in theory and in principle, the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) and I are both attached. I hope that I have dealt with that matter.
      I am expecting to be asked that question whenever I speak about policing in Northern Ireland. After all, that is what we are here for: to respond to the concerns of colleagues on both sides of the House. I am perfectly happy to go on answering the same question, but I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman will be disappointed if he finds that in future I give a very different answer.
      Lembit Öpik: I understand that the hon. Gentleman wishes to move on, and I think that we have got as full an answer as we are going to get. I asked that question because, at one point, we worked very hard with the Conservatives, together with the Ulster Unionist and Democratic Unionist parties, to oppose the Government's introduction of 50:50. It is more than slightly surprising and disappointing to some of us that the Conservatives seem to have withdrawn on what the hon. Gentleman in his own words described as a principle.
      Mr. Davies: I have explained that there are at least two principles at stake. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that, in politics, one often takes a stand on an issue and loses the debate, and the situation moves on. One then has to decide whether to expend one's energies trying to unravel what has been achieved or to address current and future problems. We have taken the latter course, so there is no question of going back and trying to unravel the Mandelson Act. In fact, I have criticised the Government in these debates for trying to unravel the Mandelson Act, and we shall continue to do so. I am putting our focus on opposing making the

      515
      Mandelson Act a great deal worse by introducing not only the basic Bill, which has some nasty flaws, but the initial new clauses that the Government suddenly decided to table, which were the subject of my remarks yesterday. I spoke at length on these matters yesterday, so I need not remind the House now of our strong feelings on those subjects.
      Mr. James Gray:Is my hon. Friend aware that the Government may not even be certain of how much support they receive from hon. Members on their own Back Benches? He may not yet have seen a written answer that I received today. The Secretary of State now says that on 23 February, at public expense, he entertained
      "a party of backbench Labour MPs"
      at the Hilton hotel at a total cost to the public purse of £639.35. Is that not—
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal):Order. That is a very lengthy intervention.
      Mr. Davies: That sounds extremely dubious. I thought that when the Government of the day—the Executive branch—were entertaining the legislature they would always do it on an all-party basis. I hope that my hon. Friend will send a copy of the document that he has just quoted, which is now on the record—we are all grateful to him for putting it on the record—to the Public Accounts Committee.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. May we return to the debate on the new clause in question?
      Mr. Davies: Indeed, Madam Deputy Speaker—the more so because I am reaching the key point in my remarks.
      New clause 20 is our main and, I think I can fairly say, original contribution to the issue of how to address the problem of police numbers in Northern Ireland at the present time. I would be grateful for the opportunity to discover the House's views on the new clause, so I shall press it to a vote, if I am able to do so, in a few moments' time.
      New clause 20 is based on the acceptance of section 46 of the 2000 Act and the 50:50 mechanism, which we have just discussed. It would address not only one of the injustices, but one of the dysfunctions of the present system, which occurs when those from the Protestant or other community—perhaps that is the best way that I can describe it—have passed the tests and met the recruitment standards to be sent to the police training college in Northern Ireland and are told that their names cannot go forward because not enough people in the other category, the Catholic category, have put themselves forward, so they cannot be admitted to a career for which they would qualify.
      That is unfortunate from two points of view. It is clearly unfortunate because the Police Service of Northern Ireland loses a potentially good recruit, and it is very unfair and unjust for the individual who is told, "Right, you passed the exam, but you can't have the prize. Indeed, other people who may not have higher marks than you will have the prize." So the question is how to try at least to reduce those anomalies and the sense of unfairness that results.
      516
      We propose in new clause 20 that, when any candidate has passed muster, scored the necessary marks and qualified for admission to the Police Service of Northern Ireland, that candidate should not be told, "Sorry, you aren't going to be recruited because you are in the wrong community group. Go away. That's the end of it." Instead, that candidate would be told, "I am sorry, we can't take you on today because of the 50:50 mechanism, but you will go on to a waiting list, or into a pool, and you will go forward as soon as you can." That response is a great deal better.
      Mr. Swire:Does my hon. Friend not think that, in the interests of fairness, those who have gone through that process and qualified should be told that they will be given places in the police, perhaps on mainland Britain, in the United Kingdom until such time as the quota changes and they can go back?
      Mr. Davies:Of course those people could automatically apply to another police service in the United Kingdom, but the people whom I have in mind will have decided that they want to spend their time, careers and lives in Northern Ireland. There is already a brain drain in many fields from Northern Ireland, which worries those of us who have the interests of Northern Ireland very close to heart, and I would not want there to be a brain drain of potentially able policemen and women. It would not be a totally satisfactory answer to say, "Seek your fortune across the water." What I am trying to do, so far as possible, is encourage people to feel that there is some purpose in staying in the pool, if we create one by virtue of new clause 20, so that they can pass into the Police Service of Northern Ireland as soon as possible.
      Mr. Bill Tynan:Under new clause 20, if the individual were held for 18 months, would he be paid during that period?
      Mr. Davies:No, he would not; nor would he have duties to perform. Of course, he could take another job or continue with his existing activity. He would not be a member of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, but he would be assured that, as and when a vacancy opened, his name—or her name—would be brought forward automatically, to take advantage of that vacancy without any further formality or the need to pass any further test.
      Mr. Beggs rose—
      Mr. Davies: Of course I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I do not want to give way too often because we must move on.
      Mr. Beggs: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and for promoting new clause 20. Does he agree that it is absolutely ridiculous that applicants have been twice into the competition—twice into the pool—and still have not yet got a place?
      Mr. Davies: Yes, I do. It is a great shame that the Police Service of Northern Ireland is losing good, potentially enthusiastic and valuable recruits and it is a great shame for individuals who had hoped for a career

      517
      in the Police Service. They would have passed the test and thus know that they were capable of doing the job, but the door would be slammed in their face.
      I have already set out why we must accept the higher need to ensure that we have a successful police service in Northern Ireland. We want to mitigate the sense of injustice and unfairness, and the loss of good human resources to the police. That happens under the present mechanism, which is why we tabled the new clause.
      The new clause would also save public money—the Government can tell me how much—because if people pass the test but are not allowed to join the Police Service at that time, they have to take the test all over again. That is demoralising and a waste of time for them, and represents an unnecessary drain on public finances.
      I set most store by pressing new clause 20 to a Division, but I should mention our other amendments in the group. Amendment No. 88 would make an assurance given by the Minister of State in Committee explicit in the Bill: that the purpose of clause 19 is to provide the ability to recruit from the Garda Siochana. Clause 19 allows the Chief Constable to recruit a person for three years under a special procedure, but it does not say that he may recruit from the Garda Siochana. We should not be afraid to say that the clause has that purpose, so the provision should be included in the Bill for the sake of transparency and honest government.
      We are in favour of recruits from the Garda Siochana joining the Police Service of Northern Ireland. Such people are well qualified and trained. They would be mostly familiar with the situation in Northern Ireland and would be reasonably compatible with the service. In fact, I understand that the pay scale is lower in the Republic of Ireland, so I hope that we might find good recruits from there to address the shortage of policemen.
      Rev. Ian Paisley:Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Davies: I shall, but it will be the last time.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: Given the religious constituency of that police force, how would the hon. Gentleman strike the balance? He told us that he has gone back on what we thought his party believed in: that the rule should not be 50:50. He says that he is now prepared to wear that, but that police force could not provide the number of people to achieve that balance.
      Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman is talking about new clause 20 rather than amendment No. 88. I believe that more nationalists and people from a Catholic and, indeed, republican background will join the Police Service of Northern Ireland. That will certainly happen if the peace process is successful, if Sinn Fein joins the Policing Board and if other prerequisites are met. I hope that it will happen because it is the whole purpose of the exercise. Indeed, we might get a rush of many applicants who were either intimidated from applying by Sinn Fein-IRA or who were reluctant to apply until the peace process had achieved the comprehensive and definitive settlement that we want. I hope that many people will
      518
      come forward after that happens. A pool of people from Protestant and other backgrounds could be absorbed into the PSNI immediately because of a new wave of Catholic applications. That is another reason why new clause 20 should be supported, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will do that.
      I shall return to amendment No. 88. It would be desirable to recruit people from south of the border and, indeed, from England, Wales and Scotland—from anywhere in order to meet the pressing crisis of numbers.
      Amendment No. 89 is designed to kill two birds with one stone so that, when we successfully recruit Catholics from the Garda in the Republic, they qualify as Catholic entrants for the purposes of section 46 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000. That would enable us immediately to recruit Protestants from the pool that would be created by new clause 20. So the measures fit together well.
      4.30 pm
      To be frank, however, it struck me that the amendment might not be technically effective in achieving that purpose. We must also take account of the possibility that Protestants or other non-Catholics from the Republic of Ireland might want to be appointed, and they would add to the Protestant quota. That would be fine, but the amendment might not be effective in achieving that. For that reason, we will not press it to a vote, but I thought it worth while explaining the spirit in which it was tabled.
      Mr. Mallon: I shall attempt to concentrate on new clause 4, mainly because the essence of the other amendments and new clauses has been debated at great length, riot just in terms of the Bill's contents, but in terms of many other pieces of legislation that preceded it.
      I am intrigued by some approaches to the new clause. As hard as I try, I simply cannot understand how it is a Trojan horse, or how it is either a Machiavellian Government device to cover up the fact that 50:50 is not working—that implication might not be deliberate, but it is hanging about—or a devious way to get hordes of Catholics into the policing service by the back door. I suppose those concerns could lead to the Trojan horse syndrome, but I fail to understand why people should be fearful. The board is allowed to appoint a specified number of constables who have specified policing skills. The new clause is not a device to allow people in by the back door or a device to cover up the fact that people are not joining. Instead, it provides a means of making specified expertise available in the Police Service of Northern Ireland.
      It follows that those with specified skills have undergone training. Wherever they come from outside Northern Ireland, they must have undergone training to give them a specified skill that is required and desired within the PSNI. That is crucial. The 50:50 element comes into play at the point of training. It is not a clever device to get people into the police service by the back door; nor is it a clever device to compensate for a failure in the 50:50 process. It is quite the opposite. It is a means of ensuring that the professional Police Service of Northern Ireland has access to the highest specified

      519
      policing skills. It is right that that is done, and it is right that it be done not just in the interests of good policing, but to meet a gap in skills caused, I admit, by the retirement of many serving police officers as a result of changes and the compensation package recommended by Patten.
      I should like to touch on another need. We tend to be a very insular people in Northern Ireland: we tend to look inward at our problems and we often assume that we are the only people in the world who have problems. That is hardly the case. It will be a distinct advantage to have people with skills coming from outside the Police Service of Northern Ireland to bring another dimension to the attitude within policing and towards policing. Such input is facilitated by new clause 4. The more that happens, the better it will be for serving police officers in Northern Ireland and the better for public attitudes to policing on the ground. I greatly welcome the provision. It is technically correct and right that those specified skills are brought into the police service.
      I find it amusing to hear some of the fears that have developed recently for expediency purposes or whatever. They are derived directly from Patten, who is explicit about them. I see that the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Campbell) is becoming rather excited, so I shall continue to give him reason for his excitement by quoting what Patten said. He clearly recognised that many Catholic people from Northern Ireland who, for various reasons, were serving in police services in other parts of the world might want to come back and bring their skills back with them. That is happening in every form of industry at present. Patten recommended—and I quote, for the further excitement of the hon. Member for East Londonderry—
      "that the recruitment agency should seek to identify such officers, contact them and encourage them … to apply for positions in the Northern Ireland police."
      He could not be more explicit than that, and I believe that it was right to make that recommendation. For far too long, the north and south of Ireland have sent people abroad, taking their skills and training with them, to be lost for ever to the north and south of Ireland. I greatly welcome the opportunity to encourage those skills back.
      Lateral entry is another element of the legislation. I welcome provisions on that, because the subject should be viewed for its potential benefits. I quote Patten again. He stated:
      "Lateral entry of experienced officers from other police services, and secondments or recruitments from non-police organisations should be actively encouraged."
      That is happening, and has been happening for some considerable time in respect of police services in England, Scotland and Wales. It is written into legislation that that will happen with the Garda Siochana in the Republic of Ireland. Indeed, that legislation has passed through both Parliaments, which I welcome, because the more interchange there is, the better policing becomes and the more prejudices and myths start to evaporate.
      I recommend that we reconsider another of Patten's recommendations, which is sometimes overlooked:
      "recruitments from non-police organisations should be actively encouraged".
      520
      Policing has changed dramatically everywhere over the past 10 to 15 years. Various skills and disciplines are needed; they are not offered in normal police training and we need to bring in outside help to develop such expertise.
      I shall not touch on the other amendments and new clauses, as I shall not support them. I conclude by setting out some of the safeguards in the new clause to show that it is not a fiendish plot. The board must agree unanimously to the authorisation. I understand that it was the board itself that made that requirement. The provisions apply only for two years, after which the board must again reach unanimous agreement on them. There is thus no way in which the procedure can be manipulated by either the Government or the Chief Constable.
      The crucial point is that the Chief Constable must make a case to the board that the police service needs persons with specific skills and there are no such people in its ranks. The board will then be asked to facilitate the Chief Constable's request by going outside the Police Service of Northern Ireland to bring in people who are already trained to exercise the necessary skills. The board must be shown that the need cannot be supplied from within the service.
      The proposal is good. Apart from its practical advantages, it will introduce new thinking not only to policing in Northern Ireland but to attitudes to policing. Above all, however, it sets out specific requirements.
      4.45 pm
      We have heard various theories: the Trojan horse, the greens under the bed and the droves of nationalists being pushed into the police service by the back door. Although it is amusing to listen to them, we should disregard them and accept the new clause for what it is: a good provision that could bring substantial results.
      David Burnside:Did the hon. Gentleman read the reports published in the Irish Independent and The Irish Times, which came straight from the Sinn Fein leadership, that one of Sinn Fein's next demands of the Government—who, of course, always give in to its demands—will be for special placements for republicans in the Police Service of Northern Ireland who should have special treatment so that they can represent the republican movement.
      Mr. Mallon: I must be honest and tell the hon. Gentleman that I did not have the opportunity to read either of those worthy publications yesterday; they were not in any of the news outlets available to me. However, I am not one of those people who hang on every word said by republican leaders. I am not one of those who are obsessed by their propaganda. I am not one of those who would agree to give them a full day's debate on two issues, as others did. I do not make my political decisions or base my political thoughts, policies, decisions or activities on what is stated by people from that organisation.
      It is curious that those who become obsessed with that organisation, hang on its every word and develop almost paranoia about an essential part of its propaganda actually facilitate it. I will not give it that satisfaction. I shall make up my mind according to my

      521
      views, those of my party and my beliefs, not on the comments of any gentleman whom the hon. Gentleman mentioned.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will not deny that yesterday he made it clear that he believed that the House's discussions constituted only the beginning of the debate. He said that it would discuss justice and the courts and that they, too, would be included in the same circle of argument. Unless I was sleeping or dreaming, he made that distinctly clear. I was impressed by his comments because I had already made them. I said that the provisions marked only the beginning and that the Government would advocate more of that way of thinking. The Conservative party is now advocating it, too.
      Mr. Mallon: I said what the hon. Gentleman attributes to me; I have been saying it for years. I advocated the devolution of justice and policing powers long before any Government decided that they might do that. I supported it long before the organisation to which DUP Members referred became involved in the political process. My reasons remain the same and are especially pertinent to policing. I believe that devolution comes of age and becomes capable of sustaining itself when it makes hard decisions. Policing and justice require such difficult decisions.
      Making decisions about justice will not be easy, just as those on policing have not been easy. I ask hon. Members not to view the matter as a response to a demand by the organisation to which they have referred. For years, I have advocated that we should act because that is the way to make devolution work. I make a plea to the hon. Members for South Antrim (David Burnside) and for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) to consider that
      "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,"
      than what Gerry and Martin say every day. They should disregard them at times and listen to other people in the community. Those people might have more interest in the community as a whole than in party political advantage.
      Mr. Carmichael: We are considering an interesting string of amendments, which cover ground that was well worn in Committee and previously. The discussion is none the less useful. I am mindful of the pressures of time and I do not wish to detain hon. Members unnecessarily, but I cannot allow the pejorative remarks of the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) on political correctness to pass without comment. He appeared to equate the discrimination suffered by, for example, homosexuals, with the disadvantage of being left handed. His remarks will be heard beyond the Chamber, and many in the wider community will listen to them with disbelief. When one hears such comments from the Conservative Front Bench, it is hardly surprising that its own party chairman describes it as "the nasty party."
      I am unapologetic about being politically correct. Any politician should want to be politically correct. There is not much point in being here if we are politically
      522
      wrong. However, the options available today are for the Liberal Democrats to be politically correct, for the Labour party to be politically successful, and for the Conservative party to be neither.
      The Conservative position with respect to new clause 4 is very interesting. The hon. Gentleman started from the perspective that he believed that the principle was wrong. He then made it clear that his party supported the Government's aims but that the Conservatives felt it necessary to introduce some further mechanism to dilute the principle. At one point, it felt as though we had fallen through the looking glass.
      However, the hon. Gentleman said one very interesting thing that gave away the truth of his party's position. He said that he accepted that there was an intellectual and moral argument in favour of our position. That is why the Tories are prepared to support the Government—our position has intellectual and moral credibility, and so one would not expect the Tories to support it.
      The amendments before the House form a sort of hierarchy Government new clause 4, the Conservative's amendment (a) and new clause 20, and the Ulster Unionists' new clause 8 all aim to make a bad situation better in some way. I have no problem with them for that reason, and would support them all, but it reveals a certain paucity of ambition if all that the House can do is to make a bad situation slightly better. Surely hon. Members should be engaged in making a bad situation good? Is not that why we are all here? To that extent, I find myself making common cause with the Democratic Unionists today. Their new clause is a fairly blunt tool, but it represents the purest position.
      Liberal Democrat Members will support the new clause if it is pressed to a vote. I accept that Government new clause 4 is a substantial improvement, and I accept that it allows them some flexibility.
      Mr. Quentin Davies: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Policing Board, the Chief Constable, all the senior officers to whom I have spoken and a very large number of policemen and women in the PSNI accept—albeit with the reservations that I have set out—the new 50:50 recruitment system as a temporary measure?
      Mrs. Iris Robinson: They do not.
      Mr. Davies: Will not the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) find himself in conflict with the Chief Constable over the needs of policing in Northern Ireland?
      Mr. Carmichael: I assure the hon. Gentleman that that would not be the first time that I have been in conflict with a chief constable. However, he will have heard the comment made from a sedentary position behind him. That shows that his is not a view held universally in Northern Ireland. I take the views of chief constables carefully into account, but Members of Parliament are elected to decide matters of principle. It is not for chief constables to make policy decisions. A strong distinction must be made between policy and operational matters. Policy matters are rightly the preserve of this House.

      523
      As I was saying, new clause 4 provides a lot of useful flexibility. I do not understand why the Government should insist on the veto provision, which would be removed by the Conservatives' amendment (a). The veto is very unhelpful. I believe as a general rule that one cannot have too much democracy. The bottom line is that vetoes are profoundly undemocratic. I shall listen carefully to what the Minister has to say.
      Lady Hermon: The reality is that new clause 4 will drive a coach and horses through section 46 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000, because we are considering the recruitment of constables, and that is what the discriminatory recruitment procedure attaches itself to. That is why the board will have to be unanimous. There would inevitably be divisions within it, and it is not hard to guess where they would lie.
      Mr. Carmichael: We are now well and truly into the can of worms. Once one moves away from the strict principle that there should not be discrimination, one gets compromise, which begets more compromise, and that is how one reaches such a convoluted position that one can operate only if there is unanimity. I accept the force of the hon. Lady's point. I still think that the imposition of the veto would be regrettable.
      New clause 8 has a lot to recommend it. It is a novel approach to the same old fence. The possibility of suspension would give a degree of flexibility. I am sure that the hon. Lady agrees that it would be preferable for there to be no suspension in the first place, but that being the case I have no difficulty in supporting her in that regard.
      New clause 12, tabled by Democratic Unionist Members, is one with which we are broadly sympathetic.
      Finally, I turn to new clause 20, tabled by the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford. We can see the force that it would have as an operational measure. Indeed, I can see no reason why the Government are unable to accept it. Even if they will not accept it in its present form, there is no reason why the Minister cannot say that the Government will find another form of words that achieves the same mechanism before the Bill goes to another place. The new clause is the ultimate modest proposal, to use a Swiftian analogy. It is an operational measure that would not in any way affect the principle of 50:50 recruitment. It might go some way towards addressing the profound sense of grievance that exists in the Unionist community among those who feel that they have lost out on a career opportunity. If that situation lasts for the whole 10 years that is envisaged, closing the window in a young person's life for joining the police could effectively exclude a whole generation of people from serving their community in the police. Given the staunch support that the Minister has received from the so-called official Opposition, I do not understand why she is not prepared to make even that very small concession.
      Lady Hermon: I want to speak to new clause 8, which is supported by Unionist colleagues whom I am pleased to see here today.
      It is well known that I object to the discriminatory recruitment procedure that was put in place almost three years ago by the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000.
      524
      I find religious discrimination deeply offensive and repugnant. The Government tell us time and again that they are committed to full implementation of the agreement, which was endorsed in referendums by the majority of people in Northern Ireland and in the Republic of Ireland. That agreement twice on the same page guaranteed to everyone in Northern Ireland
      "equal opportunity in all social and economic activity, regardless of creed"
      or political opinion, yet the British Government wilfully defied the wishes of the people of the island of Ireland and legalised discrimination two years after those referendums.
      5 pm
      Section 46 has had a detrimental effect not only on recruitment procedures, but on confidence in the agreement itself. It ill behoves the Government to maintain a discriminatory recruitment procedure on the statute book. We have made changes to policing legislation to assist Sinn Fein in deciding whether to join the Policing Board, but the main cause of low Catholic recruitment to the police has always been intimidation and thuggery. It was not discrimination that deterred young Catholic recruits from entering the RUC; it is a well-known fact that it was intimidation by republicans. If Sinn Fein were to join the Policing Board and call on young republicans to join the police force, in which, of course, they should rightly play a part, there is no justification whatever for maintaining any discriminatory recruitment procedure on the statute book.
      New clause 8 provides that, at the request of the majority of the Policing Board, when the Chief Constable has a shortfall in recruits, the provisions of section 46 can be suspended for six months. We tabled the amendment now because section 46 will come up for renewal and consideration only in spring 2004. Until then, it will remain on the statute book, and it will divide and become a source of great grievance in many households throughout Northern Ireland, where letters of congratulation to a young person on having passed their examinations are followed by rejection on the basis of their community background. That is wholly unacceptable.
      As for new clause 4, I am not at all pleased to see it. It allows the Government to have things both ways—to have their cake and eat it. On the one hand, they can maintain the discriminatory recruitment procedure of section 46, which means that there will be a shortfall of detectives who have the skills that we need at present in the Police Service. On the other, they can make up the shortfall by bringing forward constables with special skills, as the provision operates at the level of constable. I will therefore not support, nor will I encourage my colleagues to support, the new clause, but I hope that hon. Members will support our proposals.
      Mr. Gregory Campbell: I want to confine my remarks to new clause 12 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) and other hon. Friends. In doing so, I must express extreme regret at the comments of the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies), who seemed to be indicating that the Conservative party is abandoning the principle

      525
      of merit and merit alone as the decisive criterion when considering employment, whether in the police or elsewhere.
      The purpose of the new clause is to try to encourage a representative police force. I hope that that aim is shared across the board politically. In every avenue of responsible society in Northern Ireland, we want to encourage a representative police force. We must concede that, given the serious situation that has prevailed for a number of years in Northern Ireland, the police force is not representative. In doing that, however, we must examine why that has been and is the case—we cannot simply say that it is unrepresentative, and take steps to make sure that it becomes representative. In doing so, we must put at the top of the list of reasons why it is unrepresentative the factor of intimidation. That has been a factor for a number of years. When the RUC was established in 1921, the number of Roman Catholics was about 20 per cent. of the whole. That number rapidly went downhill not because of discrimination, but because of intimidation and because, even in those days, the IRA found it acceptable to attack and intimidate those applicants to the RUC.
      Mr. Mallon: The historical fact is that the level went from 22 per cent. up to 28 per cent. when a number of people were transferred from what was then called the Royal Irish Constabulary into what became the RUC. The level rose to a high of more than 28 per cent. within five or six years and then began to drop for a number of reasons, one of which was intimidation.
      Mr. Campbell: I totally accept that, and I hope now to expand on it. One reason for the fall in numbers was intimidation. That has continued until today.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: Is it not a fact that the recruits coming in from the old RIC were largely and overwhelmingly Roman Catholic?
      Mr. Campbell: Yes, that was indeed the case, but discrimination was not a part of any of the recruitment procedures in the old RUC, or even the RUC of latter years.
      The stark reality—I know that this grates with the Government and with supporters of the 50:50 contention as set out in section 46—is that, in the past, there was no discrimination in RUC recruitment. In fact, for many years, extensive efforts were made to recruit Roman Catholics. The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) outlined how some of them came to be recruited into the RUC because of the changeover from the RIC to the RUC. There was no discrimination against Roman Catholics coming into the RUC.
      The present reality under section 46, however, is that there is discrimination against Protestants coming into the present Police Service. There can be no grey areas on discrimination under section 46. Discrimination is a bit like a pregnancy—one cannot be a little bit in favour of discrimination, just as one cannot be a little bit pregnant. One is either in favour of it or against it. Any
      526
      hon. Member who supports the retention of section 46 in its present format is for discrimination. There can be no prevarication about that—those Members will be for discrimination. That is why we unequivocally seek the removal of section 46. We do so because it discriminates.
      People may respond, as the Government have done, by saying, "Yes, but this approach is being taken for a very good reason" and telling us that they want to do something that is unacceptable to try to reach an acceptable conclusion. Such people say that, because of the very low numbers of Roman Catholics, they are going to take the 50:50 approach, but only temporarily. My response in the Committee and today is the same: if that is the case, and if people accept this perversion and this obnoxious and reprehensible system of discrimination, why should they stop at the police? Why should it apply only to the police, and only where Roman Catholics are coming forward in small numbers? Why should people not say that they will employ 50:50 recruitment procedures in the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, where there is a problem in getting Protestant recruits? But, we hear, "Oh no; that's different." Why do we not adopt such an approach in the Child Support Agency or in the general service grades of the civil service, where there is a problem in getting Protestant recruits? I never hear an argument for taking that approach, and I hope that I never will, because it is reprehensible and unacceptable. The merit principle must be the one that we abide by in getting people into employment in the Police Service.
      The issue is this: how do we create a more representative police force? Should we advertise more comprehensively? We would endorse such a suggestion, and if special efforts were made in all schools to persuade leavers to apply for positions in the police force, we would endorse that as well. Such efforts would not compromise the merit principle. In the past, there have been several thousand applicants for the various tranches of recruitment in the police who have been assessed in terms of suitability.
      Mrs. Iris Robinson: Is my hon. Friend aware of reports that the next batch of new recruits is down to single figures, although 60 places must be filled? Does he agree that it is a travesty that we cannot call on previously successful young recruits simply because they come from the Protestant community?
      Mr. Campbell: I know about that, because it was in the public domain only yesterday. It was said that in all probability fewer than 10 people would be offered employment, although according to a police spokesperson 60 places are available. Because of the reprehensible, repugnant 50:50 rule and the insistence on implementation of section 46, more than 50 places will remain unfilled.
      Over the past three phases of recruitment, thousands of people have applied, of whom several thousand have been regarded as suitably qualified. All those people—whether Protestant, Catholic or of some other faith—should have been offered employment purely on the basis of merit. The highest-scoring candidates ought to be recruited, whether they are Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, atheists or whatever. If that produces a particular breakdown, so be it. That is the beauty of merit: it means that the best-qualified people get jobs.

      527
      Unfortunately, over those last three phases, hundreds of Protestant recruits have been told, "Yes, you are suitably qualified, but no, you will not be offered employment." When they have asked the reason, they have been told that it is the 50:50 rule. They have gone away disillusioned and disenfranchised. They and their families ask what is the point and what is the future in Northern Ireland when, although they are considered to be suitably qualified, they are told—because their religion is other than Catholic—that they have no future in the Police Service.
      Mr. Jeffrey M. Donaldson:Is the hon. Gentleman aware of figures published yesterday by the Policing Board? They reveal that confidence in policing in Northern Ireland has dropped from 67 per cent. last year to 60 per cent. this year. That is due in no small measure to the 50:50 recruitment policy, which is regarded as discriminatory, and the lack of police officers on the streets to deal with rising crime.
      Mr. Campbell: I know of those figures, and I agree that they are due in no small measure to the 50:50 rule.
      There is a common fallacy that until a few years ago Catholics did not apply for positions in the Police Service. In fact, the father of the present SDLP leader was a member of the RUC. He was a Roman Catholic, he was employed on merit, and he served admirably, with courage and distinction.
      Three days before Bloody Sunday, in Londonderry, two police officers were killed. One was a Protestant, the other a Roman Catholic. Both had been employed on merit, and both were murdered. No distinction was made between their religions. They were brutally murdered by the Provisional IRA. The last RUC officer to be shot dead in the city of Londonderry, only five years ago, was a Roman Catholic.
      Merit and merit alone must be the criterion that decides whom we employ in the Police Service. For that reason, I would find it impossible to endorse a temporary abrogation of the merit principle. If it is wrong in principle to discriminate, it is wrong in principle to discriminate on a temporary basis. It cannot be justified, it cannot be defended, and for that reason I fervently hope that I will get the opportunity to press new clause 12 to a Division.
      5.15 pm
      Mr. Paul Goodman:I support new clause 20. My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) put the case for it very well, as did the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael), the Liberal Democrat spokesman, who made a powerful case and said that he looked forward, as I do, to hearing what the Minister could possibly say that justified the rejection of the new clause.
      My hon. Friend emphasised, if I read him rightly, that our present support for the principle of 50:50 is essentially on the basis that it is a choice between two evils. It is worth pointing out that new clause 20 and even new clause 12 would probably not be before us if a certain new clause that was tabled by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) on behalf of his party had not fallen in Committee. That new clause sought—I will put it plainly—to drive a coach and
      528
      horses through section 46 of the 2000 Act by deleting it entirely. The new clause sought to give the Chief Constable discretion to
      "take such steps as he determines appropriate to encourage applications by persons currently under-represented in the police support staff."
      Who were those persons? According to the new clause, they were
      "persons forming part of a social group by virtue of their sex, religion, ethnicity or sexual orientation who at the time of consideration by the Chief Constable are under- represented".
      That was voted for in Committee not only by the hon. Members for Orkney and Shetland, for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) and for East Londonderry (Mr. Campbell) but by my hon. Friends the Members for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) and by me. Had it been passed, section 46 of the 2000 Act would have been substituted by the new clause.
      I return to 50:50. I have been listening carefully to the debate. I have great sympathy with what the hon. Member for East Londonderry said and with the points that were made by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland. Naturally, I support my Front-Bench spokesman, and I heard him say clearly that we are making a choice between evils. However, I entertained a moment of nostalgia when the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire said that there was at one point a coalition of interest between our party, those on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench and those Members from the Unionist parties who drew together closely to oppose 50:50. Since our support for 50:50 is temporary, I trust that soon we will be able to reform a coalition along those lines. I look forward to that day.
      Jane Kennedy: The provision would enable the Chief Constable to bring into the PSNI a specified number of officers with specialist policing skills in areas where he is able to demonstrate that the service is suffering a significant shortfall: for example, in detectives. This exceptional mechanism could only be utilised where certain criteria, established by the board, have been met, and where there is unanimous approval for its use from the board.
      These exceptional arrangements will be available to the Chief Constable for two years, starting from the date when this Bill receives Royal Assent. I must reiterate that this proposal is intended purely to alleviate the Chief Constable's current, and hopefully short-lived, resourcing problems in respect of skilled constables. In no sense does it reflect any departure from, or dilution of, the 50:50 recruitment arrangements recommended by the independent commission, which continue—despite the nonsense said in the Chamber today—to operate very successfully, and which will remain the norm for recruitment at the rank of constable.
      Amendment (a) would enable these measures to be activated with the approval of only a majority of the Policing Board, rather than with unanimity. The board has, as I have said, shown maturity on this and earlier occasions in achieving unanimity in respect of difficult and sensitive issues and I have no doubt it will be able to do so in the future. The detail of this exceptional mechanism has been the subject of lengthy and painstaking consideration by the board, and it has

      529
      expressly requested that its unanimity be a precondition for use of the measure. The Government are eager to honour the board's wishes in this regard, and I would invite hon. Members not to go against the express wishes of a cross-community, all-party Policing Board that has arrived at a solution to this particular and immediate problem.
      New clause 8 would require my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, if requested to do so by the board, to make an order suspending the 50:50 provisions, either if the required numbers of police trainees or police support staff could not otherwise be appointed or if the number of serving officers was below complement at the time of consideration. That power already exists in legislation.
      The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) said that the level of applications had fallen off. He is wrong. The level of applications from Catholics has remained constant at around 35 per cent.; that is very favourable by comparison with previous recruitments. Why is the measure needed? It is not because of any failure of the 50:50 recruitment measures. One of the impacts of the voluntary severance scheme has been to leave specialised areas of the PSNI seriously short of experienced officers at constable rank; I have already given the example of detectives. We are considering a temporary expedient that will remedy a problem recognised both by the Chief Constable and the board. It is in no way a reflection on the 50:50 arrangements.
      The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford also asked about the waiver of training requirements. My hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon)—who, I am bound to say, is the only Member participating in the debate who has actually read the Government's new clause—made it clear that the recruiting of specialist skills for a specific purpose requires experienced officers from other police services to apply. I want to take hon. Members back to the new clause.
      The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford said that a specified number of persons who have a specified policing skill would be sought. The new clause makes implicit the requirement for unanimity; therefore we could not conceive of a Sinn Fein or republican element manipulating the measure. It is simply nonsense to suggest that that would occur.
      Lembit Öpik rose—
      Jane Kennedy: The hon. Gentleman might want to contain himself for a moment. I shall come to his party's position in a moment, if he will allow me.
      The new clause makes it clear that we are expecting experienced constables to apply, under the measure, from other forces across the United Kingdom. To require them to undergo the training currently expected of new entrants to the Police Service of Northern Ireland would therefore be nonsense. The Government have said on several occasions during the passage of the Bill that the possibility of a limited exception to the 50:50 provisions to alleviate the current skills shortage was under consideration by the Policing Board.
      530
      As we signalled in Committee, the new clause before the House today has the board's unanimous support, and I want to pay tribute to the commitment of its members in putting forward the proposal. I know that, for some, it challenges deep-seated views, but it is a sign of the board's maturity in addressing the real issues facing the Police Service of Northern Ireland and enabling it to become still more effective and efficient. I had hoped that hon. Members around the Chamber would have welcomed the measure in that same spirit, and with generosity. Instead, what have we had this afternoon? The official spokesman for the Conservative party took 50 minutes of the House's time to demonstrate his complete inability to understand a measure that every member and political party on the Policing Board has not only understood but effectively drafted for the Government's consideration. The Liberal Democrats argued that they had adopted an intellectually and morally superior position on the matter. Quite frankly—
      Mr. Carmichael: It was the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford who said it in the first place.
      Jane Kennedy: No, I am responding quite specifically to a comment from the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael). The Liberal Democrats propose to oppose new clause 4—
      Lembit Öpik: No, we do not.
      Jane Kennedy: In that case, I apologise. I withdraw that comment.
      Lembit Öpik: Just for clarification, we have one small issue with new clause 4, but the Minister must understand that we are going to vote for it. She was under a misapprehension there.
      Jane Kennedy: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I am glad that I gave way and allowed that intervention, because it has clarified a misunderstanding on my part.
      Mr. Quentin Davies rose—
      Jane Kennedy: I am not going to give way to the hon. Gentleman. While I have the Floor, I am not going to give way to an hon. Member who took 50 minutes to explain how he simply did not understand this measure—which confounds me.
      The Chief Constable asked for this measure, and the Policing Board considered it at length. The representatives of the Social Democratic and Labour party, the Ulster Unionist party and the Democratic Unionist party on the Policing Board accepted the need for it. I will be more than disappointed if their party representatives oppose it in the House today.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: Is it not a fact that there was no vote on this issue in the Policing Board? Tell the House the truth!
      Jane Kennedy: Madam Deputy Speaker, I had not given way. I had finished my comments.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: I beg your pardon. Does the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) have a point of order? He does not.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill.
      The House divided: Ayes 258, Noes 6.

      Division No. 146]

      [5:29 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

      Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Allen, Graham

      Davidson, Ian

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

      Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Dawson, Hilton

      Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Dismore, Andrew

      Austin, John

      Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

      Baird, Vera

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Barron, rh Kevin

      Doran, Frank

      Beckett, rh Margaret

      Doughty, Sue

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

      Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

      Drew, David (Stroud)

      Berry, Roger

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Blackman, Liz

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Blizzard, Bob

      Efford, Clive

      Boateng, rh Paul

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Etherington, Bill

      Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

      Farrelly, Paul

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

      Fisher, Mark

      Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

      Follett, Barbara

      Foster, rh Derek

      Browne, Desmond

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

      Burden, Richard

      Burgon, Colin

      Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

      Burnham, Andy

      Gardiner, Barry

      Burstow, Paul

      George, Andrew (St. Ives)

      Byers, rh Stephen

      George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

      Cable, Dr. Vincent

      Gerrard, Neil

      Cairns, David

      Goggins, Paul

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Caplin, Ivor

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Casale, Roger

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Challen, Colin

      Hancock, Mike

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

      Chaytor, David

      Clapham, Michael

      Healey, John

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)\

      Heath, David

      Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Heppell, John

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Hermon, Lady

      Coleman, Iain

      Hesford, Stephen

      Connarty, Michael

      Heyes, David

      Cooper, Yvette

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Corston, Jean

      Hinchliffe, David

      Cotter, Brian

      Hodge, Margaret

      Cousins, Jim

      Holmes, Paul

      Cox, Tom (Tooting)

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Cranston, Ross

      Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

      Crausby, David

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

      Cruddas, Jon

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Howells, Dr. Kim

      532

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

      Perham, Linda

      Picking, Anne

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

      Pike, Peter (Burnley)

      Hutton, rh John

      Plaskitt, James

      Iddon, Dr. Brian

      Pollard, Kerry

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

      Pound, Stephen

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Jamieson, David

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Jenkins, Brian

      Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Kaufman, rh Gerald

      Purnell, James

      Keen, Alan (Feltham)

      Quin, rh Joyce

      Keen, Ann (Brentford)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Keetch, Paul

      Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Rendel, David

      Kidney, David

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      King, Andy (Rugby)

      Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Salter, Martin

      Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Lamb, Norman

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Lammy, David

      Sawford, Phil

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Sheridan, Jim

      Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

      Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

      Linton, Martin

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Love, Andrew

      Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      McCabe, Stephen

      Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

      McCafferty, Chris

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      McDonnell, John

      McIsaac, Shona

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      McKechin, Ann

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Soley, Clive

      McNamara, Kevin

      Southworth, Helen

      MacShane, Denis

      Squire, Rachel

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

      McWalter, Tony

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      McWilliam, John

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Mallaber, Judy

      Stoate, Dr. Howard

      Mallon, Seamus

      Stunell, Andrew

      Mandelson, rh Peter

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

      Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

      Martlew, Eric

      Thurso, John

      Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

      Tipping, Paddy

      Merron, Gillian

      Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

      Michael, rh Alun

      Tonge, Dr. Jenny

      Miller, Andrew

      Trickett, Jon

      Moffatt, Laura

      Truswell, Paul

      Moore, Michael

      Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

      Moran, Margaret

      Morley, Elliot

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Morris, rh Estelle

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Mountford, Kali

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Mudie, George

      Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

      Mullin, Chris

      Vis, Dr. Rudi

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

      Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

      Watts, David

      Naysmith, Dr. Doug

      White, Brian

      Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      O'Hara, Edward

      Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

      Olner, Bill

      Williams, Betty (Conwy)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Öpik, Lembit

      Wills, Michael

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Winnick, David

      Palmer, Dr. Nick

      Wood, Mike (Batley)

      533

      Woodward, Shaun

      Wyatt, Derek

      Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Wright David (Telford)

      Mr. Nick Ainger and

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Jim Fitzpatrick

      NOES

      Burnside, David

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Dodds, Nigel

      Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Hunter, Andrew

      Mrs. Iris Robinson and

      Paisley, Rev. Ian

      Mr. Gregory Campbell

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

    New Clause 8

      APPOINTMENTS TO THE POLICE SERVICE OF NORTHERN IRELAND
      In the event that—

      (a) the Chief Constable is unable to appoint his required number of police trainees or police support staff, or

      (b) the number of serving officers is below that intended at the time of consideration

      the Secretary of State shall, at the request of a majority of the Police Board and acting on the recommendation of the Chief Constable, make an Order to suspend the provisions of section 46 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 (c.32) for a period of six months.'.—[Mr. John Taylor.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 139, Noes 229.

      Division No. 147]

      [5:41 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

      Allan, Richard

      Arbuthnot, rh James

      Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Bacon, Richard

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Barker, Gregory

      Dodds, Nigel

      Baron, John (Billericay)

      Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

      Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

      Doughty, Sue

      Bellingham, Henry

      Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

      Bercow, John

      Evans, Nigel

      Blunt, Crispin

      Fabricant, Michael

      Boswell, Tim

      Fallon, Michael

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

      Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

      Flook, Adrian

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Forth, rh Eric

      Burns, Simon

      Fox, Dr. Liam

      Burnside, David

      Francois, Mark

      Burstow, Paul

      George, Andrew (St. Ives)

      Cable, Dr. Vincent

      Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Goodman, Paul

      Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

      Gray, James (N Wilts)

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Grayling, Chris

      Cash, William

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Grieve, Dominic

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Gummer, rh John

      Chope, Christopher

      Hancock, Mike

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

      Conway, Derek

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Hawkins, Nick

      Cotter, Brian

      Cotter, Brian

      Hayes, John (S Holland)

      Cran, James (Beverley)

      Heald, Oliver

      Curry, rh David

      Heath, David

      534

      Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

      Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

      Hendry, Charles

      Randall, John

      Hermon, Lady

      Redwood, rh John

      Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

      Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

      Holmes, Paul

      Rendel, David

      Horam, John (Orpington)

      Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Jack, rh Michael

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Ruffley, David

      Johnson, Boris (Henley)

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Keetch, Paul

      Selous, Andrew

      Key, Robert (Salisbury)

      Shepherd, Richard

      Lamb, Norman

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Lansley, Andrew

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Letwin, rh Oliver

      Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Spring, Richard

      Lidington, David

      Stanley, rh Sir John

      Loughton. Tim

      Steen, Anthony

      Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

      Stunell, Andrew

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Swayne, Desmond

      Mackay, rh Andrew

      Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Syms, Robert

      Malins, Humfrey

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Maples, John

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Mates, Michael

      Thurso, John

      Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

      Tredinnick, David

      Mercer, Patrick

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Waterson, Nigel

      Moore, Michael

      Watkinson, Angela

      Moss, Malcolm

      Wiggin, Bill

      Norman, Archie

      Wilkinson, John

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Öpik, Lembit

      Wilshire, David

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Ottaway, Richard

      Young, rh Sir George

      Page, Richard

      Paice, James

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Paisley, Rev. Ian

      Mr. Laurence Robertson and

      Portillo, rh Michael

      Hugh Robertson

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Chaytor, David

      Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

      Clapham, Michael

      Allen, Graham

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

      Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

      Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton 5)

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

      Austin, John

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Baird, Vera

      Coleman, Iain

      Barron, rh Kevin

      Connarty, Michael

      Beckett, rh Margaret

      Cooper, Yvette

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Corston, Jean

      Berry, Roger

      Cousins, Jim

      Blackman, Liz

      Cox, Tom (Tooting)

      Blizzard, Bob

      Cranston, Ross

      Boateng, rh Paul

      Crausby, David

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Cruddas, Jon

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Browne, Desmond

      Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Burden, Richard

      Davidson, Ian

      Burgon, Colin

      Davis, rh Terry (B ham Hodge H)

      Burnham, Andy

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Byers, rh Stephen

      Dismore, Andrew

      Cairns, David

      Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Dobson, rh Frank

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Caplin, Ivor

      Doran, Frank

      Casale, Roger

      Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

      Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

      Drew, David (Stroud)

      Challen, Colin

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      535

      Efford, Clive

      MacShane, Denis

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

      McWalter, Tony

      Etherington, Bill

      Mallaber, Judy

      Farrelly, Paul

      Mallon, Seamus

      Fisher, Mark

      Mandelson, rh Peter

      Follett, Barbara

      Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

      Foster, rh Derek

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

      Martlew, Eric

      Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

      Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

      Gardiner, Barry

      Merron, Gillian

      George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

      Michael, rh Alun

      Gerrard, Neil

      Miller, Andrew

      Goggins, Paul

      Moffatt, Laura

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Moran, Margaret

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Morley, Elliot

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Morris, rh Estelle

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Mountford, Kali

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      Mudie, George

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Mullin, Chris

      Healey, John

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Naysmith, Dr. Doug

      Heppell, John

      Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

      Hesford, Stephen

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Heyes, David

      Olner, Bill

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Hinchliffe, David

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Hodge, Margaret

      Palmer, Dr. Nick

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Perham, Linda

      Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

      Picking, Anne

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Pike, Peter (Burnley)

      Howells, Dr. Kim

      Plaskitt, James

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Pound, Stephen

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

      Hutton, rh John

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Iddon, Dr. Brian

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

      Purnell, James

      Quin, rh Joyce

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Jamieson, David

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

      Jenkins, Brian

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

      Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

      Kaufman, rh Gerald

      Salter, Martin

      Keen, Alan (feltham)

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Keen, Ann (Brentford)

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Sawford, Phil

      Kidney, David

      Sheridan, Jim

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      King, Andy (Rugby)

      Simon, Skin (B ham Erdington)

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Knight Jim (S Dorset)

      Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

      Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

      Lammy, David

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Linton, Martin

      Soley, Clive

      Love, Andrew

      Southworth, Helen

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Squire, Rachel

      McCabe, Stephen

      Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

      McCafferty, Chris

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      McDonnell, John

      Stoate, Dr. Howard

      McIsaac, Shona

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      McKechin, Ann

      Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      536

      Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      Tipping, Paddy

      Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

      Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

      Williams, Betty (Conwy)

      Trickett, Jon

      Wills, Michael

      Truswell, Paul

      Winnick, David

      Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

      Wood, Mike (Batley)

      Woodward, Shaun

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Wright Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Vis, Dr. Rudi

      Wyatt, Derek

      Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Watts, David

      Mr. Nick Ainger and

      White, Brian

      Jim Fitzpatrick

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New Clause 5

      MEMBERS OF PSNI ENGAGED ON OTHER POLICE SERVICE
      'In section 27 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 (c. 32) (members of Police Service of Northern Ireland engaged on other police service) after subsection (6) insert—
      "(6A) Regulations made by virtue of section 25(3) or (4) in relation to a member of the PSNI who has completed a period of relevant service within subsection (1)(d) may provide for a relevant procedure to be treated for the purposes of the regulations as carried out in accordance with procedures for which provision is made by regulations made by virtue of section 25(3).
      (6B) In subsection (6A) "relevant procedure" means an investigation, hearing or other procedure carried out in relation to the person concerned in a country or territory outside the United Kingdom in connection with the person's relevant service."'.—[Angela Smith.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Angela Smith): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      The new clause is related to but has no direct bearing on the provisions of clause 19, which allows the Chief Constable to make fixed-term appointments to the Police Service of Northern Ireland. It is expected that the first application of the new clause, if enacted, would be to allow members of the Garda Siochana to undertake secondments with policing powers to the PSNI. Such secondments would also take place in the other direction, and the Irish Government will accordingly introduce legislation soon to allow secondments with policing powers from the PSNI to the Garda Siochana.
      One of the fundamental issues in dealing with secondment is discipline. Usually, where a member of the PSNI is seconded, he may be dealt with under the PSNI's own conduct regulations for any breach of discipline that occurred during the secondment, as if that service had been with the PSNI. The new clause would allow the Secretary of State to modify the relevant regulations in respect of disciplinary matters, to enable investigations and hearings held in a country outside the United Kingdom to be taken into account by the PSNI in its own disciplinary procedures.
      That means that, for secondments to the Garda Siochana, the PSNI would be able to take into account any investigation, hearing or other procedure

      537
      undertaken in the Garda Siochana against a member of the PSNI during disciplinary procedures. Clearly, given the potential effect that the imposition of sanctions could have on any officer's career, the choice of penalty should remain the responsibility of the home service. However, in practical terms, it makes more sense for the host service to carry out the investigation and hearing, since those would take place in the jurisdiction in which the alleged offence would have occurred.
      There are two points that I should like to make in the short time remaining. First, the arrangements will be reciprocal, so any Garda officer seconded to the PSNI against whom an allegation of misconduct was brought would be subject to investigation by the PSNI in exactly the same way as a PSNI officer. He will have taken the PSNI attestation and be subject to the excellent PSNI code of ethics, published last month. Equally, he would fall within the remit of the police ombudsman, if a complaint were made. Secondly, we hope and expect to have very little recourse to such regulations. I am confident that any member of the PSNI seconded anywhere in the world would behave as an ambassador for the PSNI, and that their conduct would be exemplary. However, legislation must provide for every eventuality.
      I should explain to hon. Members why the clause is being brought forward at this stage. As we stated in Committee, negotiations between officials from both police services, the Irish Government and the Office of the Police Ombudsman have been going on for some time because of the complex detail and the agreement that was needed. Agreement on these difficult issues has just been reached. I can give the House an assurance that this will not be the only opportunity that hon. Members have to comment on the issue, as the details of the disciplinary procedures will be set out in regulations, on which there will be full consultation.
      Lembit Öpik: We agree with the new clause and have nothing to add to what the Minister said.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    Clause 20

      PROTECTED DISCLOSURES BY POLICE OFFICERS
      Angela Smith: I beg to move amendment No. 15, in page 13, line 22, leave out 'as a police officer'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 16 and 17.
      Angela Smith: It is amazing how quickly we can move on when our minds are focused.
      The purpose of the clause is to provide full protection to police officers who make protected disclosures. The clause has the support of the Chief Constable and the ombudsman, and replicates provisions contained in the Police Reform Act 2002.
      We decided that the provision currently made by the clause needed to be refined to include not only members of the PSNI and the PSNI Reserve but also members of
      538
      the National Criminal Intelligence Service and the harbour police. The purpose of the amendment is to rectify that matter and to make provision for those individuals consistent with the provisions of the Police Reform Act 2002.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 16, in page 13, line 23, leave out 'Chief Constable' and insert 'relevant officer'.
      No. 17, in page 13, line 25, after 'accordingly', insert—
      '(3) In this Article "the relevant officer"—

      (a) in relation to a police officer, means the Chief Constable;

      (b) in relation to a person holding office under section 9(1)(b) of the Police Act 1997 (police members of the National Criminal Intelligence Service) means the Director General of the National Criminal Intelligence Service; and

      (c) in relation to any other person holding the office of constable, means the person who has the direction and control of the body of constables in question:.—[Keith Hill.]

      It being Six o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Orders [10 February and 26 March] , put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

    New Clause 6

      CODES OF PRACTICE
      'In section 27 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 (c.32) (codes of practice on exercise of functions) for subsection (2) substitute—
      "(2) Before issuing or revising a code of practice under this section, the Secretary of State shall consult the Board with a view to obtaining its agreement to the proposed code of practice or revision.
      (2A) Before issuing or revising a code of practice under this section, the Secretary of State shall also consult—

      (a) the Chief Constable;

      (b) the Ombudsman;

      (c) the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission;

      (d) the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland; and

      (e) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate."'—.[Jane Kennedy.]

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

    Schedule 1

      POWERS EXERCISABLE BY DESIGNATED PERSONS
      Amendment made: No. 36 in page 25, line 37, at end insert—
      '(ba) Article 17 of that Order (safeguards) has effect in relation to the issue of a warrant under paragraph 9 of Schedule 1 to that Order to the designated person as it has effect in relation to the issue of a warrant under that paragraph to a constable;
      (bb) Article 18 of that Order (execution of warrants) has effect in relation to a warrant issued under paragraph 9 of Schedule 1 to that Order (whether to the designated person or to any other person) as if references in that Article to a constable included references to the designated person;'.[Jane Kennedy.]

    Clause 1

      CONSULTATION WITH BOARD
      Amendments made: No. 1, in page 1, line 12, after 'Constable', insert

      '(aa) the Ombudsman;

      (ab) the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission;

      (ac) the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland;'.

      No. 2, in page 1, line 15, leave out subsection (2).—[Jane Kennedy.]

    Clause 37
      CODES OF PRACTICE
      Amendment made: No. 33, in page 23, line 12, leave out paragraph (a).—[Jane Kennedy.]
    Clause 38

      ORDERS AND REGULATIONS
      Amendments made: No. 34, in page 23, line 27, at end insert—
      '(2A) No order may be made under section [Independent members: declaration against terrorism](6), [Independent members: disqualification](2) or [Belfast](2) unless a draft of the statutory rule containing the order to be made has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.'.
      No. 35, in page 23, line 29, after 'section', insert—
      [Independent members: declaration against terrorism](6), [Independent members: disqualification](2), [Belfast](2),'.—[Jane Kennedy.]

    Schedule 3

      REPEALS AND REVOCATIONS
      Amendment made: No. 37, in page 35, line 18, after 'Schedule 1,', insert—
      'in paragraph 3(7)(b), the word "or" immediately preceding subparagraph (iii), in paragraph 10(1)(b), the word "or" immediately preceding subparagraph (iii) and'—[Jane and'. Kennedy.]
      Order for Third Reading read.
      6.1 pm
      Jane Kennedy: As has been said before, the Bill further implements the Patten report and last year's review of policing arrangements.
      Although they do not always attract the attention that they deserve, the Bill includes valuable measures that will directly assist the Chief Constable in making the Police Service of Northern Ireland both more effective and more representative. They will also help the Policing Board in its role of ensuring that the police are both effective and efficient.
      I have in mind, in particular, the detailed provisions allowing the Chief Constable to extend civilianisation and the measures that would allow for the introduction of a number of experienced constables with expertise, such as detectives, and of secondees from other forces.
      I pay tribute to the Police Service of Northern Ireland. It is faced, as Tom Constantine regularly reminds us, with an unprecedented change programme. To have made so much progress, while delivering high-quality policing, is a great tribute not just to the Chief Constable and his leadership team, but to all the police officers who
      540
      serve in the Police Service of Northern Ireland, whether regular, full-time or part-time, and to their support staff right across the organisation. It is also in the best tradition of the Royal Ulster Constabulary from which PSNI has evolved.
      I also pay tribute to the work of the Policing Board. In particular, the Board has recently launched the district policing partnerships. I am delighted to see such interest right across Northern Ireland in the delivery of local policing and in improving community safety. I have no doubt that the district policing partnerships will be a significant new chapter in taking policing forward in Northern Ireland and in making it a safer place for all inhabitants. The police ombudsman, too, has an important role to play in the new architecture.
      I shall say something about the wider political context. As hon. Members will know, the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach plan to return to Northern Ireland before the middle of next month to take forward the work that was advanced in the discussions at Hillsborough earlier this month. I do not want to rehearse the circumstances in which my right hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, North and Bellshill (Dr. Reid) suspended devolved Government last year. However, as he said then, as others have said recently and as I, too, know, it is essential to restore trust if devolution is to be restored.
      Confidence led to the Belfast agreement in the first place, and it is a prerequisite for its continuance. I welcome the positive, continuing contacts between political parties since the Hillsborough talks and I hope that they can be built on. However, as all hon. Members know, something more is required. As the Prime Minister made clear in his Customs House speech last October, it is time for acts of completion. To use his words, that means:
      "Commitment to exclusively peaceful means, real, total and permanent … an end to tolerance of paramilitary activity in any form."
      Sinn Fein's annual Ard Fheis starts tomorrow. I hope that the party and its supporters take the opportunity to look forward. There are tremendous opportunities, not only for them but for wider society if the chance is seized.
      I reiterate that none of the provisions that we discussed yesterday will come into force when the Bill receives Royal Assent. They will be commenced only by a subsequent order, which will be subject to affirmative resolution of both Houses in Parliament. I repeat on the Floor of the House that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would envisage introducing a commencement order only in the context of acts of completion.
      At the risk of provoking some hon. Members' wrath, it may be helpful to conclude by turning again to the initial chapter of the Patten report. Paragraph 1.7 states:
      "There is plainly a close relationship between the success of the overall Agreement and the changes in policing. If the fresh start for politics founders, it will be more difficult to make changes in policing; and if changes in policing are resisted (or mishandled) then there could be a serious impact on the attempt to rebuild democratic politics in Northern Ireland".
      David Burnside: Would not the Minister like to give the context of section 19 of the Belfast agreement, which authorised Patten and the commission to make recommendations that would encourage widespread community support? A raft of policing proposals—some are already in law and others are about to be enacted—has been introduced in Northern Ireland. They have no widespread community support.
      Jane Kennedy: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's contention. I know that many members of his party would make the same point, but the changes in policing have been supported. For example, they have cross-party support on the Policing Board. I look to that to continue as a result of the changes to the Bill.
      As I have said previously, the Police Service of Northern Ireland has come a long way already. The new beginning for policing has not foundered, despite what some of its critics would have us believe. One has only to consider the reception that was given to the Chief Constable and the two new recruits at the White House earlier this month to realise the high regard in which the Police Service of Northern Ireland is held in America and elsewhere.
      Since the agreement, the change has been most marked in policing. I pay tribute to all who have played their part. I look forward to the day when those who have yet to do so step forward to embrace policing on the basis that the Prime Minister set out.
      Lady Hermon: I am grateful to the Minister for allowing me to intervene on her closing remarks but the point that I wish to clarify is crucial to whether we support the Bill.
      I understood from yesterday's debate that the commencement orders would not be brought to the House until after acts of completion had taken place. I listened carefully to the Minister, and she used the phrase "in the context of acts of completion". Does "in the context of' mean "after"?
      Jane Kennedy: Throughout our proceedings yesterday and today, I used the phrase "in the context of acts of completion." I assure the hon. Lady that acts of completion—putting away paramilitary activity in all its forms in Northern Ireland—is an essential part of the change that we want to happen. I am not going to get into a debate about the detailed sequencing of how events might happen. The acts of completion that we are looking for have been stated many times.
      I began my remarks by talking about the necessity of re-establishing trust, but that trust must reside not just in the Governments of Britain or Ireland. The parties to the arrangements that we want to re-establish in Northern Ireland will have to make those partnerships work. It is within that context that we would consider the changes being brought forward.
      The Bill provides a further basis for the development of the new beginning to policing that is already well under way. For that reason, I commend the Bill to the House.
      6.10 pm
      Mr. Quentin Davies: Three clear conclusions emerge from the debate. First, the Government's abuse of the guillotine in business as important as this is nothing less than scandalous. Rafts of new clauses and amendments have gone through without discussion.
      Secondly, an otherwise good-tempered debate was marred towards the end by the most extraordinary display of bad temper by the Minister of State that I have seen in the House for a long time. She appeared to be so riled by our criticism of the Bill that she lashed out with insults to all concerned—to me, the Liberals, and the Democratic Unionists. I choose my words carefully, but she seemed in danger of giving a false impression to the House by implying that there had been a vote on the Policing Board about the substance of new clause 4. I am assured by the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley)—an honest man—that that was not the case.
      Jane Kennedy rose—
      Mr. Davies: I shall not give way to the Minister, although I have never failed to do so before. Earlier, she declined to give way to me because she knew that she was utterly in the wrong. I am now going to pay her back in kind. She must recognise that the courtesies in the House must be reciprocal.
      The matter of reciprocity has an even more important context. The third thing to emerge from the debates over the past two days is that the Government have reverted to the bad habits of the past. They prepare and bring forward and offer new concessions to Sinn Fein-IRA in advance of, and in the absence of, any necessary movement from the other side—that is, acts of completion. The tactic is completely misconceived, at a time when we have been waiting in vain for any such moves from Sinn Fein-IRA, and in a week when a major arms cache has been found. Much of the arms and other equipment may be new, and so represent very clear evidence of a breach of the ceasefire.
      It is utterly inept of the Government to bring forward concessions to Sinn Fein-IRA and to try to incorporate them definitively in primary legislation. The Government have been guilty of that ineptitude over and over again. There were moments when they seemed to accept that it was a great mistake, and I am sorry that they should be making the same mistake again.
      This is a bad Bill, made a great deal worse by the incorporation of the new clauses introduced by the Government on Report. It is based on bad strategic and tactical thinking—or perhaps no such thinking took place, even though it should have. The Bill's inadequacies have been ineffectively covered up by a display of bad temper.
      I can think of no reason why the Opposition would do otherwise than vote against the Bill. I hope that it will receive the more profound discussion that it so evidently deserves in another place, and that their lordships will be able to give it the treatment that we in this House have been unable to give it because of the Government's abuse of the guillotine.
      6.14 pm
      Mr. Mallon: In many ways, the conclusion of the Bill's passage through this House is the end of an odyssey in relation to policing and my participation in it over the past 30 years.
      I say to people here who do not like the Bill that if, like me, they were a spokesman for a small party and had lived and worked in south Armagh over the past 30 years trying to sell a message that was political to the core because it centred on justice and policing, they would have a different perspective on what has transpired today on the Floor of the House. It is a sea change. I advise hon. Members to think back to what was happening—dead bodies day and night; policemen being killed and killing; constituents being killed; emergency prevention of terrorism legislation. That was the staple diet. Somehow or other, we were able to keep alive the hope that there was a political process; that peace was available and that central to both peace and the political process was a resolution of the policing issue. I maintained for years that when we cracked policing, we cracked the political difficulties. I still believe that passionately for many reasons, but for this one especially: that one cannot have a viable organic political process that works in devolutionary terms in a divided society unless it works together effectively on political and administrative issues, and it cannot do that unless it addresses the issue that goes to the core of stability, which is the provision of fair and just policing for the society that it serves. We now have the opportunity to achieve that.
      I am sorry that two years were wasted, but I believe that we have now got it right. There have been enormous changes. The Minister referred to the Policing Board., which has been, and will be, an enormous success. The hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) would agree that in the past the Police Authority was not a place for him or for me. People were chosen. One had to have the right colour eyes to be part of that set-up. If a couple of castle Catholics, maybe two garden centre Unionists and at least one lapsed member of the Alliance party were stuck on to every board in the north of Ireland, that was called representation and accountability. Whatever the difficulties that arise from people's political views, warts and all, the current situation is much more viable and contains within it the seeds of hope that did not exist before.
      Lady Hermon: I just want to pay tribute to those who served on the Police Authority, many of whom were threatened and intimidated during their years of service. I want it to be on the record that they did a service for the people of Northern Ireland.
      Mr. Mallon: The hon. Lady misses the broad point that I am making. I am not attacking the people who were on the Police Authority. I know that some people were intimidated; I know that some people resigned, and I know why they felt obliged to do so. But those are things of the past.
      I want to finish with a political point—a brutal political point, because political points in the north of Ireland are never that nice; they are underpinned by a harsh reality from which we sometimes try to hide. The negotiations that took place at Weston Park represented an act of completion in relation to proposals on policing that was essential to the Bill and to the political process.
      544
      I regard that as the act of completion in terms of this issue. If it is not the act of completion in terms of this issue, there will be a reaction not just from people such as me, but right across the board.
      I trust that Weston Park was the act of completion, because I want to refer to a further act of completion. I know how difficult it is for Ministers to speculate about what will happen in the next two or three weeks. I have the freedom now to say what I believe will happen and what must happen. It would be inconceivable if, in effect, when this legislation has been drawn to a close, as an act of faith in the future and as an act of reconciliation within the community in the north of Ireland, those who call themselves patriots did not prove it by taking their rightful place on the Policing Board. That is the acid test of all the political theories, ranging from the principle of political consent down to every dot and comma of the Good Friday agreement.
      That act of completion must be there to facilitate other acts of completion, which will lead to the restoration of devolution. And in my view, that will happen. I put it directly and bluntly to the Sinn Fein leadership, "Show your courage, show your political courage, show your capacity to look at the whole question of justice and policing in the north of Ireland, and put your representatives where you must put them: on the Policing Board." There can be no prevarication about that. There can be no further demands. There can be no back-room negotiations, post-negotiations or other movements on this issue. The moment of truth has come for that organisation and for everybody else. I believe that they will respond, and that they will do so for this reason: people in England, Scotland, Wales, the Republic of Ireland, the United States and all the European states are looking at what is happening here. At present, there are distractions, but they are looking here, because this is the template for how these issues of violence and division can be resolved. The Northern Ireland resolution, the Good Friday agreement and this legislation contain the template of what can be applied in other countries throughout the world.
      That is why it is so important that we do this not just for ourselves, for where we live, and for those whom we represent, but for other places throughout the world that can learn something from what we have gone through. It is a small thing to ask, in historical terms, to show now the courage to lead from the front in terms of real justice, real stability and real peace, which will arrive from this legislation.
      6.23 pm
      Mr. Carmichael: The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) started his remarks with a sobering and timely reminder of the importance of policing to the situation in Northern Ireland and the real and tragic human cost of not accepting its importance. His remarks were very pertinent to this Third Reading.
      The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) referred in his opening remarks to the Minister, suggesting that there had been a slight tetchiness. For my part, I have found the Minister nothing but charming throughout the passage of the Bill, especially once she realised that we were supporting her. My hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) said to me at one stage, "Someone needs a hug."

      545
      I do not know whether he was referring to the Minister or the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford; I shall leave hon. Members to draw their own conclusions.
      I should like to comment in passing that the conduct of today's business in particular has vindicated the decision taken by the Liberal Democrats, along with Conservative Members, to vote against the timetabling motion yesterday. I hope that, once the smoke of battle has cleared, so to speak, the Government might take that consideration on board.
      The Liberal Democrats will support the Government in the Lobby on Third Reading, but we shall do so with just a slight hesitation. We will support them in no small measure because of the very generous concession that the Secretary of State made to my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire yesterday in relation to proceedings on new clause 2, particularly his admission that the judgment of when acts of completion had been carried out was a political question. I found his candour on that issue helpful and refreshing.
      The Minister opened her speech by referring to the Patten report. She said that the Bill was an extension of Patten and the next stage. I do not take too much issue with that suggestion. The Patten report seems to be a little like the Bible, as everybody can find something that they are happy to quote with approval—
      David Burnside: Sacrilege.
      Mr. Carmichael: I can say sincerely that I do not intend any sacrilege. Let me say instead that the use of the Patten report is a bit like the use of the Bible in that respect.
      We are broadly supportive of the Government's aims on policing. We recognise the importance of cross-community involvement in the police service. As the Minister must surely now understand, we are not yet convinced that 50:50 recruitment is a suitable mechanism for achieving that aim, but we will simply have to agree to disagree on that point. We recognise the importance of policing at the very heart of the process of normalisation.
      The Minister spoke about the wider political context, which is also worthy of consideration, and about the need for a restoration in trust. That strikes at the very heart of the matter. However, I remind her of the remarks that I made yesterday about the fact that the Government have a role to play. She spoke about real, total and permanent acts of completion. For our part, we would prefer "full cessation of violence" as a form of words, but it amounts to the same point at the end of the day. I say to her that the Government set themselves a very high standard—real, total and permanent—and that, if they should find themselves tempted to fall in any way below that very high standard, they would risk doing serious damage to the process that they have sought to pursue with some vigour and with no small measure of success, as today's proceedings have indicated. It is all very well for me to say, as we did yesterday, that that would be a point of disruption for us. That is largely academic. If it were to happen, it would be a point of disruption not only for us, but for the wider community. That is why the maintenance of those very high standards is so important.
      6.28 pm
      Lady Hermon: I am very pleased to be called to speak on the Third Reading of this very important Bill.
      I should like to take my cue from the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), with whom I often find myself in agreement, although not always. It is a pleasure to have him here this evening. The cue is that he referred to his constituency and the experience from which he spoke, and I respect his experience. I should like to spend a few moments on my experience in North Down.
      North Down was strongly supportive of the Belfast agreement, but nothing has undermined confidence in the agreement more than police reform. That is undoubtedly a fact, as will be shown in the forthcoming elections.
      Despite that, I have attended Unionist meetings on many occasions—although not recently—and expressed not enthusiasm but criticism. I have said that I want Sinn Fein members to take their rightful places on the Policing Board, and to call on young republicans to enter the police service and take responsibility for policing rather than passing the burden to someone else. They may see it as a poisoned chalice, but they should be invited to take up that poisoned chalice and carry the burden along with everyone else.
      As Members can probably tell from my tone of voice, I am deeply angry about the fact that the Provisional IRA will turn out to have been responsible for the Castlereagh raids. Their responsibility is no longer a hidden secret. That was on 17 March last year; as if we were not satisfied with that, there was then the revelation that a substantial spy ring had been operating for some time at the heart of Government.
      My confidence has been completely undermined by the events that have taken place since spring last year. I do not think I am alone in saying, as a Unionist, that my confidence in Sinn Fein needs to be rebuilt—and that cannot be done if Sinn Fein are tied in any way to a paramilitary army.
      I thank the Minister for taking my intervention earlier. One issue is fundamental to whether my party supports the Bill this evening. I understood the Minister to have made it clear that the commencement orders would be made only once acts of completion had taken place. Today, however, we were told that they would be made in the context of acts of completion. That, I am afraid, is not enough to rebuild our confidence, and makes it impossible for us to support the Bill—unless the Minister wishes to intervene now and tell me that the orders will be made after acts of completion.
      I say that with regret. I spoke on Second Reading, before the addition of the two clauses relating to district policing partnerships, disqualification of those with convictions and the Belfast sub-groups. I made clear our recognition that the vast majority of the Bill had come to the House of Commons at the request of the Policing Board, which has done a magnificent job in serving the entire Northern Ireland community. It had come to us at the request of the Chief Constable himself. I do not want to undermine the wonderful job that the board has done, or the wonderful job that our new Chief Constable is doing. That is why, on reflection, I supported new clause 4. We need more detectives because of the increased crime throughout Northern Ireland, which does not exclude North Down.

      547
      I distinctly remember welcoming, on Second Reading, the additional resources for the Chief Constable, particularly investigation officers, detention officers and escort officers. There was nothing new about that, in that it duplicated existing arrangements in Great Britain provided for in the Police Reform Act 2002.
      It is with deep regret that, if the Minister cannot assure me that the commencement orders will be made after acts of completion—
      Jane Kennedy rose—
      Lady Hermon: Oh, thank you. Excellent.
      Jane Kennedy: I hope I can reassure the hon. Lady by reverting to the phrase used yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. He said that the clauses we were debating would
      "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."—[Official Report, 26 March 2003; Vol. 402, c. 361.]
      It was in that context of trust that I tried to answer the hon. Lady.
      Lady Hermon: I thank the Minister for clarifying that point, and I look forward to the agreement of the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley). I listened carefully to what the Secretary of State said yesterday, but I did not actually think that it clarified matters.
      Lembit Öpik: I am sure the hon. Lady agrees that one thing that still needs to be clarified is who is involved in the process of agreement. Unless the Minister wishes to intervene again, I shall assume that agreement must come from all sides in Northern Ireland.
      Lady Hermon: I hope that the Minister will intervene on me again, because I am not happy with what she has said. I certainly understood, following talks at Hillsborough, that that was the context—that the commencement orders would not be made until the acts of completion. Therefore, I am disappointed that we cannot have a categorical clarification on the Floor of the House that they will come after the acts of completion.
      The reason I say that is that we must build trust back up, as the Minister said, in both communities. The Unionist community believes in devolution and in sharing power in the Executive. I certainly do. I cannot wait for the Executive and Assembly to be up and running again; I am deeply committed to devolution. However, there will not be trust unless the people of Northern Ireland—not just one community but all the people of Northern Ireland—can be assured. They deserve to know that those who sit in government are in no way connected to a paramilitary army. That is all I am asking for.
      The vast majority of the Bill comes, rightly, from a unanimous Policing Board, which I commend warmly, and from the new Chief Constable, who is doing an extremely good job in very difficult circumstances. It is with a heavy heart that I say that, unless we have clarification, we cannot support the measure on Third Reading.
      6.36 pm
      Rev. Ian Paisley: In a very important debate, the Prime Minister spelled out his principles in respect of terrorism. He said that
      "weakness in the face of a threat from a tyrant is the surest way not to peace, but—unfortunately—to conflict."
      IRA-Sinn Fein are tyrants. Members of certain Roman Catholic families were shot. Men know where they are buried, but they will not even attempt to get the decomposing bodies to allow them a Christian burial. Everyone in Northern Ireland knows that that is the case. If that is not tyranny, I do not know what is.
      A very noble sergeant of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, who served in Newry, was shot dead by the IRA. The night before he was to be buried in the family plot, it was made clear to the undertaker and to the priest that his body would not rest in the family plot. It had to be taken from the Warrenpoint area to Banbridge to be buried.
      The diabolical hatred and venom of tyranny is seen in many such cases. To bring it up to date, I mention what happened in my constituency at Ballymena when a young person from the Roman Catholic Church was recruited to the new police structures. An attempt was made to kill him, his father and his mother. Literature is spread around places of work inciting people to treat former members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary the way they were treated when they were in uniform and to treat every member of the new police service in the same way.
      What the Prime Minister said, rightly, are my principles. He said that looking back over the years
      "the truth is that we have been victims of our own desire to placate the implacable, to persuade towards reason the utterly unreasonable, and to hope that there was some genuine intent to do good in a regime whose mind is in fact evil."—[Official Report, 18 March 2003; Vol. 401, c. 765.]
      I speak in this House on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland, and on five occasions I have had the majority vote across the whole of the Province, not just in North Antrim. No assurance tonight from Ministers will satisfy those people, given what the Prime Minister told me in this very House when the acts of completion were being discussed.
      On 27 November, I asked if he was aware that
      "in the past two days my party has met the Minister with responsibility for security in Northern Ireland and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. We put one question to both: what is an act of completion? Does it consist of IRA-Sinn Fein repudiating and ceasing violence and being disbanded, or does it simply mean that they make a statement that they will give up violence? Can the Prime Minister tell us what he believes it means?"
      That was a clear question.
      The Prime Minister said:
      "I can. It is not merely a statement, a declaration or words. It means giving up violence completely in a way that satisfies"
      not the Government, the Policing Board or we who have responsibility for the government of Northern Ireland but
      "everyone and gives them confidence that the IRA has ceased its campaign, and enables us to move the democratic process forward, with every party that wants to be in government abiding by the same democratic rules."—[Official Report, 27 November 2002; Vol. 395, c. 309.]

      549
      Before the House accepts this Bill, it should hear what the Republicans have to say. I am glad that the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) said what she said. She made it clear that she was with the Government and agreed with what they were doing on many things that I and members of her own party would not agree with. However, she has become partly disillusioned because of what is happening. If it is getting through to her, how do people feel in Northern Ireland tonight?
      We listened to the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) yesterday, and he made it clear, as a prophet, that we would soon come back to deal with even more serious matters.
      What happened at Weston Park? Why have not the people of Northern Ireland been told? If the process is for the good of all the people of Northern Ireland, why were we not told what happened? The leader of the Ulster Unionist party said that he did not know what was agreed at Weston Park, but this I do know: I am a member of the Stormont Assembly, and the leader of the SDLP in the Stormont Assembly said on the record that he was told by an official when he protested at Weston Park, "You have no guns." At Weston Park, there was a betrayal and a surrender to tyranny.
      Mr. Mallon: I can help the hon. Gentleman. What happened at Weston Park in relation to policing is published in full in the revised implementation plan, which is there for everyone to see. I regard that as an act of completion in its totality. It has always been my belief that there should be devolution, and that, for it to work, the powers related to policing and justice should be devolved, because it will then come of age. That was not what happened at Weston Park, but what happened at Weston Park in relation to policing is on record in the revised review.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: Is the hon. Gentleman therefore saying that nothing more than that is in the latest measures that we are being asked to put our seal on tonight? Is it just Weston Park, full stop?
      David Burnside: And Hillsborough.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: Indeed. Is the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh saying that nothing was added? We know very well from prominent sources of information that many things were added. The Prime Minister—and the Taoiseach and his friends—had to come and sit for long hours because something was being added, and I think that we are entitled to know what it was.
      Mr. Mallon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I repeat that I regard what was agreed at Weston Park about policing as closure. May I assure him that, if anything was added to that, either at Hillsborough or subsequently, I would regard it as an absolute breach of negotiating principle?
      Rev. Ian Paisley: We have heard Government spokesmen telling us what the people of Northern Ireland feel, but they do not know. They have been there
      550
      on a few occasions, but they do not know the mind of the people. If they had a mind to know it, they could have organised a selection process and put their own candidates into the field. When I was speaking in the Chamber yesterday, a man shouted from the Labour Benches, "What about democracy?", yet his own party will not even recruit in Northern Ireland and ask the people what they feel about—
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman please relate his remarks to the Third Reading of the Bill?
      Rev. Ian Paisley: I am sorry that I allowed myself to go down the path of the person who interrupted me—or whom I allowed to interrupt me. All that I am saying tonight is that the vast majority of law-abiding citizens—Roman Catholics and Protestants—are very concerned about what is taking place, and about what is going to take place in the future. I know Roman Catholics very well, and I serve them very well, as they all—even their priests—have said. Many of them feel that it is a stigma that they are not permitted to get a job entirely on merit. The House needs to recognise that.
      The one thing that the House must learn is that it can pass this legislation. The Taoiseach and the Prime Minister will come to tell the rest of us who do not know—I do not know to this day—what happened at Hillsborough. I asked to have a look at the document and was refused, but the gunmen in the IRA who will be at the conference this week know. Why should a gunman who has slain policemen know what the future holds for my people when I do not? No Member on the Labour Benches would tolerate that, yet we are asked to tolerate it. If the democratic rights of the people of Northern Ireland are not recognised in the House, upon the House will come problems. These things are very serious.
      I want to make one final point. A huge cache of arms was found in the Ormeau road this week. The police usually tell us that such arms belong to dissident republicans. This week, however, they made a statement saying that they were the arms of the Provisional IRA. Those arms are not the usual arms; they are up to date, purchased after the Provisional IRA signed the ceasefire. I am asked tonight to go back to my people and say that the law of the land now is this new policing for Northern Ireland, which contains proposals hammered out behind closed doors and partly revealed in the document that preceded this debate. I say to this House that no democratically elected Member should be asked by any Government to sell something to their people unless they know what it is. However, we will have to wait until the two Prime Ministers come to our Province and let some of us know a little of what is in this document.
      I want to make one other point. I was told by the previous Secretary of State that if the Democratic Unionist party were to join the Policing Board there would be no cries for IRA-Sinn Fein to join it; that there would be no campaign, run by the Government, to get them to join; that IRA-Sinn Fein would have to wait until the election took place, and then re-appointments would be made. I asked him, "Is that your word?", and he said, "Yes, that is my word." Yet the board was

      551
      hardly in operation, when the call went out: Sinn Fein must be on this board. Evidently, the new Chief Constable thinks that it is his business to get Sinn Fein on to the board.
      During yesterday's debate, the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) asked what will happen, but she knows what happened in her own party, and where it stands.
      David Burnside: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify his party's position? If, as he recognises, Sinn Fein is involved in the continuation of terrorist activity, and we reach the stage where it is invited, within the law, to come on to the Policing Board, will his party withdraw from the board with the Ulster Unionists?
      Rev. Ian Paisley: I have already said that publicly. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman does not read newspapers, although perhaps he does not read those newspapers that report me. We certainly will not be on any Policing Board with IRA-Sinn Fein—how could we, when we have taken a stand on the Executive arid tried to be absolutely consistent? If Members want to close the Policing Board, vote for this; if they want to take the Unionists off the board, vote for it. That is what is happening. I said publicly in Omagh the other night—it was recorded in the press—that the Chief Constable does not know what he is doing when he is telling people these things.
      I greatly resent what the Minister said about the way in which the police were received in the White House. Royal Ulster Constabulary Members, including Sir Ronnie Flanagan, were well received in the White House years ago. To say that the way in which the White House is receiving the police shows for the first time how successful this initiative is ignores the fact that the police force can never he successful until it is completely democratic. It is not totally democratic when it closes the doors, puts on the locks, and says to the Protestant people, "You're not getting your position, but you will get it by a percentage." However, we are not even talking about the true percentage, because there are more than 50 per cent. Protestants in Northern Ireland. Also, others who are not Protestants or Roman Catholics are put in together, and told that they will get 50 per cent.; however, the Roman Catholics will get 50 per cent.
      I do not know what ear the Minister is listening out of. I was with the Chief Constable and a deputation some time ago. He told me that it was impossible o police Northern Ireland at the moment because of the 50:50 rule. That is what he told me, and I have evidence for that. That is a fact. What is more, never has the 50:50 rule been kept to, because it is impossible to keep to it. Sometimes, it could be 52 per cent. or 53 per cent., but that cannot be tested. I need to say tonight that this House must take care in what it is doing about the police in Northern Ireland.
      6.55 pm
      David Burnside: Time is short. Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), I will take great pleasure in voting against the Government tonight, because their record on policing in Northern Ireland and their destruction of the Royal Ulster
      552
      Constabulary are a disgrace. The Government should be ashamed of that, rather than heralding it as a new start to policing.
      Because of the restrictions on time, I was unable to move new clause 15, which would have recognised the law-abiding community in Northern Ireland—people who were proud of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Down knows, the RUC was incorporated in existing law, but was operationally ripped out of Northern Ireland—from the force, from the police stations and from the insignia. There was to be no display of any sign of Britishness, although a later decision made an exception to incorporate a crown in the new badge of the Police Service of Northern Ireland.
      I have been here only two years, unlike the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), who has been here for almost 30 years. However, I will play the long game for as long as the Unionists of South Antrim select me and elect me. The elected majority in this House will come and it will go—I should say, elected dictatorship, not elected majority. There will come a time in this House when the smaller parties will hold the balance of power and we will have an opportunity to restore the dignity, operationally, of the name of the Royal Ulster Constabulary.
      I look forward to opposing this motion, which will not improve policing. In four weeks' time, a deal will be put to the parties in Northern Ireland. I can assure hon. Members that the Unionist people of Northern Ireland will look at that deal. At present, we read about it only in The Irish Times, the Irish Independent and our local papers in Northern Ireland; but we will look at that deal and evaluate it. We will make our judgment on whether Sinn Fein is a legitimate democratic party. That judgment will be heard loud and clear in the governing body that rules my party—the Ulster Unionist Council. A clear message will be sent to this House that we have been fooled and conned for long enough in the political process called the peace process, and that we will try to move ahead in a new, democratic and accountable way. At present, the process is not working and does not reflect the views of the law-abiding unionist people of Northern Ireland.
      Like my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), I will not support any move to have representatives from my party on the Policing Board with Sinn Fein-IRA, and nor will I support Sinn Fein-IRA coming into the Executive of Northern Ireland in the foreseeable future.
      Question put, That the Bill be now read a Third time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 216, Noes 98.

      Division No. 148]

      [6:58 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Battle, John

      Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

      Berry, Roger

      Allan, Richard

      Blackman, Liz

      Allen, Graham

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

      Blizzard, Bob

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

      Austin, John

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

      Banks, Tony

      Browne, Desmond

      Barron, rh Kevin

      Buck, Ms Karen

      553

      Burden, Richard

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Prosser, Urmston)

      Burgon, Colin

      Burstow, Paul

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Byers, rh Stephen

      Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

      Cairns, David

      Hutton, rh John

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Iddon, Dr. Brian

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Caplin, Ivor

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Jamieson, David

      Casale, Roger

      Jenkins, Brian

      Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Challen, Colin

      Kaufman, rh Gerald

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Chaytor, David

      Kidney, David

      Clapham, Michael

      King, Andy (Rugby)

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

      Knight Jim (S Dorset)

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

      Coleman, Iain

      Lamb, Norman

      Connarty, Michael

      Lammy, David

      Cooper, Yvette

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

      Corston, Jean

      Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

      Cousins, Jim

      Linton, Martin

      Cox, Tom (Tooting)

      Love, Andrew

      Cranston, Ross

      Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

      Crausby, David

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Cruddas, Jon

      McCabe, Stephen

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      McCafferty, Chris

      Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      McDonnell, John

      Davidson, Ian

      McIsaac, Shona

      Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      McKechin, Ann

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Dobson, rh Frank

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      McWalter, Tony

      Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

      Mallaber, Judy

      Drew, David (Stroud)

      Mallon, Seamus

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Mandelson, rh Peter

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

      Efford, Clive

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

      Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

      Farrelly, Paul

      Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

      Fisher, Mark

      Merron, Gillian

      Follett, Barbara

      Michael, rh Alun

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Miller, Andrew

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

      Moffatt, Laura

      Moran, Margaret

      Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

      Mountford, Kali

      George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

      Mudie, George

      Gerrard, Neil

      Mullin, Chris

      Goggins, Paul

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Naysmith, Dr. Doug

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      Olner, Bill

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Öpik, Lembit

      Healey, John

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Heath, David

      Palmer, Dr. Nick

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Perham, Linda

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Picking, Anne

      Heppell, John

      Pickthall, Colin

      Hesford, Stephen

      Pike, Peter (Burnley)

      Heyes, David

      Plaskitt, James

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Hinchliffe, David

      Pound, Stephen

      Hodge, Margaret

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

      Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

      Howells, Dr. Kim

      Primarolo, rh Dawn

      554

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Purnell, James

      Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

      Quin, rh Joyce

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Thurso, John

      Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

      Tipping, Paddy

      Rendel, David

      Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

      Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Trickett, Jon

      Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

      Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

      Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

      Vis, Dr. Rudi

      Ruddock, Joan

      Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

      Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

      White, Brian

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Whitehead Dr. Alan

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Sawford, Phil

      Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

      Sheridan, Jim

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Winnick, David

      Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

      Wood, Mike (Batley)

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Woodward, Shaun

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Soley, Clive

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Squire, Rachel

      Wyatt, Derek

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Stoate, Dr. Howard

      Mr. Nick Ainger and

      Stunell, Andrew

      Jim Fitzpatrick

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

      Arbuthnot, rh James

      Hendry, Charles

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Hermon, Lady

      Bacon, Richard

      Horam, John (Orpington)

      Barker, Gregory

      Hunter, Andrew

      Baron, John (Billericay)

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Bellingham, Henry

      Johnson, Boris (Henley)

      Bercow, John

      Key, Robert (Salisbury)

      Blunt, Crispin

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Boswell, Tim

      Lansley, Andrew

      Burns, Simon

      Leigh, Edward

      Burnside, David

      Letwin, rh Oliver

      Cash, William

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Lidington, David

      Loughton, Tim

      Chope, Christopher

      Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Collins, Tim

      Mackay, rh Andrew

      Conway, Derek

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Cran, James (Beverley)

      Malins, Humfrey

      Curry, rh David

      Maples, John

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

      Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

      Mercer, Patrick

      Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

      Norman, Archie

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

      Ottaway, Richard

      Evans, Nigel

      Page, Richard

      Fabricant, Michael

      Paice, James

      Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

      Paisley, Rev. Ian

      Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

      Flight, Howard

      Randall, John

      Flook, Adrian

      Redwood, rh John

      Forth, rh Eric

      Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

      Fox, Dr. Liam

      Francois, Mark

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Goodman, Paul

      Ruffley, David

      Gray, James (N Wilts)

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Grayling, Chris

      Selous, Andrew

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Shepherd, Richard

      Hammond, Philip

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Hawkins, Nick

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Heald, Oliver

      Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

      555

      Spring, Richard

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Stanley, rh Sir John

      Waterson, Nigel

      Steen, Anthony

      Whittingdale, John

      Swayne, Desmond

      Wiggin, Bill

      Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

      Wilkinson, John

      Syms, Robert

      Young, rh Sir George

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Mr. Mark Hoban and

      Tredinnick, David

      Mr. Laurence Robertson

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

PETITIONS

  Community Pharmacists
  7.10 pm
  Dr. Brian Iddon: I have strongly supported the proposals that community pharmacists should be more closely involved in our primary health care. However, a few weeks ago a report from the Office of Fair Trading was presented to the Department of Trade and Industry which has created tensions within that policy and anxieties throughout the country, including in my constituency. So I want to present a petition, signed by 3,225 constituents of Bolton, South-East.
  The petition declares:
  That proposals to allow unrestricted opening of pharmacies able to dispense NHS prescriptions would undermine the excellent service currently provided by community pharmacies.
  The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons reject the Office of Fair Trading's proposal to allow unrestricted opening of pharmacies able to dispense NHS prescriptions.
  And the petitioners remain, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Police
  7.11 pm
  Chris Grayling: My petition relates to the acute underfunding of policing in Surrey and the resulting pressures on both the availability of policing in the community that I represent and the ability of the force to retain some of its best and most experienced officers. The petition is from some 3,000 residents of the Epson and Ewell area.
  The petition declares:
  That they wish to express their very great concern about the difficulties faced by their local police force, and are concerned that these difficulties will make it more difficult for their local officers to deal with rising crime and antisocial behaviour. They call on the Government to tackle the pay inequalities between officers in London and Surrey, and to ensure an end to under-funding of police in Surrey.
  The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons request to the appropriate Minister to take urgent action to address these issues.
  And the petitioners remain, et cetera.
  To lie upon the Table.

  M6
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Charlotte Atkins.]
  7.12 pm
  Mr. David Kidney: I am glad to have the opportunity to quiz the Under-Secretary on the Government's plans to widen the M6 motorway. I am also pleased that he is on the Front Bench, because he is always most helpful.
  People in Stafford often talk about traffic conditions on the M6. It rivals the weather as a topic of conversation, but it has to be said that the weather is more variable. As we wake up each morning, the television and radio news is always the same: that traffic on the M6 southbound is stationary between junctions 8 and 10. The Secretary of State made a statement to the House in December last year outlining his intention to widen the M6. If you were stuck in a traffic jam on the M6 just north of Birmingham, Madam Deputy Speaker—and bearing in mind your constituency, you probably have been—you would be delighted to hear on your car radio that the Government were at last going to solve the problem. But their plans do not touch junctions 8 to 10. They start at junction 11 and go northwards to junction 20. Have the Government got their priorities right in solving the problem of congestion on the M6?
  In fairness, the Government have plans to tackle problems on the M6 nearer to Birmingham. Next year a toll motorway will open and a pilot scheme will start on active traffic management. The toll motorway—what was the Birmingham northern relief road, now renamed the M6 toll—is Britain's first private toll motorway. It leaves the M6 north of Birmingham, travels over the top of the city and joins the M42 to the south-east. As the Secretary of State said in a recent speech, when that motorway opens, we will be able to gain active and genuine experience of whether motorists are willing to pay tolls to avoid traffic jams. We will see whether there is consumer acceptance or consumer opposition.
  The active traffic management scheme involves much more use of overhead gantries and the provision of information to try directly to manage the flow of the traffic, as regards the speeds and lanes to use, and so on, and more controversially, at times of peak traffic to use the hard shoulder as a running lane. I know that the RAC has concerns about the use of hard shoulders for the driving of cars, because of worries about the impact on safety. I should be grateful if the Minister would comment on the Government's intentions for more general use of hard shoulders to enable traffic to move along the motorway.
  In Birmingham, the ultimate plan is to introduce ATM for the whole of the west midlands motorway box—that is, the whole network of motorways around Birmingham. I can see that that might help, but first the Government have a plan for a pilot scheme on part of the M42. Because the problem of congestion is so severe just north of Birmingham on the M6 motorway, I hope the Government will show some urgency in developing ATM if it is a possible solution.
  Staffordshire is divided on the question of widening the M6 through Staffordshire. Some say that economic development is being held back in the county because of

  557
  the well known problem of traffic hold-ups on the M6. People cannot easily travel to and from work, the delivery of goods to businesses is held up, and inward investors thinking of developing north of Birmingham are put off by the stories about traffic hold-ups. For this group of people, the widening is essential and urgent.
  Others, however, say that motor vehicles are pollutants and that we should seek to provide alternative transport forms so that we rely less on them. They say that a wider M6 motorway will just attract more vehicles and still be full. In consequence, the residents of Staffordshire will suffer more noise, fumes and vibration if the widening goes ahead. As regards the strength of those two views, last autumn I held a series of public meetings, which I called my M6 roadshow, to try to explain to members of the public what might happen if the motorway is widened. I found that those two views were broadly evenly balanced, one against the other.
  I should add that there is a different and distinctive argument from a group of people supported by some parish councils in Staffordshire and in Cheshire, which is also affected. They say that instead of widening the M6, we should build a new strategic road between Manchester and the midlands. The Government set up a multi-modal study for the transport corridor involving the M6 from the west midlands to Manchester, so the study was given the name MidMan. It is interesting that that plan for a new strategic road came out with the best cost-benefit analysis of all the options considered, but it was decisively rejected on environmental grounds.
  I want Staffordshire businesses to be successful, but I do not believe that a heavy reliance on widening the M6 motorway is the right way to help them. It also comes at too high a cost for Staffordshire's residents—residents like those people who live in streets next to the motorway in Stafford, such as Devon way and Southfields road, places that I know well. To those who ask why we were foolish enough to build houses next to a motorway, I would say that the houses were there first, and ask who was stupid enough to allow a motorway to be constructed at the bottom of people's gardens. For those people, opening a window in summer is not sensible. Going into the garden on a lovely summer's evening is not tolerable. Growing vegetables to eat is definitely not something that they would do.
  The effects of the motorway spread across the whole of Stafford, which has a population of 50,000. They are felt in villages such as Penkridge, which has a population of 10,000. Everyone worries about the noise, fumes and vibration from the existing motorway, let alone a wider one.
  What about the economic costs of widening the M6? The Conservative Government of the early 1990s also announced their intention to widen the M6 between junctions 11 and 20. They got as far as producing plans, holding public exhibitions locally and acquiring land, but then they abandoned the scheme on cost grounds.
  MidMan estimated that the cost of widening the M6 from junctions 11 to 20, from three lanes each way to four lanes each way, would be about £700 million. The study also recommended that additional money should be spent on other transport measures, such as improved
  558
  rail services, more rail freight, better bus use and park-and-ride facilities. Even in the short time since MidMan published its study, however, the estimated cost of the M6 widening has risen to more than £900 million. Will the other necessary schemes recommended by MidMan be cut and will much needed environmental protection measures be left out of the M6 widening scheme as the costs escalate?
  The time scale for the widening scheme is about 10 years. People sitting in traffic jams, listening to the Government's plan to widen the motorway to solve their problem, learn that they must wait 10 years for it to come into effect. Other transport measures recommended by MidMan could be carried out much more quickly.
  To sum up my concerns about the principle of widening the M6: are the Government sure that a big, lengthy project, costing a lot of public money, is the best solution to the problem of so many vehicles filling the M6? Would it not be more effective to implement a more modest scheme, which included the provision of climbing lanes at specified locations, junction capacity improvements and ATM, allied to a balanced package of schemes involving road and rail and public and private investment? However, I support MidMan's conclusion that doing nothing is not an option. Already, more than 100,000 vehicles a day pass through Staffordshire on the M6 and further growth is forecast. The existing motorway cannot cope with that amount of traffic indefinitely.
  The MidMan public consultation was inadequate, not through lack of willingness to consult but through lack of time. The study took longer to complete than was envisaged and the final report was needed in time for the regional planning guidance inquiry. The Minister should not place too much reliance on the MidMan study alone.
  I attended the regional planning inquiry to put the case of my constituents, and I was interested in the report of the regional planning inspectors. They declined to endorse the conclusion of the MidMan report to widen the M6. They left the decision to the Secretary of State, as it involved national strategic considerations rather than regional considerations.
  Before I turn to the practical consequences of widening the motorway, I praise my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his ministerial team for the way in which they have given effect to the Secretary of State's decision so far. I was in the Chamber when my right hon. Friend made his announcement about widening the M6. He said that he would discuss with Members any concerns that they wanted to express. I wrote to him quickly to ask if I could bring a delegation to visit a Minister. His response was equally prompt and I was able to take a delegation from Stafford to meet my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport. On that day in February, the Under-Secretary and representatives of the Highways Agency met representatives of the three tiers of local government in Staffordshire—the county, the borough and the parishes—and me.
  The councils pressed for a good working relationship between them and the Highways Agency as they worked up the plans for Ministers' consideration. I understand that that will take place in July. Will my hon. Friend tell

  559
  us whether a practical working relationship has been established between the Highways Agency and the councils?
  I am worried about letters that residents receive from private claims negotiators who offer to negotiate on their behalf to get compensation if the widening goes ahead. Does my hon. Friend agree that people should keep their freedom to decide what to do for themselves? Does he further agree that they should be able to approach the Highways Agency if they have any queries?
  Some of the M6 road surface in Staffordshire is still concrete. The Government have a scheme to replace that noisy surface on trunk roads. Will the M6 he excluded from the scheme because of its status of awaiting widening? Will not that delay relief from noise for many thousands of people in Staffordshire? Will my hon. Friend confirm that if the widening goes ahead, the best noise-reducing surface will be laid as part of the construction contract?
  Good quality landscaping along the motorway can mitigate the noise, fumes and vibration. Bunding—giant earth mounds—can block and divert some ill effects. Appropriate planting can absorb harmful fumes. To what extent can my hon. Friend assure me and residents of Staffordshire and Cheshire that every effort will be made to provide such high quality protection?
  When houses are up against the boundary of the existing M6, parallel widening leaves a space for landscaping between the relocated motorway and the houses. Will my hon. Friend confirm that that method of widening the M6 will be adopted when appropriate?
  Some environmental groups are worried about parallel widening. They fear that it will leave the way open to extending the motorway further to a 10-lane M6. Will my hon. Friend confirm on the record that a 10-lane M6 is out of the question?
  My anxieties neatly split into two. First, is widening the M6 necessary in the form that the Government propose? Secondly, is it good value for money? If so, will the residents who are most affected have all the environmental protection that can reasonably be designed and implemented?
  7.27 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) on securing the debate and on the way in which he made his points with his customary courtesy and quiet forcefulness. I noted that he began his speech with what I call tabloid headline speak, by saying that he would "quiz the Under-Secretary". However, I also noted that, throughout his speech, he heaped praise on the rest of the ministerial team and me. That never does his cause any harm. I commend that approach to others who seek to get into our good books on road and transport issues in their constituencies.
  The M6 is a vital link between the midlands and the north-west, as you know, Madam Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend pointed out that the corridor has been part of the multi-modal study that examines ways in which to improve road, rail and other public transport links in the next 30 years.
  560
  I shall explain the purpose of the studies to put the matter in context. Previous problems with the strategic road network would have been addressed without reference to other modes of transport. However, the integrated transport White Paper, which was published in July 1998 and entitled "A New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone" set out the Government's proposals for a better, more integrated transport system to tackle the growing problems of congestion and pollution.
  The White Paper acknowledged that we could not simply go on as before, building more new roads to accommodate the growth in car traffic. The Government's 10-year plan for transport, which was published in July 2000, emphasised that tackling problems on the strategic road network requires an integrated set of solutions.
  The plan recognised that there are physical, environmental and financial limits to the amount of extra road space that we can build. The Government therefore set up the multi-modal studies to develop sustainable long-term solutions to problems identified under key parts of the strategic road network. The studies were remitted to look at a wide range of measures that could contribute to a solution.
  Those measures include opportunities for achieving mode shift by providing people with alternatives to car travel, and through the potential for reducing the need to travel afforded by schemes such as company car plans, the greater use of electronic communications, land use planning, and pricing measures.
  Importantly, the studies were specifically asked to look at the case for increases in road capacity in the context of a wider transport strategy. It was never thought that road building could be avoided entirely. Indeed, the potential need for some increases in road capacity to address congestion problems on the strategic road network was clearly recognised in the 10-year plan. At the time, it was considered that we would need to widen some 5 per cent. of the strategic road network, and that about 150 other major schemes would be needed on the network.
  The M6 corridor between Birmingham and Manchester was the subject of the west midlands to the north-west multi-modal study, which my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford rightly called the MidMan study. That was begun in December 1999, and reported to the west midlands local government association and the north-west regional assembly in May 2002.
  The M6 was built in the 1960s. You, Madam Deputy Speaker, will not remember it, but I recall it from my youth. It was built to provide a high-speed and vital link running from the north and the north-west to the southeast and south-west. The stretch between junctions 13 and 14 was built in the early 1960s. It was the first section to open in the midlands and was commonly known at the time as the Stafford bypass. That relieved the severe traffic congestion occurring at the time in Stafford town centre. It was followed in 1962 by the section between junctions 14 and 15, and in 1963 by the section between junctions 15 and 16. The section between junctions 12 and 13 was opened in 1966, when the motorway was extended southwards.

  561
  The M6 plays a vital role in supporting the national economy, and the section between junctions 11 and 20 is severely congested, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford said. Car journeys account for about 88 per cent. of the trips in the M6 corridor, with this section carrying traffic volume in excess of 90,000 vehicles a day. In addition, 93 per cent. of the total tonnage of freight is carried on the road, with the remainder carried by rail.
  The M6 has to bear that load, but the road does not meet current standards. Even a minor incident can lead to serious disruption and delay. In a growing economy, that is unacceptable. We needed to look at all the possible ways of delivering significant improvements to transport in the area.
  The original scheme for widening the motorway was developed in the early 1990s, but it was put on hold by the previous Conservative Government in 1995. The scheme was to provide five lanes of motorway in each direction—one more than the eventual recommendation that we are considering.
  Following careful consideration of the MidMan study recommendations and the views expressed on them by regional interests and others, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport outlined our response to the House in December 2002. In this response, it was made clear that we accepted the MidMan recommendations. At the same time, my right hon. Friend specified that the detailed design work must be carried out to high environmental standards in order to minimise any adverse environmental impacts.
  I am happy to be able to reiterate this commitment today, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford raised the matter in his speech. Environmental protection measures will be an integral part of any final scheme. In addition, I can respond to my hon. Friend's specific question about the road surface by assuring him that it will be the new noise reduction surface.
  I should add that, outside of the Forestry Commission, the Highways Agency is in fact the largest planter of deciduous trees in the country. It is rather late in the evening for me to release that little snippet of information to the House, but it is true nevertheless.
  The study clearly demonstrated that some road widening is a necessary component of the strategy aimed at tackling congestion on the M6 motorway, and it looked at alternative options for solving problems on the M6. In particular, the study found that staying with three lanes and tackling congestion through a combination of demand management measures and public transport improvements would not in itself provide an acceptable long-term solution. My hon. Friend asked whether we have the appropriate solution. The answer is that we would not be going ahead with this unless we though that it was the appropriate solution. The study concluded that widening to five lanes would, as my hon. Friend pointed out, have adverse environmental impacts. That is why in our response we confirmed our support for the study recommendations for widening the M6 motorway from dual three to dual four lanes between junctions 11A and 19. We also support the short-term measures recommended by the study to improve conditions on the motorway, and we have asked the Highways Agency to
  562
  take them forward. Those improvements will relieve congestion and improve safety and accessibility. We have also asked the Highways Agency to carry out further detailed work so that widening can be taken forward quickly and largely delivered over the next 10 years.
  I understand my hon. Friend's concerns regarding impacts on the environment and on his constituents. That is why we asked the Highways Agency to ensure that detailed design work is carried out to high environmental standards in order to minimise any adverse environmental impacts. I can assure him that as part of its work the Highways Agency will consult local stakeholders on these issues, and it has been working since December 2002 on the best way in which to take forward the recommendations.
  In the time that I have left, I shall address some of the other points that my hon. Friend raised. With regard to the traffic jams that he notes on the M6 between junctions 8 and 10, it is intended that that issue will be most sensibly resolved by the new M6 toll road. He also mentioned active traffic management. We expect a pilot scheme of ATM on a 17-km—or 10-mile—stretch of the M42 to start in summer 2004, and we will of course look closely at its implications for road safety and at its effectiveness in dealing with traffic congestion.
  I assure my hon. Friend that on the M6 scheme, as on all schemes of this type, the Highways Agency works very closely with local stakeholders, and it will work closely with the relevant local authorities. I understand that the Highways Agency has already initiated that dialogue with the relevant local authorities. As part of its analysis, the Highways Agency will take account of the deliverability of any solution in terms of its costs and its impacts on the environment and on local communities.
  Mr. Kidney: I am really grateful to my hon. Friend for the assurances he is giving me—they are all the right things that I want to hear. The one matter that I want to check with him is that there must be a finite pot of money for the MidMan recommendations, and the option that my hon. Friend is going with includes recommendations for rail and bus park and ride schemes. They take much less than 10 years to implement, so will they go ahead before the widening goes ahead?
  Mr. Jamieson: As my hon. Friend knows, all multi-modal studies have huge cost implications. If I said today that all the aspirations in those studies were going to become reality, I might be called to account in two or three years' time. It is our ambition to carry forward a wide-ranging package of measures—not only road, but rail, measures. I have to say that many of my constituents look with envy at the amount of work that is taking place on the west coast main line, which serves part of my hon. Friend's constituency, and ask me why such sums are not being spent in other parts of the country. The single biggest investment in rail that there has ever been is passing near my hon. Friend's constituency.
  My hon. Friend has mentioned on several occasions his support for investment in public transport. We agree with him. In our response in December 2000 we

  563
  explained that motorway widening would be complemented by the major investment that we are putting into the upgrade of the west coast main line. That will bring significant benefits to rail travellers and help to relieve some of the traffic on the M6. In addition, we have asked the Strategic Rail Authority to examine the scope for accommodating further local and regional rail service improvements, recommended by the MidMan study, as part of the west coast mainline modernisation programme, subject, of course, to the value-for-money criteria being met.
  We also strongly encourage the local authorities in the study corridor, particularly Staffordshire, Cheshire and Stoke-on-Trent, to take forward the recommended local transport measures. As part of the 2003–04 local transport capital settlement also announced in December 2002, we are pleased to provide funding of £475,000 for Staffordshire for better interchanges and car parks at stations, as a first step in implementing the study recommendations.
  My hon. Friend will also know that the study takes a view that all realistic opportunities to optimise the volume of rail freight should be carried forward. The SRA's proposals for upgrading the west coast main line allow for a significant increase in capacity for freight traffic, which will help relieve the M6 and his constituents from some of the noise of lorries. I am aware that the study also made further recommendations for improvements in rail freight
  564
  capacity. However, it is essential that the rail industry should focus initially on our key priority of upgrading the west coast main line.
  In conclusion, these measures will bring real improvements to the M6 motorway over the next decade and reflect our great commitment to providing a safe and reliable transport system fit for the 21st century. If issues remain that I have not been able to cover in my comments tonight, I would be delighted, were my hon. Friend to indicate them, to correspond with him, adding to the copious correspondence that we have had already. I thank him for raising these issues tonight, as he always does, in a powerful and persuasive manner on behalf of his constituents.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes to Eight o'clock.

  CORRECTION
  Official Report, 26 March 2003: In col. 285, the first sentence of Mr. Gapes' question should read: "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?"
Preamble
[SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

Older People
2.30 pm
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before we begin this second session of questions in Westminster Hall, I shall make a short statement about the procedure that I intend to follow.
As happens in the House, I will call each Member with a question in turn, and that Member should rise and respond, "Question No. 1," and so on. I will then call a Minister to answer. However, this session is different from questions in the House in that four Ministers from three Departments are present. The House has decided that questions in Westminster Hall should relate to an overall "cross-cutting" theme, which on this occasion is older people.
After the Minister's initial answer, I will call the Member in whose name the question was tabled to ask a supplementary question. One of the other Ministers present may want to answer that supplementary question instead of or in addition to the Minister who gave the original answer. I will then call other Members to ask supplementary questions—including, on some questions, Opposition Front Benchers. I may also call a Member to ask a second supplementary question, if I deem it appropriate.
However, Members should remember that this is a question and answer session rather than a series of mini-debates. There is therefore a premium on brevity in both questions and answers, and I expect there to be a large measure of precision. I hope to achieve a free-flowing exchange to allow us to make good progress through the Order Paper in the hour allotted to questions.
If Divisions take place in the House there is injury time: if there is one Division, we will reconvene within 15 minutes of adjourning, and if there are two successive Divisions, we will reconvene within 25 minutes.
This is still a fairly novel procedure, and I ask for the co-operation of all hon. Members to continue to make it a useful addition to our procedures for holding the Government to account. It is inevitably still experimental. As was the case with the first such session in January, I do not intend any precedents to be set by my rulings, and I will be happy to receive privately any suggestions from colleagues for modifications.
I remind hon. Members that sittings in Westminster Hall are governed by the same conventions on behaviour and mode of address as the main Chamber.

Oral Answers to Questions
The Government were asked—
Oral Answers to Questions

  Community Pharmacy Services
  Ms Joan Walley: If the Government will make a statement on the likely impact of the recommendations of the Office of Fair Trading report on pharmacy services in the UK on older people's access to pharmacy services. [104433]
  Malcolm Bruce: What assessment the Government have made of the impact of the Office of Fair Trading report on community pharmacies on older people. [104452]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. David Lammy): We announced yesterday that we will make proposals in response to the Office of Fair Trading report before the summer recess—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh?"]—and we will publish a progress report at the end of June. We will look at the implications that the report has for access and choice by older people in relation to improved local pharmacy services.
  Ms Walley: I thank the Minister for that reply. In a way, I am sorry that only three Departments are represented here today. If we were really going to get responses that do justice to the issues raised in the Office of Fair Trading report, all Departments of Government would need to be present, including the Department of Trade and Industry. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]
  I am concerned about pharmacy services for older people. In Stoke-on-Trent and north Staffordshire, many elderly people rely on having easily accessible pharmacies that are in the high street or near doctors' surgeries. When the Minister responds, he must do what I understand the Scottish Executive and Welsh Assembly have already done: he must reject the Office of Fair Trading proposals outright. I ask him to consult with his colleagues to ensure that the Governments' response puts the health needs of elderly people first and ensures that pharmacies can continue as at present.
  Mr. Lammy: I assure my hon. Friend that we in the Department of Health have been consulting not only across Government but with all the representative bodies of pharmacy, the supermarkets, patient groups, consumer groups and others. She is right that community pharmacies play a vital role in our communities. They certainly support older people, not only because older people visit the pharmacies, but because the pharmacies provide delivery services and other things. That is why the Minister, Patricia Hewitt—[HON. MEMBERS: "Who?"]—the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said in the House last week that the Government do not think that simple deregulation was the answer, and that it is important to consider the role of community pharmacies in examining wider national health service policy objectives.
  Malcolm Bruce: I am a little disappointed by the Minister's response. Last week's press reports of what

  141WH
  was said by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry gave the impression that the Government have rejected the OFT recommendations, yet he is now telling us that the Government have not finally decided and that it will be several months until the Government's position is clear.
  Does the Minister accept that the issue is causing a great deal of anxiety and uncertainty, especially among older people who are the prime users of local chemists? They want to know that they will not find that their chemist has closed and the service has been moved to a supermarket out of town. They want a developing NHS pharmacy, rather than a free-for-all whereby pharmacies can open and close, leaving people confused and without the guidance and advice that they expect to be able to obtain locally.
  Mr.Lammy: In fact, the pharmacy world in the form of the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee, which represents community pharmacists, said yesterday:
  "We welcome the Government's initial response to the OFT report and their view that any final decision must balance improved quality and access without diminishing the crucial role that pharmacies play."
  Pharmacists themselves are happy with what we said yesterday. They understand that we have a clear vision, which we set out for the pharmacy community in our "Pharmacy in the Future" document two years ago. At that time, we also addressed issues of contracts, reimbursement and generics. It must be right that when considering issues of competition, we examine wider NHS objectives and work with colleagues to find the right answer.
  Mr. Peter Pike: Is it not a factor in considering the wider role that pharmacies have been trying to develop, in line with Government policy, the approach of providing a wider primary care service to people in the community? Does the Minister accept that the large number of petitions and letters that all MPs have received shows that there are strong feelings on this issue throughout the country? We have all received representations from Asda and others, but they are concerned only about profit, not about the poor or elderly people who find it difficult to get to superstores.
  Mr. Lammy: My hon. Friend makes a strong point. For me, going through the Lobby in the past few weeks has been like running the gauntlet. Our community pharmacists and many other people, old and young, have petitioned us and written to us with their observations on the report. It is right that we carefully consider those representations. The subject of pharmacy has taken the lion's share of my diary in the past month, and I know that colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry have also been closely examining the issue.
  My hon. Friend is right that community pharmacies play a central role in our national service frameworks. I have just issued a framework document on diabetes. Pharmacies play a key role in diabetes care, and diabetes affects older people disproportionately. Pharmacies have a clear role to play in a range of health care issues
  142WH
  across the NHS, which is why we must consider the OFT report not only in relation to competition in the market, but in relation to wider NHS policy.
  Mr. Anthony Steen: Is the Minister aware that the simple transfer of responsibility for repeat prescriptions alone could save general practitioners up to 2.74 million hours each year? I told him that during a Westminster Hall debate some weeks ago. In addition, £380 million could be saved if a quarter of patients visited their pharmacist rather than their doctor for minor ailments. In the light of the assurances given last week in the House by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry that the Government do not believe that wholesale deregulation of the pharmaceutical industry is a good idea and that pharmacists are willing to modernise, what is delaying the Government's getting on with it?
  Mr. Lammy: I said that there are ongoing discussions about pharmacists' contracts and the way in which they are reimbursed in respect of generic medicines. The hon. Gentleman is right to point to the benefits connected with repeat prescribing; there are also benefits for pharmacists in prescribing and medicines management. We must consider the matter across the piece, alongside the opening up of the market to more competition. We will reach a conclusion by the summer recess.
  Jean Corston: May I impress on my hon. Friend how important it is that the Office of Fair Trading report is well and truly rejected? I hope that the Government will make an announcement sooner than he said they would. I ask him to remember not only that older people are generally more dependent on pharmacy services, but that if people have ever driven a car, they have generally stopped doing so by the time that they are elderly and they cannot get to a supermarket with their prescriptions. A market is not appropriate in some sectors of the community, and that is certainly the case with pharmacists. They are not just shopkeepers, but health professionals in our community.
  Mr. Lammy: I endorse my hon. Friend's comment that pharmacists are not just shopkeepers. They are professionals who want to play a greater role within the NHS. We set out that vision for pharmacists in the "Pharmacy in the Future" document, and we want to support them in that process. Pharmacists are in many communities day in, day out. I am sure that none of us as Members of Parliament have received criticisms of them because of the vital service that they provide. We want to support pharmacists. That is what we said yesterday and what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said last week when answering questions to her Department. We will make progress at the right pace. I remind my hon. Friend that both the National Pharmaceutical Association and the PSNC support us in that process.

  Pensioner Poverty
  Mr. David Chidgey: If the Government will make a statement on the level of pensioner poverty. [104448]
  The Minister for Pensions(Mr. Ian McCartney): The Government are committed to tackling pensioner

  143WH
  poverty. Since 1997, our strategy has been to target help on the poorest pensioners. Our priority has always been to focus help on those who need it. That is why we introduced the minimum income guarantee, from which 2 million people are benefiting . The take-up campaign has put an average of £20 a week extra in the pockets of 149,000 people, who would not otherwise have received the money.
  We are going a step further and are introducing pension credit. It will reward savings, not penalise them. It will be easy to apply for and it will remove the indignity of the intrusive and bureaucratic weekly means test. As a consequence of that change, those eligible for pension credit will receive an average extra income of £400 a year. At last, the savings of those who are just above the minimum income guarantee level are being recognised. The latest HBAI—households below average income—figures show that 400,000 fewer pensioners are living in relatively low income households than were when we came to power.
  Mr. Chidgey: I thank the Minister for his reply, but he will recall that the National Audit Office report, "Tackling Pensioner Poverty", which came out last November, highlighted the fact that between one quarter and one third of pensioners failed to claim the minimum income guarantee to which they were entitled. Today's report issued by the Department for Work and Pensions states that the take-up rate is little changed. How can he justify means-testing more than half of all pensioners for the new pension credit scheme in October when he has not tackled the disastrous take-up shortfall that is blighting the Government's efforts through their benefits schemes? [Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I suggest that the Minister defers his reply until after the Division. If there is one Division, we will return in 15 minutes. If there is another, we shall return in 25 minutes.
  2.43 pm
  Sitting suspended for Divisions in the House.
  3.8 pm
  On resuming—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Provided that there are no further interruptions from Divisions, we should be able to continue this questions session until 3.55. Again, I appeal for short questions and answers—we did not get off to a very good start. The Minister for Pensions will now reply.
  Mr. McCartney: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am not sure whether you have a squint in your eye or whether you were looking at me when you said that we had not got off to good start.
  It seems such a long time since the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) and I last spoke. I am glad that he asked me about the National Audit Office report that was published on 26 March. It boldly stated that the Government had made good progress but that they should build on it. That is absolutely right—we have made fantastic progress. With the introduction of the
  144WH
  pension credit and the other changes that we have made since 1997, there has been a massive £8.6 billion increase in income across the board for Britain's pensioners. That is no mean achievement and I will not apologise for that significant shift in income towards the poorest pensioners in Britain.
  David Taylor: The Government have done a lot to help the aged. Help the Aged recently brought out a report that called on the Government to match their bold commitment to ending child poverty by 2020 with a similar pledge on older people. Does the Minister think that the recommendations that Help the Aged made in the report in relation to benefit take-up, disability and winter deaths are affordable, realistic and achievable, and are the Government aiming to deliver on them? If they were to do so, the country would not collapse and the economy would not crumble, and millions of pensioners' lives would be immeasurably enriched.
  Mr. McCartney: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. We think of that organisation as one of our major stakeholders and we work closely with it. We have established a national group of major stakeholder organisations including Help the Aged and Age Concern. I meet regularly with that group, the purpose of which is twofold: first, it engages the stakeholders in long-term strategy and service provision for older people; and, secondly, it involves them in policy development on tackling pensioner poverty.
  It is interesting that, despite some differences of opinion in the margins, pensioners' organisations overwhelmingly welcome and work with the Government on the introduction of pension credit. They work with us consistently at both national and international level to deal with pensioner poverty. We have just established a new Pension Service—we are, I think, the first Government in Europe to do so. It is a unique service that will transform the basis of the civil service. Rather than being people who represent Whitehall, we are training civil servants who have a commitment and aptitude. We want advocates for older people to be within the system.
  The creation of a national network of local service providers will mean that we will, in the next few years, on a year-by-year basis, challenge and tackle pensioner poverty and make improvements in services. I welcome Help the Aged's involvement in working towards those objectives and targets.
  Mr. Paul Burstow: The Minister talks of progress, but figures published by the Department today show that pensioners are missing out on £1.8 billion in benefits. Up to 270,000 people are missing out on housing benefit, 670,000 on minimum income guarantee, and as many as 1.43 million on council tax benefits. The take-up rates for both the minimum income guarantee and housing benefit have increased by a massive 1 per cent. at a time when record council tax increases are hitting the poorest pensioners across the country, and take-up rates for council tax benefits are falling. What action will the Minister take to ensure that our poorest pensioners do not fall even deeper into poverty as a result?
  Mr. McCartney: God help any pensioner living under a Liberal council—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I

  145WH
  would not shout too soon—Conservatives are just as bad. I do not want to sound churlish and I would rather that they were not churlish.
  The hon. Gentleman talks about giving pensioners access to housing benefit and council tax benefit, but it is the changes in pension credit that will ensure that a million extra pensioner households get access to income streams that were not there before. The Liberal Democrats have in the past few weeks come out in opposition to the scheme, and have said that they would scrap pension credit and, with it, access to housing benefit and other benefits. His party cannot have it both ways.
  There is massive new investment. I hope for political consensus on that. We should target poverty not on the basis of people's age, but on the basis of their income. What lies behind the hon. Gentleman's question is the fact that he wants to redistribute the Government's resources on pensions and housing benefit and make other changes in favour of those aged 75 or more. That would mean that those on low incomes aged 60 to 75 would lose out completely. I cannot for the life of me understand why the Liberal Democrats think that it would be an effective strategy for tackling or preventing poverty to say, "If you're poor at 60, don't come to us. Wait until you're 75, if you can."
  We wholeheartedly reject the strategy that the hon. Gentleman wants to deploy. Our strategy means significant increases in income year after year and access to benefits that would not have been there but for the changes that we made.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister might like to know that I am looking at him now.
  Mr. Jim Cousins: I congratulate the Government on introducing the savings top-up for pensioners in October. I also congratulate them on the changes in council tax benefit that will be introduced in April. They have not had much publicity, but because of the changes in the savings rules, many people will be able to get council tax benefit for the first time.
  The problems of take-up are greatest among women who live on their own. I urge the Minister to consider how women pensioners who live on their own could come to understand these good new Government schemes. Such women are often quite isolated, living in difficult circumstances after the death of their partner, with poor survivor benefits through private pension schemes. They are difficult to reach and I urge the Minister to address their problems.
  Mr. McCartney: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. That was the purpose of establishing the Pension Service at both national and local level. We are currently doing a great deal of work with older people's organisations on our strategic approach to improve take-up. I will write to my hon. Friend about that and I will place a copy of the letter in the Library.
  If we are to target poverty, we must find ways to get to those who are voiceless and powerless in the system. The overwhelming majority of older people who are
  146WH
  poor are women; the biggest beneficiaries of minimum income guarantee and pension credit are women; the biggest beneficiaries of second state pension will be women. The Government understand that it is crucial to tackle the inequalities in the current system that affect women; we must find effective ways to deal with them. My hon. Friend is correct—we are in the same ballpark. I will write to him with further details.
  Mr. Julian Brazier: Will the Minister confirm that his Department's HBAI document, which was published earlier this month, shows that the number of pensioners earning less than two fifths of the national average workers' income has risen by 100,000 since the Government took office? Will he confirm that today one pensioner in five lives below the level of that supposed safety net, largely because of the non-take-up of means-tested benefits? Will he further confirm that the proportion of pensioners who are eligible for this increasingly complex set of means-tested benefits is almost three in five? Finally, will he tell us what he means by the local delivery of benefits when we are losing post offices throughout the country and, indeed, pharmacies and other essential services?
  Mr. McCartney: That was three questions in one. I will take them in reverse order.
  It is a bit rich that the Conservatives, who wanted to privatise the Post Office and close virtually every post office now complain about a multi-billion pound investment in post office services. I have no doubt that we can deal with that during another of the questions.
  The HBAI figures show that the incomes of 400,000 of the poorest pensioners have greatly improved because of the measures introduced by the Labour Government. There is, however, much more to do. That is why we are introducing pension credit. I ask the hon. Gentleman, when will the Conservatives get off the fence and tell us whether they will abolish or support it?

  Community Pharmacy Services
  Mr. Edward Davey: What proportion of prescriptions dispensed by community pharmacists in the past 12 months were for people of state pensionable age. [104449]
  Dr Jenny Tonge: What proportion of prescriptions dispensed by community pharmacists are for people of state pensionable age. [104456]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health(Mr. David Lammy): In the 12-month period from September 2002, 56 per cent. of prescriptions were dispensed by community pharmacists and appliance contractors to people aged 60 and over.
  Mr. Davey: That figure underlines how important community pharmacists and pharmacies are to older people. I have spoken to many pharmacists in Kingston and Surbiton who tell me that most of their customers are pensioners and that such people rely heavily on their community pharmacist. Will the Minister go further than he has done and tell the House that he will seek a much earlier rejection of the OFT proposals? Does he

  147WH
  not realise that the sword of Damocles is hanging over community pharmacies and that it will continue to do so until the Government resolve the issue?
  Mr. Lammy: If the sword of Damocles was hanging over community pharmacies, their representative bodies would be unlikely to support the Government. They are supporting the Government because we have been working with them for some time. We have been working with them on their contracts and the way in which they are reimbursed, and on the Office of Fair Trading report. [Interruption.] It is not a question of backing down, it is a question of supporting the NHS and community pharmacies that seek to do more. We will do that according to the timetable outlined yesterday.
  Dr. Tonge: I am struggling to say something new, but older people form a high proportion of those cared for by the primary care trust in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable)—we share that primary care trust.
  Community pharmacists are the friends of older people. They know them well because they know cf2their patients. Community pharmacists are also the friends of doctors, as I well know: a pharmacist once corrected me when I was very tired and made an error on a prescription. Doctors rely on pharmacists to check and ensure that they are doing the right thing—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Lady has not got much to say, I would prefer a question rather than a speech.
  Dr. Tonge: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will the Minister ensure that, for the sake of our people, community pharmacists, who are the first access point for the NHS, are there always?
  Mr. Lammy: I will ensure that community pharmacists remain for the sake of our people. The hon. Lady is right: community pharmacists on the high street, at the bottom of the road, in rural areas and in towns, know the patients' family history. They come to know people over time and provide a valuable service. That is why there has been concern throughout the House about the OFT report, and why representations have been made throughout the country. We are considering those representations carefully. In "Pharmacy in the Future" we set out a vision for pharmacists that they support.
  The OFT report considers only 20 per cent. of the pharmacy business. The other 80 per cent. is NHS business. That is why we need to consider the matter carefully in the context of the needs of the NHS. We must support community pharmacists and I assure the hon. Lady that we are seeking to do that.

  Age Discrimination
  Simon Hughes: If the Government will make a statement on the progress they have made in tackling age discrimination in employment. [104450]
  The Minister for Lifelong Learning and Higher Education (Margaret Hodge): We are encouraging
  148WH
  employers to adopt non-ageist employment practices through our age positive campaign, which raises employers' awareness of the business benefits of an age-diverse workforce and encourages a flexible approach to retirement to open up choice and the opportunity for individuals to stay in work longer. Between 1999 and 2001 the number of companies referring to age in recruitment fell from 27 per cent. to 13 per cent. and the number of companies having a policy against employing older workers dropped from 14 per cent. to 7 per cent.
  Simon Hughes: The Minister knows that that is not a very encouraging answer, because just before Labour came to power in 1997, her right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), now Minister for Pensions, said that the Labour Government would introduce legislation against age discrimination at the earliest opportunity. In the six years since, there have been 18 attempts to introduce such legislation—all blocked by Labour. Will the Minister tell us whether Britain will have to wait until the last minute of the last hour before we are required under European law to implement age discrimination legislation in 2006? What would she say to a relative of mine who reached retirement age in December, asked to stay on and was able and willing to do so, but, like many in that position, was told by the employer, "I'm sorry, but you have to go."?
  Margaret Hodge: The Labour Government chose to sign up to article 13 of the treaty of Amsterdam, which will ensure that measures against discrimination on the grounds of age are incorporated into UK legislation. We did so freely and played an extremely active role in ensuring that that article came into being. If such legislation is to work in practice and have an impact on people's lives, it should be developed through consensus among all parties. Working with employers to ensure that we have a framework that is acceptable to everyone is an important part of the process. In my view, legislation simply provides the underpinning framework. What is required in this as in all other aspects of discrimination is a transformation of culture. All parties working together is a much better way of achieving that than simply attempting to confront the issue through legislation.
  Ms Candy Atherton: I am pleased that the Government are to produce their own legislation, although I, too, would prefer that to happen as quickly as possible. Tackling the issue of goods and services is absolutely critical. If an employer wants to take on an older worker but cannot obtain insurance for that person, the older worker will not be employed. It is critical that we have the same legislation in respect of age as we do in respect of race.
  Margaret Hodge: I understand my hon. Friend's point. I am sure that she appreciates that we must ensure that we have a framework in place that is acceptable and that employers will implement according to the spirit, as well as to the letter, of the law. Making the necessary adjustments to enable older people to participate in the workplace will be part of the culture change that we will seek to achieve in the years prior to 2006, when the legislation will finally come into place.
  Mr. Nigel Waterson: Does the Minister agree that we must address cases such as that of my

  149WH
  constituent, Jill Lambard-Brown, who has just been sacked by Liberal Democrat-controlled Eastbourne borough council for no other reason than that she happened to turn 65? The central issue is that, miraculously and in one fell swoop, when people turn 65 they lose all their employment rights.
  Margaret Hodge: That is precisely why we freely joined with our colleagues across the European Union to sign up to the directive based on article 13 and to bring that into the framework. It is interesting to hear that the Liberal Democrats are not doing what they urge others to do.
  Miss Anne Begg: The Government's pensions Green Paper acknowledges that there is a savings gap. Essentially, the longer people can work, the more they can save into a pension fund and the better their pension will be when they retire. It is important that people are allowed to work and remain in the workplace as long as they possibly can. Far too many employers are still using age as an excuse to offer people early retirement—thereby putting a strain on occupational pension schemes—or not to consider employing people once they have turned 55. Will the Minister engage with employers to ensure that they end age discrimination and that people are allowed to work, pay into pension schemes and make better provision for their old age?
  Margaret Hodge: I completely agree that the longer people work, the more they can save and the likelier they are to have a higher standard of living during retirement. I draw the attention of my hon. Friend and other hon. Members to the fact that this is a difficult area of policy, because discrimination on the grounds of age is important in relation to younger people as well as older people. We need to ensure that when we have a framework that enables older people to stay on at work for longer and prevents them from having to retire on the grounds of age, younger people have an equal opportunity to progress into jobs and move up the ladder, so that they, too, can fulfil their potential and contribute to the economy and society.
  The Minister for Pensions(Mr. Ian McCartney): May I advise my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) that the Government have introduced the new deal 50-plus programme, which is specifically designed to get older workers who have been discriminated against or forced out for economic or structural reasons back into the workplace? The programme is having a significant impact on turning around the long-term decline in labour market activity by older workers, especially older men. We have now changed that trend. There is an upward trend in terms of proactively keeping older workers in the work force. Linking the new deal 50-plus programme with our age positive campaign, employers are now giving significant support to proposed legislation on age discrimination and, in the run-up to that, to work with other employers to get them to end their bad practices. That will have a significant impact by 2006.

  Digital Hearing Aids
  Angela Watkinson: What action the Government are taking to ensure that digital hearing aids are available to older people who are hard of hearing. [104451]
  The Minister of State, Department of Health(Jacqui Smith): On 7 February, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health announced an investment of £94 million to support the modernisation of hearing aid services. That will ensure the provision of digital hearing aids on the NHS throughout England by April 2005. Roll-out plans include boosting NHS capacity and improving access for patients by extending public-private partnerships, which will increase access to NHS digital hearing aids on the high street.
  Angela Watkinson: What would the Minister say to my elderly constituents who were eagerly awaiting the introduction of digital hearing aids only to have their hopes dashed when they found that funding was available only for new patients and that elderly patients who already had hearing aids were not eligible at this stage? What hope can she extend to them? Arguably they are the people who, with their failing hearing, need such aids the most.
  Jacqui Smith: The programme is progressive and it is important that we introduce it in a way that benefits as many people as possible. In such areas as the hon. Lady's—one of the 67 sites that are currently offering digital hearing aids or have been given the training and equipment to start offering them from next April—we have made it clear that people new to hearing aids must be the first to have the benefit of digital, but that people who need their hearing re-assessed or feel that their hearing needs have changed radically can also benefit from digital hearing aids. It will take some time to ensure that the training and equipment are in place, but whereas three years ago no one was getting digital hearing aids on the NHS, we have now issued more than 72,000. We shall ensure by April 2005 that that is an opportunity open to everyone.
  David Taylor: I declare an interest in that I am over 55 and have hearing loss due to chronic tinnitus. There are constituents in Leicestershire, especially North-West Leicestershire, who are very grateful for the steady roll-out of digital hearing aids, which have transformed their lives. However, has my hon. Friend reviewed the patchy provision of audiology clinics and how long many elderly people have to wait to have their need for hearing aids measured more specifically than is currently possible? Finally, please, please will my hon. Friend the Minister look again at public-private partnerships? I sense a disaster in the making there.
  Jacqui Smith: My hon. Friend makes an important point. As we make available on the NHS something that has never been available on it before, we see an increase in demand for hearing aids, including from people who had previously had analogue hearing aids but put them into the cupboard because they had realised that they were not suitable for them. That brings to audiology departments the challenge of ensuring that they can

  151WH
  carry out the whole function of fitting digital hearing aids as quickly as possible. It is precisely because of that that we are taking action to recruit more audiologists. The NHS Modernisation Agency is working with audiology departments to ensure that we have in place the programmes and the efficiency that will enable us to get that service delivered as quickly as possible.
  Perhaps I can reassure my hon. Friend about public-private partnerships. We have carried out two pilots, in Leeds and Shrewsbury. The Institute of Hearing Research has evaluated the pilots and found that the outcomes for the 400 people who went through the process were extremely promising. I know my hon. Friend's concerns about the public-private partnerships, but I think that we can use those means to extend people's opportunity to have a digital hearing aid on the NHS as quickly as possible—an opportunity that never existed before.
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: Will the Minister acknowledge that the real logjam is in gaining access to an audiologist? That could be greatly relieved if licensed hearing aid dispensers in the private sector could access the NHS contract for digital hearing aids. When will that happen?
  Jacqui Smith: The real logjam was caused, first, by technology and, secondly, by the willingness of the current Government to invest more than £120 million to ensure that older people could access digital hearing aids on the NHS. The hon. Gentleman must recognise that. His party proposes 20 per cent. cuts, presumably in resources and the staff who are providing NHS hearing aids for older people. It is the policy of the Conservative party to give patients a passport out of the NHS, but it is Labour's policy to ensure that people get on the NHS what they would have to buy under a Conservative Government.
  Mr. Tim Boswell: Does the Minister appreciate that a characteristic problem of many older people is a subtle but progressive loss of hearing intensity, and that they therefore form a significant part of the national population of some 8 million people who are hearing impaired? Given that, does she accept as a matter of principle that there should be absolutely no discrimination against prescribing digital hearing aids to older people and that any older person who is suitable for such a prescription will be entitled to receive one in due course?
  Jacqui Smith:I strongly agree with the hon. Gentleman. I do not know whether he has a particular problem that he wishes to identify, but it is precisely because some 50 per cent. of the over-60s experience some hearing loss that the investment that we are putting into modernising hearing aid services will be so significant to older people. We must ensure that the right processes and suitable equipment and staff are in place to assess people's hearing and to provide that service. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the primary beneficiaries of the policy will be older people, who too often in the past have been discriminated against in the NHS.
  I am very pleased that today we have published a report that covers the two years since the introduction of the national service framework for older people, at the
  152WH
  centre of which we put tackling age discrimination. The report shows that significant progress has been made. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will take the opportunity to read it during the suspension that I suspect is about to start.
  3.37 pm
  Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
  3.50 pm
  On resuming—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: We now have until 10 minutes past 4 for the remainder of this question session.

  Care Homes
  Miss Anne McIntosh: How many care home places were available on 1 January (a) 2002 and (b) 2003; and if the Government will make a statement.[104453]
  The Minister of State, Department of Health(Jacqui Smith): The latest data available for 2001 show that there were some 528,000 places in care homes for residential or nursing care in England. In addition to the £300 million building capacity grant in 2001–02 and 2002–03, we are providing record levels of funding for social services. Funding will increase by an average of 6 per cent. in real terms each year for the next three years. Councils can use those resources to stabilise the care home sector and to expand the range of services for older people, including home care and extra care housing.
  Miss McIntosh: That is the answer to a question, but not to the question I asked. Since 1997, 60,000 care home places have been lost and there has been a decrease of almost 100,000 in the number of households receiving domiciliary care packages. Does the Minister accept that her Government is to blame, at least in so far as the Care Standards Act 2000 introduced prescriptive standards that led to that large fall in the number of care home places?
  Jacqui Smith: As the Select Committee on Health said, 60,000 is a somewhat spurious figure. The latest figures in the Department suggest that between March 2000 and March 2001 there was a decrease of 11,200, and that between 1997 and 2001 43,000 households received intensive home care packages—the equivalent of a care home place. During the past year, there has been an increase in the number of older people receiving support to live in their own home. That is a result of additional investment, but we need to do more to ensure that older people have a choice of care home places, support in their own homes, equipment necessary to enable them to live independently, and extra care housing. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced £1 billion investment over the next three years precisely to develop such services.
  Mr. David Drew: My hon. Friend is right to concentrate on choice. Does she accept that we should prioritise that in April, with the onset of supporting

  153WH
  people, which is a very good initiative that allows people's homes to be adapted? People often have to return to hospital because their accommodation is totally unsuitable.
  Another aspect of the problem is that we are disaggregating funding, which makes the position of those who are not in receipt of benefit and are living in sheltered accommodation more stark. Does my hon. Friend accept that it is necessary to look at that, because we must encourage people to live in the accommodation most suitable for them, which for older people is often sheltered accommodation?
  Jacqui Smith: I strongly agree that there is greater opportunity for older people. They are able to live in new-style extra care housing or remain in their own home with the contribution of better community equipment services and better adaptations for disabled people. For the first time, the Department of Health is contributing to home improvement agencies to ensure that the necessary changes to older people's homes to enable them to leave hospital and return to their own homes are properly funded. I also agree with my hon. Friend that this is a time of transition as we move to supporting people. We must be careful to ensure that the whole range of support services and benefits are in place to allow older people to have what they want: more independence and more choice.
  Chris Grayling: Will the Minister please address the concerns of both care home owners and care home residents and their families in my constituency? They say that the current system of contributions to nursing care by the NHS is shambolic. Payments are received months after the period that they cover and have to be administered by care home owners, who end up paying money back to families. The result is chaos for everybody involved. Will she re-examine the system?
  Jacqui Smith: Certainly, it is unsatisfactory if care home owners are paid late by primary care trusts. If the hon. Gentleman wants to tell me in what specific areas that is happening I shall pursue the matter. We are currently evaluating the free nursing care scheme, and in many areas we are finding that the NHS is being brought, often for the first time, into a much closer relationship with nursing homes. That helps to develop better joint working, better training and a better approach to services, for example, continence services. Although I am willing to tackle problems, in addition to the financial benefits to many older people, there are other significant benefits from bringing the NHS into a closer relationship with nursing homes.
  Mr. Simon Burns: Will the Minister please come out of her fantasy world and answer specific questions? Has she read the Health Committee's report? I am a member of that Committee. Does she accept that she is being disingenuous in her choice of figures? If she has read the report, she will know from the special work commissioned that just under 65,000 places were lost between 1997 and last
  154WH
  year. That figure includes the loss of local authority places, which she steadfastly refuses to include in her answer.
  Jacqui Smith: First, I have read the report. Secondly, the figure that I used in my last answer included local authority places. The hon. Gentleman has a basic difficulty: I have never argued that there has not been a reduction in capacity in care home places. There has been a small reduction since 1997. According to Laing and Buisson independent consultants, the national occupancy rate for care homes is only about 90 per cent. There are capacity problems in some parts of the country, and we have to ask ourselves how we can address them. Care home owners tell me that they want local authorities to be able to pay fees at levels that reflect the quality of care homes. The hon. Gentleman can nod, but until he is willing to support our extra investment in local authorities to enable them, where it is necessary, to raise fees to safeguard capacity, ranting is cheap. He needs to enter the real world and to recognise that the investment, which he is unwilling to support, is necessary to make a difference for older people.
  Mr. Burns: If the Minister had read the Health Committee's report properly, she would know that the specific work commissioned on numbers makes it clear that if one includes local authority losses with the private sector, the result is almost in line with the Laing and Buisson figure of just under 65,000 beds lost. The sooner she accepts that, the sooner she will have a greater understanding of the problem in the long-term care sector. In certain parts of the country, people cannot find beds for their parents in their immediate vicinity.
  Jacqui Smith: The difference between the hon. Gentleman and me is that I recognise that there is a problem and, unlike him, I am willing to put the Government's money into solving the problem by ensuring that local government has the necessary resources to safeguard capacity in the care home sector. Opposition Members often fail to recognise that although care homes are important, they are not the be all and end all for older people. We need to ensure that the 43,000 increase in the number of older people who can live in their own home, which is a result of the increase in intensive home care packages, continues to grow in the coming years. We must continue to develop opportunities for extra care housing and must ensure that additional community equipment is in place to allow older people a genuine choice. That is what we are committed to. Both reform and investment are required. I will not take the hon. Gentleman's crocodile tears seriously until he is willing to vote the investment to make a difference for older people.
  Mr. Paul Burstow: Does the Minister not accept that the issue is not only safeguarding capacity, but adding capacity? The 90 per cent. figure that she quoted is, as she rightly says, a national figure, but care homes are not a national service. We do not put older people on buses going from one part of the country to another to find spare places for them. Will she tell us what the Government are doing

  155WH
  not only to safeguard capacity, but to add to it and specifically to deal with the chronic shortage of care for people with dementia, for whom the loss of places has become critical?
  Jacqui Smith: The hon. Gentleman makes a point that I dealt with in my previous response. Care home capacity is not spread equally across the country. That is why, along with the additional investment, we must allow local authorities to make the right decisions about the balance of placements in their areas. He is also right that we have a particular challenge in providing for mentally ill elderly people. The additional investment going to local authorities has enabled a third of them to increase fees by more than 10 per cent., often for such specialised provision. That is an important way in which we ensure that we safeguard such provision. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Pensions made it clear last summer that the number of supported residents in residential care homes has increased over the past year. Our planning assumption is that local authorities will have the resources to increase the number of care home places that they commission from the independent sector over the next three years.

  Post Office Card Accounts
  Sue Doughty: What arrangements have the Government made to promote the take-up of Post Office card accounts among people of pensionable age.[104454]
  The Minister for Pensions(Mr. Ian McCartney): The move to direct payment provides a more secure and efficient method of payment that will make life easier for people. It will also help to prevent crime and fraud. More and more people are already choosing to be paid in this way, and of every 10 new pensioners six do so without prompting. People have more choice: they can use a range of bank or building society accounts at their post office as well as the new Post Office card account. They will not have to carry large amounts of cash, and they will have more choice and flexibility about how much they withdraw and where they withdraw it. They will be able to choose the account that best suits their needs. We will write directly to all pensioners affected by the change, sending them the information that they need to decide which account option is best for them.
  Huge numbers are involved, which means phasing in any changes over two years. People do not need to do anything until we have contacted them. In the meantime, we have set up a dedicated helpline so that people can phone if they have questions about the change. The number is 0800 107 2000—just in case someone was going to ask. We are also running an information campaign to support mailings to customers; it will explain the change and the choices that people have. It will include press, radio and television advertising. Press advertising started on 24 March.
  Sue Doughty: I thank the Minister for his answer, but I am concerned that people are getting the information late and that it takes time for older people to fill in forms to get the changes made. How does he expect to deal with claimants who do not want a bank account or who cannot run a bank account? They will have real difficulty filling in forms to withdraw cash using the Post Office
  156WH
  card account, but they still want to go to their local post office and withdraw cash—that is the service that they expect to receive.
  Mr. McCartney: I thank the hon. Lady for her question and for the manner in which she put it. All of us are acutely aware of the need to be sensitive when introducing change, particularly if that change affects older people. We must ensure that changes are made in co-operation with older people's organisations. The change must also be beneficial to the older people that it affects.
  Some 90 per cent. of all pensioners currently have access to a bank or building society account. If we did nothing over 10 years, post offices up and down the country, including those in the hon. Lady's constituency, would have very few pensioners as customers, let alone others. People are choosing to take their income from sources other than post offices because other sources give a better choice. That is why we are investing more than £1 billion in a programme that will provide a platform for additional services to older people and other customers, which will transform the Post Office over the next few years. If we did not make those changes, we would ensure that a major national network slowly bled to death.
  I shall send the hon. Lady and other hon. Members a detailed note to keep them in contact with the changes as they are phased in. I want to ensure that all hon. Members have access to the Department for Work and Pensions and to the Post Office. There must be an open process, and we shall deal directly with any problems that hon. Members raise during the transformation period, whether they are connected with the service in general or with specific aspects of the Post Office. If we are serious about maintaining the Post Office network, it is in all our interests to install the system sensitively.
  Older people have voted with their feet in the pilots: they have appreciated the opportunity to continue banking with the Post Office for cash and used their building society accounts—with Nationwide, or, indeed, the new Post Office account. I am certain that we shall deal with the matter as sensitively as we can over the next few years to ensure that the needs of older people are met effectively.

  Health Service Ombudsman
  Mr. David Heath: When the Government will issue fresh continuing care guidance arising from the health service ombudsman report.[104457]
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Jacqui Smith): On 27 February, we reiterated to strategic health authorities that they should report whether the continuing care criteria in use since 1996 are consistent with the Coughlan judgment, and if not, when that was identified and what action was taken. We asked for an estimate of the number of people who might have been wrongly assessed and reiterated to strategic health authorities that they should agree one set of criteria across their area. We expect the results of those considerations to be reported back to the Department of

  157WH
  Health by the end of March. We shall review the existing guidance carefully and consider whether any further action is necessary once that process is complete.
  Mr. Heath: It is important that transparent and consistent criteria are applied across the country. Tomorrow is the closing date for strategic health authorities to report back on their reviews of the criteria and the number of people who are likely to be affected. Will the Minister give an assurance that the Department will publish that information, and that an early assessment will be made of the total financial implications? If those implications are significant, how will they be met? Is contingency funding available to the strategic health authorities?
  Jacqui Smith: The hon. Gentleman is right that we need first to assess those results and then, as we have said previously, to ensure that strategic health authorities have criteria that cover the whole of their area to ensure greater consistency. On the whole, the guidance that we have issued has ensured that in most areas health bodies have carried out the assessments in line with the legislation. In the light of the urgent action that we took after the issue of the health ombudsman's report, we must carefully consider how to ensure that older people are confident that their needs are properly assessed and that they receive the appropriate support for those needs, whether that is through continuing NHS health care, a contribution to nursing care, or a means-tested contribution elsewhere.
  Mr. Mark Francois: I am sure that the Minister appreciates that the health service ombudsman's ability to deal with any issue is partly conditioned by the resources at her disposal. As complaints about the NHS increase and more cases are referred to the HSO, it is taking longer to get an adjudication. What are the Government doing to increase the resources available to the HSO, so that people who complain about something materially important to them get a quicker and more effective determination?
  Jacqui Smith: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman considers it important that the health service ombudsman's considerations are separate from Ministers' decisions.
  Mr. Francois: New resources?
  Jacqui Smith: Well, I do not want to end Question Time on a discordant note, but for Opposition Members to call for more resources at the same time as they propose—[Interruption.] Well, even on the basis of a generous analysis of the proposals, which are about bureaucracy, I am not quite sure where the hon. Gentleman would find the money to resource the NHS or any complaints process related to it. However, I can assure him that the new bodies that we are setting up and
  158WH
  the new legislation that we recently introduced will ensure that patients have the opportunity to voice their concerns about the health service and to have their views properly represented. We will ensure that all the relevant structures—from the complaints process up to the health service ombudsman—are appropriately resourced.
  Mr. Paul Burstow: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your advice on the procedure for notifying Members of cross-cutting Question Times. Only 17 Members submitted questions for the session that we have just concluded, hence the large number of Liberal Democrat colleagues whose names appeared on the Order Paper. Could steps be taken to ensure that more Members table questions for cross-cutting Questions Times?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: A memorandum is published in the Order Paper, and notice of these events should be given at business questions. I hope that Members will get used to the idea and know what to do.
  Mr. Tim Boswell: On a separate point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will have noticed that our most intense exchange was about community pharmacies. By way of setting a marker for further consideration in what is an experimental process, may I ask that the House authorities ensure that the distribution of Ministers assigned to respond is coincident with the questions asked? It would have been extremely helpful to everyone had a DTI Minister been here alongside his Department of Health colleague to respond to questions about community pharmacies. Instead, we had the not inelegant spectacle of a Minister of State at the Department for Education and Skills, the hon. Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge), having to answer not a specific question, but one of only general concern to her. None the less, we had no DTI Minister. It was a little like "Hamlet" without the prince.
  Mr. Mark Francois: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I humbly suggest that even Health Ministers might appreciate a DTI Minister being here the next time we have questions about community pharmacies?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sure that Ministers are grateful for that helpful suggestion.
  As I said at the beginning, we are still at a very experimental stage with the present procedure. Hon. Members may need to think about the questions that they table, because they will be slightly different from those that they would table for a single-Department answer in the House.
  As I said, I am very willing to receive ideas and suggestions, and I am quite sure that Ministers are listening. Indeed, the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office, listened to a great part of this cross-cutting Question Time and to the previous one as well. We will perhaps find our way through to a system that makes the most of the idea.

Strategic Export Controls
[Relevant documents: First Joint Report from the Defence, Foreign Affairs, International Development and Trade and Industry Committees, Session 2001–02, HC 718, and the Government's response thereto, Cm 5629; and the Minutes of Evidence from the Defence, Foreign Affairs, International Development and Trade and Industry Committees, 27th February 2003, HC 474-i.]
Motion made and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Charlotte Atkins.]
4.14 pm
Mr. Roger Berry: It is a pleasure to introduce the report on strategic export controls. It was produced by the Select Committees on Defence, Foreign Affairs, International Development and Trade and Industry, which together are commonly known as the Quadripartite Committee. I thank my colleagues for their efforts in producing yet another unanimous report. Indeed, given that the Quadripartite Committee consists of four Committees, we did rather better than that and simultaneously produced four unanimous reports, and I am grateful to my colleagues for their contributions to that process. I should also like to place on record my thanks to our Clerks, whose skilful drafting of the reports has been instrumental in ensuring our success.
The need to control arms exports has never been greater. When a country is engaged in war, it is not out of idle curiosity that people ask, "Who armed our enemies and why?" When a country is faced with terrorism and the threat of terrorism, it is especially important that we know where our arms exports are going and why, to ensure that they do not fall into the hands of terrorists. The issues analysed in the report and the Government's response thereto are extremely important at the present time.
I shall start by echoing one of the report's opening comments and congratulate the Government on the real progress that has been made in recent years. That progress includes the development of the consolidated criteria, the Landmines Act 1998, the ban on the export of torture equipment, annual reports and greater transparency and, the Export Control Act 2002. The Government have taken many steps to bring our arms export control regime up to date, to make it transparent and to make Government accountable. As the Quadripartite Committee acknowledged, and as I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister would accept, I have spent a considerable amount of time recognising that throughout the country.
The Committee and I pay tribute to the Government for the progress that has been made but, as is inevitable in debating the report, I suspect that all right hon. and hon. Members will want to focus on those areas of Government policy on which they want greater clarity or on which they are in substantive agreement. The report identifies several concerns that I want briefly to mention. They include how the war on terror has affected the licensing regime; end-use monitoring and the policy on the monitoring of arms exports after they have been delivered; policy on the export of military components and the incorporation issue; the Export Control Act 2002 and the issues arising therefrom, particularly arms brokering and trafficking; how
160WH
regional tensions have affected exports to India and Pakistan; the account taken of sustainable development when licensing exports, particularly in the context of the export not long ago of the military air traffic control system to Tanzania; and the proposals for prior parliamentary scrutiny of export licences—an issue that exercised our Committee for some time.
Before I come to those issues, I want to comment on three others that deserve brief mention. The first relates to the information made available in the annual report not only to the Quadripartite Committee but to the public. There is a continuing dialogue between the Committee and the Government about the importance of ensuring that we can access the information that we require to fulfil our job of scrutiny. We do not wish to impose undue burdens on Government Departments but the fact is that, however valuable the information in the annual reports may be, it raises more questions than answers, and it is inevitable that the Quadripartite Committee will need to seek further clarification if it is to do its job properly.
Secondly, there is a fair amount of potentially sensitive information relating to arms export policy that it would be desirable to make available to the public in an appropriate form. I am sure that the Government share the Committee's view that we should provide the fullest possible information, so that people know what decisions have been made and why.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mike O'Brien): I am sure that my hon. Friend would agree with me that what is important is to have effective export controls. It is key, therefore, that the officials working on that should be able to concentrate on that job. It is important to respond to parliamentary scrutiny. It is also important that those who are scrutinising recognise that the same officials will reply to the extremely large number of questions asked. It is right that we should answer them, but it is also right that the officials should ensure that the control mechanism is effective.
Mr. Berry: Of course it is important that the officials with responsibility for running the export control regime have the resources to do so. It is also essential that the Quadripartite Committee has no difficulty in securing answers to questions when it seeks once a year to clarify issues in the Government's annual report. The Clerk of the Committee and I spent a considerable time examining answers to supplementary questions. Without the necessary expertise, it was often difficult for me to know what a particular piece of equipment was designed to do or who Mr. Bloggs in Iran was. It is inevitable that the Committee will require full and speedy answers. I am sure that I could suggest to my hon. Friend on another occasion how resources in the civil service might be deployed in relation to the arms export business, but the Committee must have prompt replies to questions.
I welcome the Government's commitment to give our Committee time to consider the draft secondary legislation to the Export Control Act next Thursday, when we will take evidence from the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the Defence Manufacturers Association and the UK working group on arms, which, as many hon. Members will know, includes

161WH
organisations such as Saferworld, Amnesty International and Oxfam. The Committee is grateful to all those organisations for their serious interest in our work and the significant contributions that they have made to our deliberations.
Mr. David Drew: I presume that next week the Committee will consider the subordinate legislation to the Export Control Act with specific regard to small arms. If not, will my hon. Friend say when it might consider it? He mentioned Saferworld, which always highlights the issue of small arms. I am especially interested in issues relating to the re-export of small arms, which may have come through Britain as an intermediary country on the way to somewhere else.
Mr. Berry: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention. We will certainly consider the draft subordinate legislation, which includes references to brokering to which I believe he is alluding. I shall comment on that later.
I was about to make a point about the administration of the licensing process. The Committee has consistently pressed the Government to improve the processing of licensing applications. We need a speedy system. It can be irritating not to receive a speedy reply, and it imposes a burden on business. The Government have undertaken a review, and I would appreciate any comments that the Minister may like to make about it.
There are substantive issues, including the war on terror. The Government told the Committee that the consolidated criteria do not need to change to deal effectively with terrorism. However, the report highlights two specific issues that are difficult to handle but that need to be addressed. The first issue is the balance that we strike between security concerns and human rights concerns when we consider the export of arms to countries that use them to engage in conflict with their own domestic sources of terrorism. The gift of assault rifles and helicopters to Nepal is a recent example. The Committee commented that it is legitimate for another Government to use force within its borders to achieve security and to defeat terrorism. We must, however, remain alert to the threat of violations of human rights. Great vigilance is required to ensure that appropriate balance. The Nepalese armed forces have a legitimate need for weapons because they are engaged in a struggle against terrorism, but they do not have a spotless record on respect for human rights, and that issue must be addressed. There is also the question of whether money from the conflict prevention pools should be used for helicopter equipment, as was the case in Nepal.
There are real concerns, outside and inside the House, that the Government may be relaxing export controls to some countries that are perceived to be "on side" in the war against terror, even when those countries have poor human rights records. We can probably all think of examples. The Committee may wish to examine that matter further when we consider our report on the 2001 annual report, but I would appreciate the Minister's comments on those concerns.
The second issue in relation to the war on terror is obvious. We must do everything possible to deny arms to terrorists and proliferators. That concerns not only
162WH
weapons, but dual-use goods that could be used by terrorists, and must be a key priority for our arms export control regime. In evidence to the Committee four weeks ago today, the Government said that the
"controls are pretty robust as they stand. To give you a figure, of all the export licence refusals that we issued last year, 50 per cent. were because of WMD"—
weapons of mass destruction—
"concerns."
I welcome that, and would like to place on record that we applaud the efforts of those responsible for operating our export control regime. It is a difficult and time-consuming task, as we have been reminded. However, I repeat the obvious point that, at a time when we are faced with the threat of terrorism, we need rigorous and comprehensive arms export controls.
Granting a licence is one thing, but the end use may be another. After a licence has been granted, how do we ensure that the actual end use is that for which approval was given? What is our policy on end-use monitoring? In our report, we expressed the view that the Government should consider producing clear guidelines for the circumstances under which end-use monitoring should be undertaken. On a number of occasions, the Government's response has been that the surest way of preventing diversion or misuse of defence exports is to examine the risks carefully when assessing the export licence application, and to refuse such an application when those risks are unacceptable.
That is the best way to do it if there is full and perfect information. If the information received when the decision on the licence application is to be made is accurate, it is self-evident that the decision can be made at that point, and the end-use monitoring issue disappears. However, if that information is incomplete or inaccurate, how do we ensure that the purpose for which an arms export was licensed is the purpose to which it is put? I suggest that the Government's policy on end-use monitoring in those circumstances is unclear. That may be illustrated by the case of military equipment exported to Israel; the example is well known and I will be brief in making the point.
In February 2002, during the passage of the Export Control Bill in the other place, the Government, in relation to the end use of equipment exported to Israel, said:
"We have no evidence that equipment or components manufactured in the UK and licensed for export were used … in the occupied territories during the recent violence."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 7 February 2002; Vol. 631, c. 834.]
That statement was made because the Government, quite rightly, had secured a written assurance from the Israeli Government that
"no UK originated equipment nor any UK originated systems/ sub-systems/components are used as part of the ߪ Defence Force's activities in the Territories".
The Government had sought the assurance that arms exports to Israel, which are not banned, took place on condition that they were not used in the occupied territories. Therefore, as of February 2002, the Government were saying that there was no evidence of any violation of that agreement.
In March 2002, in a written answer in the other place Baroness Amos stated:

163WH
"British Embassy staff in Tel Aviv do not undertake physical checks on the end-use of UK licensed equipment, components and spare parts supplied by the UK to Israel. They do not have the resources to do so. In addition, many UK defence exports in recent years have been components or pieces of technology embedded in other systems and therefore not very visible."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 7 March 2002; Vol. 632, c. WA31.]
I will come to incorporation in a moment. A week later the then Foreign Office Minister, the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office stated:
"New information has, however, come to light that UK supplied equipment licensed for export under a previous Administration and a different export control regime is being used by the Israelis in the Occupied Territories.—"[Official Report, 11 March 2002; Vol. 381, c. 689W.]
Those were the British Centurion tanks that had been exported a long time ago and were observed being used in the occupied territories.
Since then there have been different versions about how that information came to light and how it was that modified British Centurion tanks were being used in the occupied territories. Initially we were led to believe that it came to light by chance. Four weeks ago our Committee was told that:
"the Israel case was a particular one where we had received certain assurances from the Israeli government that British equipment would not be used in the Occupied Territories. We obviously then made an effort to ensure those assurances were being met and our attachés in Israel, at considerable personal risk in some cases, did make tours in the Occupied Territories with this in mind."
I then asked:
"This discovery by the Military Attaché was not just ߪ accidental ߪ was it?"
The reply was:
"No, it was part of his task."
That appears to contradict Baroness Amos's statement last year that British embassy staff do not undertake physical checks. I am now rather confused about the Government's policy on end-use monitoring.
Mr. O'Brien: I do not think that there is any great confusion about what happened. The defence attachés and other embassy and consulate staff make tours of the west bank. One of their objectives is to ensure, in so far as they can, that no equipment is used in breach of any undertakings. As my hon. Friend will know, these chassis, which ended up as troop carriers, were adaptations from 1940s and 1950s exports from the then British Government to Israel. They were subsequently changed on a number of occasions into troop carriers. That was spotted by an alert defence attache. One of his jobs is to keep an eye on those issues. I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I am taking a little too long here. I will be brief. It is not his job to do that exclusively, but it is among a number of tasks that those who do these tours undertake.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. John McWilliam): I thank the Minister for his courtesy in apologising. However, interventions should be short.
Mr. Berry: The fact is that on one occasion last year we were told that this activity does not take place because there are not the resources to do it. It is not a question of whether someone does it full time or not. More recently we were told that this is a more explicit
164WH
responsibility. I simply make the point that some of us at least believe that that case demonstrates that there is some confusion in the Government's policy on end-use monitoring, or that it is rather ad hoc.
Why have the Government not considered the American system, the blue lantern approach, where careful attention is paid to the end use of arms exports? We need a more robust system of end-use monitoring, particularly when there are growing concerns about diversion. If blue lantern is good enough for the United States, will the Minister tell us why it is not good enough for us?
The problem of end use is complicated by that of incorporation. Many of the exports listed in the annual reports are not complete weapons or weapon systems. In fact, most of them are components, which is one reason why it can be difficult to understand exactly what is going to whom and why. Most of the licences detailed in the annual reports are issued for components, which are covered by the consolidated criteria-there is no question about that. On 8 July last year, the Foreign Secretary announced in a written answer that new guidelines would be taken into account alongside the existing consolidated criteria for
"licence applications for goods where it is understood that the goods are to be incorporated into products for onward export"—[Official Report, 8 July 2002; Vol. 388, c. 653W.]
The effect of that is to hand control of re-export to the incorporating state when the Government are satisfied with its export control regime.
It seems clear that the guidelines were precipitated by an export licence application for the export of head-up display units to the United States for incorporation in F-16 aircraft for subsequent export to Israel. Our Committee regretted that the guidelines were announced in a written answer, because if the Foreign Secretary had made an oral statement on the Floor of the House, he could have been questioned and challenged. More substantively, when giving evidence to our Committee four weeks ago, he said that he had taken into account
"the export control systems of the incorporating country, which in this case is the United States, whose system is a very effective one".
The Government have often prayed in aid a statement by the Committee in support of the sentiment that the United States has an effective export control regime, and, indeed, a previous Committee report said precisely that. However, I must make the obvious point that although the USA's export control regime may be effective, it is the USA's export policy that matters, particularly with regard to arms sales to Israel, for the simple reason that it has a different policy from the United Kingdom. In our report, we say that
"the comments of our predecessors on the effectiveness of the US system of export controls should not have been called in aid to justify the decision of Ministers in relation to policy on the export of aircraft components to Israel via the USA."
I have made that point on several occasions, but I am afraid that the Government have misunderstood our Committee's view. I hope that that now puts the matter to rest.
The substantive point is that I have no doubt that if an application had been made for a licence to export head-up displays directly to Israel, it would not have been granted without an assurance that they were not to

165WH
be used in military equipment to be deployed in the occupied territories. In fact, I do not think that it would have been granted at all, because the Government do not regard a previous Israeli Government undertaking as valid after the experience with the Centurion tanks. It is perverse that the Government would have turned down licences for export to Israel, but because the United States has a less stringent policy, there is nothing to prevent that component being used in Israel for any purpose. That point was not made explicit in the guidelines, and it is not clear to me that it is justified in terms of arms export control policy because, politically, it will put the Government in a curious position. Exporting the head-up display units to the United States of America gives a greater chance that they could be used in aircraft in the occupied territories. Perversely, under these guidelines, the Government appear to be licensing the export of military components even though the final destination is Israel where they are more likely to be used in the occupied territories. I do not believe that they would have granted the licence if the export had been direct.
Ironically, under US law, recipients of controlled goods—weapons or components—must seek the permission of the United States before re-export. Why should we not apply the same control? Does not the Government's arms export control policy seek to control the end use of components as well as of complete weapons systems?
It is clear, not least from the evidence that we took four weeks ago, that different EU countries have different policies on incorporation. Will the Minister comment on the steps that the Government are taking to try to secure common agreement on the application of EU criteria in these cases?
Any policies that are adopted in relation to end-use monitoring and incorporation are of limited value if they can be easily avoided and, at present, arms brokers are able to do just that. That is why many of the arms that are used by terrorist and criminal groups in the world's conflict zones are provided by arms brokers.
The report that is before us refers to the Export Control Bill, which became an Act in 2002, and I am delighted that section 4 of that Act gives the Government the power to impose controls on trafficking and brokering by UK citizens located anywhere in the world. That is long overdue. However, the Government have said that it is their intention to introduce those extraterritorial controls only for trade in long-range missiles and torture equipment—which, thankfully, is banned in any case—and to destinations subject to embargo. The Government do not intend at present to control trafficking and brokering in small arms by UK nationals located outside the UK—that is my understanding of the situation, but I would be grateful for clarification on it if I am wrong. I regret that, and I said so at the time of the debate on the Export Control Bill.
I remind the Government of their 2001 election manifesto commitment to control British arms dealers wherever they are located. This is a serious loophole in the Government's plans to regulate arms exports. Their view seems to be that to close it would be unfair because the arms dealer cannot be expected to know that he or
166WH
she has to get a licence or, perhaps, because it is unenforceable. I am not a lawyer, but I did not think that ignorance of the law was a defence. There must be a number of laws on the statute book that are difficult to enforce, but that is no excuse for not trying.
The Government are also inconsistent on the issue of extraterritoriality. There are many examples of that, but I shall offer only one: under section 109 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, bribery is a criminal offence in UK law when it is committed anywhere in the world by a UK citizen or company. Why is bribery a more self-evidently criminal act than arms dealing without a licence? Unlike bribery, trafficking and brokering cause deaths, so why are the Government committed—I believe rightly—to criminalising bribery carried out overseas, but not trafficking and brokering?
Mr. Barry Gardiner: Is my hon. Friend aware of chapter 2.14, under the section on penalties and enforcement, of the consultation document on draft orders under the Export Control Act 2002? It states that
"the Government believes that ignorance of the law should not exempt an offender from the possibility of receiving a custodial sentence for engaging in behaviour which any unreasonable person could be expected to know would constitute an offence".
Mr. Berry: My hon. Friend makes an important point, which strengthens the arguments of those of us—and he is one—who want the loophole to be closed.
Will the Minister confirm that other European countries are introducing full extraterritorial powers; that Finland and Poland have already done so; and that such powers are under consideration in Belgium and—dare I say it—France? We should be looking to our colleagues elsewhere.
Dr. Vincent Cable: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Government have already accepted the principle of full extraterritoriality in other areas, such as that of female genital mutilation, which is very much to the Government's credit? It raises the question, however, of why that principle is not being applied elsewhere.
Mr. Berry: The fact is that an arms broker who is a UK citizen can hop on the Eurostar to Lille and do the deal, and that would not be covered by the Government's plans. That is silly, as hopping on the Eurostar is not difficult. I have described my personal views on arms brokering, but the Select Committee will consider the issue when it examines the draft secondary legislation.
I shall move on because I am conscious of the time and the fact that several hon. Members want to speak. On India and Pakistan, criterion 4 of the consolidated criteria allows an export licence to be refused
"if there is a clear risk that the intended recipient would use the proposed export aggressively against another country or to assert by force a territorial claim".
The Committee has been concerned by the Government's arms export policy response to the varying tensions between India and Pakistan, including the recent and serious tensions over Kashmir, not least because both nations are nuclear powers. We have

167WH
examined information on the licensing decisions in relation to India and Pakistan in 2000, 2001 and early 2002. More recently, we have considered the proposed sale of Hawk aircraft to India, and have been keeping an eye on measures by the Government to prevent the export of equipment that might be used in either country's nuclear arms programmes. Those are the two key issues.
The Committee felt that if the situation in India and Pakistan in the spring of last year did not fully engage criterion 4—hon. Members will recall that that was a time of high tension between the two countries—it would be difficult to conceive of circumstances that would, short of all-out war. These two nuclear powers primarily have a dispute over Kashmir. If that, combined with a time of high tension, does not require careful consideration of the risk of arms exports being used aggressively to assert by force a territorial claim, I do not know when such a concern would be prompted.
I should like to make one more remark about arms exports to India and Pakistan in relation to Hawk aircraft. When the Foreign Secretary gave evidence to the Select Committee last month, he responded to the suggestion that senior members of the Government had been lobbying the Indian Government to buy Hawks by saying:
"Would either the Prime Minister or I have been urging on the Government of India the merits of Hawk, if we believed that the sale of Hawk would be contrary to the criteria? No, of course we would not."
That raises the question whether the Government should be promoting the sale of military equipment with a potential for aggressive use to either India or Pakistan while tensions over Kashmir continue, and whether a Minister who has been involved in promoting an arms sale can avoid pre-empting the objective judgment that must be reached when assessing an export licence application. Was the Foreign Secretary speaking for all four Secretaries of State? Has the decision already been made?
Criterion 8 deals with sustainable development criteria and suggests that the Government would refuse a licence if the equipment for which it is sought has the potential seriously to undermine sustainable development in the recipient country or seriously to undermine its economy. No licence has ever been refused on criterion 8 grounds, although that does not prove anything in itself. However, the controversy over criterion 8 blew up in autumn 2001 in relation to the application for a licence for the export of a military air traffic control system to Tanzania.
There was a substantial body of opinion at the time—there still is—in the World Bank and the International Civil Aviation Organisation, that the air traffic control system did not best meet Tanzania's needs. Nevertheless, the licences were granted. Criterion 8 has never been used in this country as a reason for refusing an export licence, so it is impossible to assess the threshold for invoking it. If it does not bite in the case of Tanzania, when would it bite? In a written answer published in September last year, the Government gave some clarification of how they apply the sustainable development criterion. However, when we questioned the Government in Committee it emerged that
"no number or combination of indicators, or their degree, will pre determine the judgement in a particular case".
168WH
If that means that we do not pre-determine anything, I agree with that. We need clarification from the Minister of what "number" and "combination of indicators" mean. Precisely how does the new guidance help those who are applying for export licences and those, like ourselves, who seek to scrutinise Government policy?
Mr. Drew: Does my hon. Friend accept that part of the problem is that it is difficult to consider a licence for a country, whatever its merits, in isolation from the countries surrounding it. In the case of Tanzania, Sudan, Somalia and Ethiopia will each have a view.
Mr. Berry: The more important consideration is how you deal with such issues when they have a cumulative effect. With the sustainable development criterion, having one licence application in which you consider the implications for sustainable development is one thing, but there are problems when you get a second, third, fourth or fifth. The cumulative impact on an individual country is the more serious problem, rather than what neighbouring countries might think.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman used the phrase "cumulative effect", which leads me to draw to his attention the fact that, when he uses the word "you", he refers to me, and I have done none of the things that he accuses me of doing.
Mr. Berry: You certainly have not, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I apologise unreservedly for not choosing my words carefully.
I am sure that other hon. Members will wish to comment on prior scrutiny. As the Minister will know, the Quadripartite Committee has consistently recommended that it should have a role in the scrutiny of a small number of contentious export licences before decisions are made by the Government. The reason for that is straightforward. Arms licensing decisions and weapons being exported to other parts of the world are sensitive issues, but except in a few extreme circumstances, decisions are usually irreversible.
The hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) is not in this Chamber this afternoon. Members of the Select Committee on International Development are away and I am sorry that the timing of today's debate is such that they have not been able to participate. She tabled an early-day motion, which was signed by 311 hon. Members from all sides of the House, calling for the
"prior scrutiny by a committee comprising honourable Members of Parliament."
Mr. Alan Duncan: Both sides of the House.
Mr. Berry: I know that some Liberal Democrat, Plaid Cymru and Scottish National party Members signed it. I assumed that certain Conservatives had signed it, but I suspect that a contribution later this afternoon will demonstrate that they did not. It is remarkable that 311 hon. Members signed that early-day motion.
The issue was discussed during the passage of the Export Control Bill. A proposal by Lord Campbell-Savours, which was not supported by the Quadripartite

169WH
Committee, was considered during the debate in the other place, at which time the Government made it clear that they would look at it.
I emphasise that the Committee is not asking for a role in decision making: that is a job for the Executive. We are asking for an opportunity to comment on a few sensitive issues before decisions are made. We are not asking for the licensing process to be held up; we have put forward detailed proposals, of which the Minister will be aware, to avoid that happening. Confidentiality is, perhaps, the nub of the Government's concerns about what we are saying. However, our Committee has handled, and handles on a regular basis, confidential information without any problems arising. It is a shame that the Committee and the Government have been unable to reach agreement on prior parliamentary scrutiny. I hope that we may yet get agreement.
I apologise for speaking for too long. I conclude by saying that there are few more important areas of foreign policy than decisions about whether or not to export arms to a country. The Government have made a significant and brave start to getting arms export controls under some kind of control with a clear, transparent set of policy objectives. However, many concerns remain, and I have only been able to comment on some of them this afternoon. I hope that this and other debates will persuade the Government that significant progress can still be made to ensure, above all, that, at a time when we are rightly concerned about war and terrorism, our arms export control regime works, that it is effective and that it is comprehensive.
4.58 pm
Mr. Andrew Lansley: I am conscious that other hon. Members want to speak, so I shall avoid reiterating what the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) said on behalf of almost all Committee members, although I depart from him on various points.
It is clear from current events in Iraq that the Government and the international community attach importance to the avoidance of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Weapons in the wrong hands are a matter of considerable concern to the Government. From my own observation, important efforts are made to support that view through the export control and licensing process, and in the House through the scrutiny process. Much has been done in recent years to make that process more effective. I put on record my appreciation of the work that has been and is continuing to be done in that respect.
Leaving aside issues of international importance relating to weapons of mass destruction, the present conflict offers opportunities to assess the extent to which Iraq has been the recipient of weapons of many descriptions, about which there has been speculation. It will perhaps enable the international community to assess how effective end-use monitoring has been in other countries. I flag that up as an important matter to which we should return. I am sure that the Government intend to assess how many weapons have reached Iraq and where they have come from.
The hon. Gentleman raised the matter of incorporation, which the Committee considered in the light of head-up displays in relation to F-16 jets. I had
170WH
more concerns about the issue after the Foreign Secretary gave oral evidence a few weeks ago than I had before. I had understood, perhaps erroneously, that the purpose of the guidance issued on 8 July was to set out the factors that applied to incorporation, which was a sub-category of exports. It may be my ignorance, but when I looked at it in detail, it immediately became obvious that incorporation is a common feature of exports; such a large proportion of components are being exported that incorporation is widespread.
There may be a sub-category of components; for example, the Committee was told that in at least one European country, if the value of the components for incorporation is less than 20 per cent. of the value of the final product, the box is ticked and they do not get the subsequent export control scrutiny that they should. That is not the way in which the British Government do such things. However, if all components that are to be incorporated into a final product are to be treated as a category, I suspect that that applies to a large number of exports.
The question, therefore, is what did the guidance issued last year achieve? I suspect that it was set out because the Government were not confident that the consolidated criteria had been applied in respect of a particular export and they needed some additional criteria in order to justify it. The terminology of the consolidated criteria and the guidance applied to incorporation made it clear to me. Criterion 5 of the consolidated criteria was a reference to the defence and security interests—of the United Kingdom, in our Case—and that was converted in the incorporation into the defence and security relationship with the incorporating country. In subsequent questions, the Foreign Secretary made it clear that the relationship between BAE Systems and the United States defence industry is a significant part of that matter.
A balance must always be struck between the defence and security interests of the United Kingdom and our strategic industrial interests in respect of arms and defence manufacture. I understood that they were intended to be reflected in the consolidated criteria anyway, but to be circumscribed. I am concerned that different terminology on incorporation seems to have been applied specifically to justify exports to America for incorporation.
If that is not the case, I do not understand why the terminology has changed. If it is the case, we must understand that a very particular relationship with the United States defence industry is being protected by the way in which we are expressing the criteria. Perhaps that is a distinct relationship, different from others. However, if so, we should put additional effort into trying to understand all the circumstances in which we are exporting for incorporation into American defence equipment. We must understand the basis on which, as the hon. Gentleman made clear, the policy is to be applied, and make that a substantive part of the negotiations that we have with the United States on the international traffic in armaments regulations. The policy should apply as much to exports from the Americans to us as to those from us to them. There would then be, in effect, a bilateral understanding of the policy and we would know where the United Kingdom could draw lines—there are clearly lines that we wish to draw, beyond which we would not want our defence

171WH
manufacturers to export. The Americans should respect that, just as we, under the international traffic in armaments regulations, are expected to adhere to the American end-use controls.
I have a point on small arms brokers. A dozen of my constituents have raised that matter with me during the past few days, and we can return to it when we examine the statutory instruments to be made under the Export Control Act 2002. However, I take issue slightly with other hon. Members who have raised the matter. There is a difference, in policy and practice, between seeking the extraterritorial application of UK laws to other countries to support understood, internationally agreed standards—whether United Nations sanctions, UN arms embargoes or internationally understood restrictions on the export of long-range missiles—and seeking the extraterritorial application of UK laws in ways that would not be in line with the law and practice of the countries concerned.
Mr. Gardiner: I have listened to hon. Gentleman carefully. Does he think that the same should apply in countries where the age of consent for sexual conjunction is lower or where the practice of the country allows what we call female genital mutilation? Under the logic of his argument, extraterritoriality would not apply there either.
Mr. Lansley: The logic of my argument is that we need to understand different cases very carefully. I must confess that I was not present in the House when the private Member's Bill on female genital mutilation was discussed last Friday. If we are dealing with matters over which there are internationally agreed standards, the logic of my argument applies to them too, but I do not want to get drawn at length into an argument on a subject with which I am less familiar. My point is that if we start applying extraterritorial jurisdiction in this matter, we should remember that there is a substantial difference between doing that in ways that differ from the laws of the host country and doing it in ways that differ from internationally agreed standards or internationally applied legislation.
Mr. Gardiner: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for kindly giving way a second time. Does he agree that the extraterritoriality that we have introduced in this country to cover British citizens going abroad to engage in paedophilia in countries where there may not be laws prohibiting such action is absolutely right? Is not the key factor that that applies to British citizens going abroad to do something that would be proscribed in this country under UK law?
Mr. Lansley: We have to be very careful here, and I shall not go on at great length. The logic of the hon. Gentleman's argument is that UK citizens should, in any country in the world, be able to do only what they can do legally in the UK. I can remember many instances when I fought against the United States' desire for extraterritorial application of its laws, for example in relation to corporations, or—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) says tax, and actually that is my recollection. If we go too far down that path, we will be in the absurd situation of seeking to apply our laws in countries across
172WH
the world, even when they are directly contrary to the laws of that country and cannot be enforced effectively. That would be unsatisfactory.
The Government may be wrong to draw the line where they have done, but they are trying to arrive at a practical point on the issue of enforcement between my argument and that of the hon. Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner).
Mr. O'Brien: Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman with his argument. I do not think that the example of paedophilia and female genital mutilation is the right one. I do not know of any country that encourages female genital mutilation or paedophilia. However, a country might encourage the sale of arms and other things to another country, and a British person in that country might find that they fell foul of a law relating to something that was encouraged in that country. The comparison with female genital mutilation and paedophilia is entirely bogus, because clearly those are things that almost every country—or certainly any civilised country—would seek to discourage. However, that is not always true of the trade in arms.
Mr. Lansley: I am grateful to the Minister for setting the seal on that argument.
I had hoped to talk about the administration of the licensing process, but it seems pointless to do so before the Government have concluded and published the outcome of their review of that process. I hope that, as soon as the Government have completed and published their review, the Minister will encourage us on the direction that our inquiries should take, and the evidence the Committee should hear. Companies in my constituency and businesses across the country still have difficulties with the time it takes to secure licences, particularly where appeals are concerned.
I come to prior parliamentary scrutiny. I shall sit down soon for fear that I take too many interventions on this subject, too. The Committee was not of one mind on the subject—at any rate, two of the Committees that make up the Quadripartite Committee divided on the question of prior parliamentary scrutiny. The matter is not really about whether the Quadripartite Committee can come up with a process that guarantees confidentiality; I am sure that we can. Nor do I think that it is an issue of whether, legally, the Government would expose themselves to the risk of judicial review through inappropriate sub-delegation and the like, because that could reasonably be guarded against. The issue is what is the purpose of a Select Committee?
The purposes of Parliament, as distinct from the Executive, are very well established, and we are seeking to trespass on them. The purpose of Parliament is to set out legislation, and next week we will begin formally to consider some of the statutory instruments; that is where we set out the legislative framework for Government. Every time that Ministers change Government policy, they should tell us and expose themselves to scrutiny on that policy. If there are decisions that give rise to policy issues on which Ministers feel they need to take the advice of the Quadripartite Committee, there is absolutely nothing to constrain Ministers from doing so. If, as a result of that, the policy is changed, they should be under an obligation to tell us. None of that

173WH
should change the fact that such decisions are executive decisions, made by the Government. We have a separate scrutiny role in relation to those decisions, and it is our responsibility to assess whether Ministers have taken those decisions properly.
There is a danger that the Committee might become heavily engaged in trying to interpose our views on policy decisions, but in practice trying to do so in a way that was influencing individual decisions. Tanzania was an example. We came very close to the point of asking questions of Ministers at the time of and in relation to a specific decision, supposing that we were dealing with policy when in fact our purpose was to determine the outcome of a decision.
That is not our role—we must be clear about the distinction. It is the role of Government to make decisions and to be held accountable for them. We can do our jobs effectively as long as we are clear about the distinct responsibilities. If we were to reach a point when the Quadripartite Committee became an adjunct of the export licensing process, not only would we inevitably introduce delay and hazard the efficient working of Departments, we would undermine the subsequent scrutiny process and the distinction between the Committee and the Executive.
5.15 pm
Mr. Barry Gardiner: I congratulate the Quadripartite Committee on its work and my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) on the way in which he introduced the debate.
Last Sunday, the British troops who engaged with Iraqi forces outside Basra discovered Iraqi bunkers that contained an arsenal abandoned by Saddam Hussein's southern army. Many of the cargo crates in that lethal arms depot bore a stamp that said:
"Wallop Defence Systems, a subsidiary of Cobham plc",
which is based in Hampshire, England. Nothing makes our debate more important than that. We are allowing weapons made by British companies and supplied by British arms dealers to kill British troops. Of course, that is not the Government's intention. It is not what the system of export controls is designed to do, but it is the very real effect of the present system, and it must stop.
I commend this Labour Government for the important changes that they have made to the UK's arms export policy. They ratified the Ottawa treaty on land mines and introduced a ban on the export of equipment that is designed for torture. They secured the European code of conduct on arms exports and committed themselves to publishing an annual report on strategic export controls, which is a model of transparency for others to follow.
This Labour Government also included the following words in their election manifesto for the 2001 general election:
"Labour will lead efforts to control the trade in small arms ߪ We will legislate to modernise the regulation of arms exports, with a licensing system to control the activities of arms brokers and traffickers wherever they are located."
The Government's response to this debate and to the present consultation by the Department of Trade and Industry on the draft orders to be made under the
174WH
Export Control Act 2002 will determine whether they keep their manifesto commitment. If they do, we can confidently predict that in future conflicts the chances of British soldiers being killed by British-supplied weapons will be enormously reduced. However, if they capitulate to the business interests of the powerful industrial lobby, we can be certain that more British soldiers will be killed by weapons made and sold illegally and recklessly by their fellow citizens to regimes such as that of Saddam Hussein.
The defence industry is important to this country. It provides many jobs and much-needed income to UK plc. Defence is a legitimate business, and the primary obligation of any state is the protection of its citizens. Therefore, I approach the issue not wishing to close down our defence industry but to ensure that it is properly and comprehensively regulated. As the events of the past week in Iraq have shown, that would not be against the interests of this country. On the contrary, it would act against the interests of our enemies.
I wish to concentrate my remarks on two principal issues: end-use monitoring controls and extraterritorial controls. The diversion of military equipment from authorised countries such as Jordan, Ukraine and Yemen to end users who are clearly not authorised, such as Iraq, is well known and documented. Despite that, the Government profess that existing pre-licence checks are satisfactory and act as a surety against diversion and unauthorised re-export. By contrast, the United States operates a system of post-export checks on end-user countries if it believes that there are grounds for suspicion. In 2000, in the 218 end-user checks that the US conducted, it found that unauthorised diversion or re-export had occurred in 25 per cent. of them.
It is essential that our Government institute a system of end-use controls on exported arms and dual-use equipment. They should explicitly prohibit unauthorised re-export or an unauthorised change in the end use or end user of UK-licensed military equipment. The controls should include a formal end-use monitoring system that gives the Government an absolute right to verify, in the country of the end user, that the relevant undertakings are being implemented and respected.
It may be argued that such a system is cumbersome and disproportionate to the enormous number of export licenses granted by the UK each year. To those who might be tempted by such an argument, I would point out that common sense dictates that end-user checks are carefully targeted at those countries that give rise to the greatest concern. Indeed, the US statistics are significant. Only 218 checks were made out of all its thousands of export licenses. However, 25 per cent. of those checks showed material non-compliance with the conditions. The US operates a flag system to identify contracts in which investigation and follow-up is required, and that is what we should do in the UK.
The Government spend more than £20 million a year promoting the arms industry. I do not begrudge that investment in British industry, but I will not accept a Minister pleading that end-user controls cannot be implemented on the ground of cost. Such controls

175WH
would cost a fraction of that budget to implement and, in the opinion of many British people and soldiers, that would be money much better spent.
Mr. Drew: My hon. Friend makes a point with which I have a great deal of sympathy. I would link it to the comments of the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) about the role of parliamentary scrutiny being seen as intervening on the role of the Executive. There is a precedent for that. The Executive share information with the Intelligence and Security Committee in total confidence. As I understand it, that has always worked and I cannot see why we could not have a similar arrangement in this regard. Would my hon. Friend agree?
Mr. Gardiner: I have not entirely grasped my hon. Friend's point, but I believe that there is sufficient information in the intelligence community for us to be able to focus our end-user controls and checks in such a way that they would not be overly costly or cumbersome and so that they would produce significant results. If that is his point, I entirely agree with him.
The second issue I would like to address is that of extraterritoriality. I welcome the Government's intention to introduce full extraterritorial controls on the sale of weapons of mass destruction. torture equipment and long-range missiles to embargoed destinations. I am deeply concerned that the Government will not introduce controls on British arms brokers operating outside the UK in relation to other armaments from handguns to tanks.
The Government's proposals establish that a broker must have a licence before entering into a "commitment" leading to acquisition, disposal or movement of controlled goods. The definition of "commitment" is left unclear. A licence for brokering is required only if
"any part of the deal takes place in the UK"
and will be triggered only by the commitment. What the phrase
"any part of the deal"
expressly does not include is marketing and promotion. That is clear in the clauses. It is therefore possible to market and promote controlled goods in the UK and to conclude a deal offshore, with no requirement on the broker to obtain a UK licence. Under that regime, unscrupulous brokers can become promoters for the purposes of UK law, maintaining their base in the UK but concluding their brokering deals outside the UK with impunity. If a licence were required by all UK persons engaged in brokering arms, regardless of where that activity occurred, such a loophole would be closed.
The system proposed by the Government is much more bureaucratic and difficult to monitor and enforce. Did the broker require a licence? Where was the commitment made? Was his activity in the UK promotion or brokerage? Decisions would have to be taken on those questions in monitoring any deals with which the Government were concerned. Such determinations are the stuff of the civil service long grass. They are the weasel words that enable effective regulation to collapse.
If the Government truly want effective controls, they will recognise the need for simplicity. If all arms transfers are regulated by licence, the control of the
176WH
negotiations becomes redundant. The Government machinery is freed from looking at deals to check whether they should have been licensed, and can focus on those deals where unauthorised transfers may occur. A law requiring a licence for all deals would shift the burden of proof of a deal's legality on to the broker, and help to prevent arms sales to embargoed countries or known diversion points.
I stress that brokered deals have a particularly harmful effect. It is assumed that they comprise only a small percentage of all arms deals—we cannot know for sure because no comprehensive broker licensing exists—but weapons transferred by brokered deals are often sent directly into conflict zones. The brokers' register should not be a de facto one. All brokers should be required to register upfront. In that way, we could have a system of fit and proper persons, such as that properly introduced by the Government under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. Brokers would be assessed upfront on that basis, and the activities on which we need to focus and with which we are concerned about the transfers could be properly controlled.
Finally, I shall refer to the controls that are not extended to shippers and transporters. The Government excluded shippers and transporters from the remit of the Export Control Act 2002, even though such groups are key players in shipping arms to conflict zones throughout the world. Let me give an example. Christopher Barratt-Jolley, a well known gunrunner, recently went to jail for flying £22 million worth of cocaine into Britain. He also flew weapons into countries such as Angola and South Yemen. Because the new law proposed by the Government does not cover shippers and transporters, it would allow the activities of people such as Christopher Barratt-Jolley to remain unregulated. That, too, is an important matter for which the Government should increase the strength of their controls.
5.28 pm
Dr.Vincent Cable: I welcome the debate and the undoubted progress that has been made towards more effective scrutiny and transparency in the arms control process. That said, there is something a little odd about the debate. We are dealing, in many ways, with a fast-moving situation.
Mr.Alan Duncan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that there is about to be a Division in the House.
Mr.Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is right: we appear to have a Division. However, the Division Bells are not ringing and the screen shows that the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, is still speaking in the House. We shall therefore carry on until we hear that a Division is taking place.
Dr.Cable: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We now have a Division. In the middle ages, the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) might have been burnt at the stake for that degree of prescience.
5.29 pm
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
5.56 pm
On resuming—
Dr. Cable: This debate increasingly resembles a test match at Headingley, but I shall continue for as long as I can. I had got as far as welcoming the debate and the procedures that have been set in place. The legislative framework is evolving rapidly, and post-11 September the world situation has also changed rapidly.
We have been asked to consider the Quadripartite Committee's report on the Government's annual report for 2000, much of which relates to licences issued several years ago. In a sense, this is archaeology rather than scrutiny. That is one reason why I am in favour of contemporary scrutiny of the kind that seems to be emerging in some Select Committees. For example, the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) described the type of scrutiny that takes place in the Select Committee of which he is a member.
Before leaving that point, it is worth reading the Quadripartite Committee's conclusion on whether we should progress to a prior scrutiny approach. It suggests a sensible compromise to which the Minister may be able to respond positively. The report says that
"when we examine the arguments put forward by the Government to support their rejection of our predecessors' proposals for prior parliamentary scrutiny of certain licence applications we find many of them to be either ill-founded or exaggerated. We recommend that the Government come forward with their proposals for an experimental scheme for prior scrutiny so that their concerns can be tested against experience."
The debate rests on the possibility of having such an experimental scheme.
My other introductory remark will explain where I am coming from. I am in the unusual position of having progressed from gamekeeper to poacher on the issue of export control for armaments. I spent a period in the 1970s in the diplomatic service signing off hundreds of millions of pounds of arms exports to Latin American dictators of varying degrees of venality and brutality. That experience left me with a strong impression of the lack of control and scrutiny. There was a forceful Great Britain Ltd. approach in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Ministry of Defence, and very little restraint from any other side. In fact, the only real restraint was from the Treasury, which was under Lord Healey, who would argue from time to time that the policy was expensive for the British taxpayer because of the hidden subsidies in the Export Credits Guarantee Department. None the less, there were tremendous pressures to sell.
Things have clearly moved on. We have a more sophisticated system of control and scrutiny but, whatever the formal arrangements within it, it shows a basic lack of common sense. A minor item caught my eye when I read the report—the details about British export licences for sales of armaments to the Channel Islands. I wondered what was going through officials' minds about such matters. To take a tick-box approach, there is no torture, no civil war between Guernsey and Jersey and no threat of military action. The area clearly passes all or most of the criteria. Why, however, are the islands importing large numbers of sub-machine-guns, major components for combat aircraft and armoured
178WH
cars? What are they doing with them? Sub-machine-guns are not needed for the Jersey flower festival, as the chances of being invaded by France are zero. Why is such action being taken?
The obvious common-sense explanation is that a process of evasion is taking place, either of the export control regime or of the financial arrangements governing money. At the very least, a certain amount of critical intelligence should be applied and questions should be asked about why such action is taking place. I accept that that is a minor example, but it is one of the problems in the system.
I come now to some of the major issues that came to the surface in the Quadripartite Committee's report. Some of the big issues have already been dealt with, such as incorporation. I shall not repeat the consolidated criteria, but just dwell on the development criteria and its particular application in Tanzania. It is an interesting case study and one that has many loose ends. In many ways, the transaction was small, given that it was a £28 million contract. However, in relation to Tanzania, that is a big sum; it is about half the total amount of annual debt relief granted to heavily indebted poor countries.
Furthermore, there are unsatisfactory aspects to that project, in terms of process and substance. Construction was started well before the licence was granted under an unusual F680 procedure. The matter deserves further consideration. The Secretary of State for International Development publicly signalled her opposition to the project, even to the extent of cutting off aid to Tanzania while other Departments were actively promoting it. Two major multilateral financial institutions, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, clearly said that it was not developmentally sound and that equally valuable equipment could be obtained for about an eighth of the price.
In some ways, that is water under the bridge, but we must bear in mind the loose ends. The Quadripartite Committee said that the Government had promised a cost-benefit study on the project, but that has not yet been published. Where is it? What about the International Civil Aviation Organisation study that was undertaken to evaluate whether the project was developmentally useful? The Department for International Development has copies of it, but the study has never been released. Why has it not been released? When will it be released?
There is an interesting postscript to the story. After the British BAE Systems apparatus was installed, the Tanzanians soon discovered that it was inappropriate and they have subsequently ordered a separate air traffic control system from the European Union through European aid finance at a fraction of the cost. It is now being installed on top of the British system. In many ways, this case was a development disaster and there is still a good deal of explaining to do.
I am aware of the fact that there may be another Division in the House and I want to allow time for the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) to speak and for the Minister to reply. However, I want to raise the issue that was effectively pursued by the hon. Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner). It concerned the new environment in which we operate. There is a heightened awareness of terrorism, particularly the problems of rogue states, and how our export control

179WH
system should adapt to deal with that situation. Instinctively, I should have thought that we should be heading for an environment that is more selective, restrictive and suspicious in the way that the hon. Gentleman implied. However, I have the sense—if I am wrong I am sure that the Minister will correct me—that, in practice, our system has become liberalised in some key respects. There are 18 countries—32 categories—that are now able to access arms from the UK in a less restrictive environment than used to be the case. I am talking about quite sophisticated kit: short-range missiles, air combat aircraft and tanks.
Some of the countries involved would raise eyebrows in any circumstances. First, there are the former Soviet Union central Asian republics, such as Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. Many of those countries—well, I think that there are only five in total—are still ruled by people who were installed by Brezhnev and who still operate their countries using the same principles that were used to run the former Soviet Union. Such regimes are wholly repressive and, in the long run, potentially rather unstable. Supplying arms to such countries, particularly in the present environment, seems questionable.
Secondly, there is Pakistan. I appreciate the sensitivity of the issue and the importance of giving Pakistan's Government some support through aid, trade and other means. However, it seems dangerous to supply Pakistan's military forces, which have been heavily penetrated by extremists, with sophisticated military equipment. The same logic applies to Saudi Arabia.
Is it the case that, since we became much more aware of the problems of terrorism, what seems to be liberalisation has indeed occurred? I reinforce the point made by the hon. Member for Brent, North about end use. The countries that have received British arms in the past few years include Yemen and Ukraine. Ukraine is notoriously and utterly corrupt and chaotic, in terms of its central Government, and has long been part of the Iraqi arms supply chain. Yet it has been receiving British military equipment. It is hardly surprising if such equipment ends up in Iraq and comparable countries.
To give other Members an opportunity to reply, I will terminate my remarks shortly. I return to what seems to be the central issue. Although this debate is valuable and it is useful to go back through the records of what happened in years past, we need a more contemporaneous system of scrutiny. I hope that the Minister will respond positively to the suggestion of adopting at least an experimental system of prior scrutiny in the case of some of the major licence applications.
Mr. Peter Pike (in the Chair): Before I call the next speaker, I want to point out that, unless there is another Division in the House, we will conclude the debate at 6.37. If there is another Division, the position will change. I also remind Members that I am not to be referred to as Mr. Deputy Speaker; I am Mr. Pike.
6.7 pm
Mr. Alan Duncan: Thank you, Mr. Pike.
This is an important and timely debate, because, with the current conflict in Iraq, along with a host of other conflicts in the world, the responsible export of arms and
180WH
controls to keep them out of the hands of unscrupulous regimes and groups are topics that assume an ever greater significance. There have been some well-informed contributions from my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) and the hon. Members for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) and for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner).
I take this opportunity to acknowledge the hard work of the Committee in producing the report, which tackles a complex subject about which there are rarely black-and-white or cut-and-dried judgments to be made. It is a matter of making an imperfect system work as well as possible. Obviously, the annual report that the Committee discussed preceded the Export Control Act, which itself replaced a raft of older laws and orders. It is important to consider the annual report in the light of what has occurred since, as the Committee did. In some ways the trouble with that Act is that it authorises most things through secondary legislation. We must watch that secondary legislation with care, because it will determine whether the Act is effective. We welcome the Government's reaffirmation of their promise, in response to Committee recommendation (c), that they will give the Committee the opportunity to consider the secondary legislation in draft form.
We recognise the importance of responsible defence exports to legitimate Governments for their defence requirements, and the importance of the defence industry to our domestic economy. A strong indigenous defence industrial base is important for national security and, of course, for jobs. Indeed, the UK possesses one of the largest defence industry sectors in Europe. By and large, our defence companies operate responsibly, but transparency and accountability are naturally vital for public approval to be earned and sustained. It is important that the export of arms should be as palatable as possible, which is why Conservative Members support a register of licensed UK arms dealers.
I must be briefer in my comments than the subject deserves, but there are a few areas that I want to cover quickly. The report and the Government's response cover many issues, some rather broader than others. They examine the format of the annual report, the structure of the licensing system, the central issues of accountability, prior approval, the criteria used and the need for the regional stability of areas to which goods are exported. There are also more mundane but equally important matters such as delays in the processing of licence applications and the administrative efficiency of the export control organisation.
The annual report is extremely detailed. We welcome the Government's commitment to the openness signified by the reports, as in recommendations (1) and (n), and their willingness to discuss the report's content with organisations such as Saferworld. External feedback and participation, as in recommendation (d), are extremely important. Although there are calls for its details to be increased, having waded through the document, I have some sympathy with those who are concerned that it is already beginning to look like a telephone directory.
In some cases, however, as touched on in recommendation (I), tables of dual use items could be useful, and I would welcome the Minister's suggestions on how that information might be made available without compromising the cost and the accessibility of

181WH
the annual report. Perhaps there are ways in which the information might be made available simply to the Committee in its deliberations. A balance must be struck between providing the Committee with too much and too little information. In that respect, has the Foreign Secretary decided whether to provide the Committee, in confidence, with the detailed calculations behind the licensing decision for the air traffic control system exported to Tanzania, as in paragraph (t) of the report's conclusions.
A balance must also be struck between proper scrutiny of the licensing system and the damage caused to industry by unnecessary licensing delays. Contracts and jobs can be lost through unnecessary administrative delays in processing licensing applications. Paragraphs (n) and (o) of the report suggest, and the Government appear to concur, that the efficiency of the export control organisation leaves much to be desired. While care must always be taken with statistics, especially given the backlog of applications, can the Minister give us the average figures for the number of new applications for all licences, not simply standard individual export licences processed within the target period mentioned?
The consolidated export licensing criteria, helpfully reproduced in appendix (f) of the annual report, are largely well drawn. The bottom line is that defence exports are legitimate when they are not to be used for internal repression or international aggression. Considerations such as regional stability and developmental progress are also important, but a list of criteria can only be a guideline. I am therefore pleased that the Committee and the Government reaffirm that each case must be judged on its own merits. However, I have some concerns about references to precedents being set by the Foreign Secretary's decisions, and officials then being able to use them to judge other cases. It is impractical for a ministerial decision to be made in every case, but in highly sensitive potential conflict areas, ministerial involvement is a requirement in every case. Particular care is required with exports to countries such as India, Pakistan and Israel, as in recommendations (e) to (h). Those countries all have legitimate defence needs, but there is also a risk of their breaching criteria 3 or 4.
I agree with the report's questioning whether the Kashmir situation did not fully engage criterion 4. The report also mentions end-use monitoring in the case of Sri Lanka and Zambia. What end-use monitoring systems are in place in Israel, India and Pakistan to monitor not only the end use of any weapons exported, but also that of dual-use components? There is also much debate about the concept of prior approval. Sweden and the United States are the only two countries that operate prior parliamentary scrutiny. Does the Minister agree that the introduction of such a procedure could risk drawing the Committee into what is more properly an Executive function? It could also risk creating even more delays in the licensing process, which would cost UK companies exports and competitiveness. That would have declaration of interest implications for our Parliament. We make a distinction between hon. Members of this House who have Executive responsibility and those who do not. If there is a blurred
182WH
area in which massive arms exports could be influenced by the decision of a Back-Bench Committee, that would have a bearing. I raise the matter as a question, not as a conclusion.
Mr. Berry: May I briefly state again that the Committee and its members have never suggested that they should share in the Executive responsibility? A similar example of involvement would be that of the Foreign Affairs Committee, which gave prior scrutiny to the ministerial position taken at the Nice conference some years ago. There is no question of our taking any part of that Executive responsibility.
Mr. Duncan: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says. In that case it would appear to be properly defined and described as prior scrutiny and not prior approval by his Committee. I appreciate the distinction that he has drawn; it is important that that should be understood. I do not suggest for a moment that retrospective approval and scrutiny is ideal. However, the system of prior approval—better described as prior scrutiny—would have drawbacks. What proposals do the Government intend to advance in that area, given their "ethical commitment" to doing so?
Another matter for debate is the Government's manifesto commitment to finding ways to apply the Act to UK passport holders dealing in arms outside the UK—the extra-territorial exercise of authority through secondary legislation. We have yet to see the Government's detailed proposals. What assessment has the Minister made of the enforceability of such a policy? Does he believe that it would be possible to detect breaches, and then gather sufficient evidence to proceed in such circumstances? What sovereign authority does he think we have over such matters? What progress has been made in ensuring a level playing field across the EU in terms of individual countries' export criteria being the same, notwithstanding the EU consolidated criteria referred to earlier? As usual, if we play by the rules, does he think that the French will too?
The publication of the annual reports and the excellent work done by the Quadripartite Committee in examining them, and the wider export controls system, is vital to creating the openness increasingly, and rightly, demanded in these areas by the public. I could say much more, and I would like to mention other issues covered in the report, but time dictates otherwise.
With increased threats to international security, increased instability and the growing problem of failed states degenerating into violent conflict, it is more important than ever to keep tight controls over the weapons that can fan the flames of conflict while allowing the legitimate trade supplying the defence needs of responsible and respectable Governments to proceed; balancing the two will always prove a delicate judgment. I hope that the Minister will strive to address all the points that have been raised.
6.18 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs(Mr. Mike O'Brien): This has been a good debate on an enormously important issue, in which Parliament takes a great interest, and which the Government take extremely

183WH
seriously. Given the present circumstances, I hardly need to point out the importance that the Government attach to tackling the threat posed by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction—or of any weapons.
We have to be aware that tyrannical regimes might take control of particular types of weapons and turn them on us, or threaten us or our interests with them. What is perhaps less well understood is the central importance that effective export controls play in this work. I shall deal with some of the individual points that have been raised during the course of the debate. I should also like to set out the broad principles under which we will determine these important and difficult decisions.
I shall deal first with a couple of specific issues before getting on to the broader issues such as price scrutiny and incorporation. One apt case was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) who spoke about media reports about the discovery of rocket-propelled grenades in a bunker near Basra in a box with a UK company's name on it. I cannot comment in detail on that finding until we know all the facts. The company has told us that it makes only such items as flares and smoke grenades and has never sold anything to Iraq. Its best guess—its guess, rather than ours at this stage—is that the boxes once contained smoke grenades, which were sold to Kuwait in 1985, and that they were taken back to Iraq following the invasion in 1990 and 1991. If my hon. Friend has any new facts in relation to the matter, we will look at them with great care.
Mr. Gardiner: I understand that Wallop has denied any involvement. I hesitate to quote Mandy Rice-Davies, but as she would have put it, "It would say that, wouldn't it?" Wallop is well practised in the art of denial. Does my hon. Friend remember that in 1991 the company denied links with Iraq when documents found in the Iraqi embassy in London allegedly implicated it in the supply of munitions to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war?
Mr. O'Brien: Those are serious matters that we will examine with a great deal of care. As I indicated to my hon. Friend in the break we took for the Divisions, we must be sure of the facts before Ministers can comment any further.
I should like to deal with another serious issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry). The Government fully support the BAE Systems bid to sell Hawk aircraft to India. That has been made clear by the Prime Minister and is in line with the Government's commitment to support legitimate defence exports. We understand that the proposed Hawks would be used by the Indian air force for training purposes only. However, all export licences will continue to be considered rigorously on a case-by-case basis against the consolidated criteria.
My hon. Friend asked whether any decisions had been made. In September 2001, a licence was issued for a range of components and production equipment to enable the local assembly and later production under licence of the Hawk in India. The licence does not permit the export of fully assembled and operational aircraft. I am confident that it is fully consistent with the consolidated EU and national arms exports licensing criteria.
184WH
In terms of the operational role of the Hawk, under the proposed deal the first aircraft would not be delivered for some years. These aircraft are intended solely for training purposes, although they would have limited combat capability as they are fitted with the necessary systems and interfaces to allow them to carry a range of weapons for combat training. The Indian air force already has a range of other modern aircraft that are much more suitable for combat purposes, including the Mirage 2000 and the SU30.
Reference was made to the specific case of Channel Islands exports, on which I have some advice. There were several applications in respect of the Channel Islands, but I gather that some of the more interesting ones were for the private collection of antiques, many of which will be covered by the licensing procedure. There were also some issues relating to aircraft, and some law enforcement sales were apparently approved.
The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) referred to central Asian states and Gulf states that have poor human rights records. We do not intend that there should be any liberalisation of our policy because of the war against terrorism, but I assure hon. Members that criterion 2 of the code of conduct, which relates to internal repression, is fully applied when open export licences to central Asian states are considered. We will want to be sure that there is no clear risk that exports would be used for internal repression. It is also important to remember that the exports authorised under open licences are not necessarily destined for that country's armed or security forces.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood talked about incorporation, an issue that the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) also raised. The statement made to the House on 8 July 2002 clarified export licensing policy, but it did not change the export licensing criteria—nor did the statement present a means of bypassing the criteria. On the contrary, the incorporation statement refers to other factors, which must be taken into account when it is known that goods are to be exported to a state that will incorporate them into another product for onward export.
As the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire said, the incorporation statement allows Ministers properly to take into account the implications of a contract for the United Kingdom's commercial relationships, as well as for our strategic, security and defence interests and defence industrial base when making a decision. However, any licence application is considered against all the other usual criteria. On the particular example that the hon. Gentleman raised about the US, it is not for the benefit of the US that the Government clarified their position on incorporation; that is very much in our own national interest.
The UK's relationship with the US is fundamental to our national security, as well as to our ability to play a strong and effective role in the world. Defence collaboration with the US is also key to maintaining a strong defence industrial capability. In itself, that is a strategic asset, which enables us to provide high-quality equipment to our armed forces at a lower cost to the taxpayer. So we took the view that, because the criteria of the US was similar to our own—I shall return to the particular issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood in a moment—and because of the close relationship between our two countries, it was possible

185WH
to take all that into account in making a decision, although I repeat that that does not change the nature of the criteria.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood and others raised the issue of prior parliamentary scrutiny. I agree with the broad view set out by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire that it is the role of Ministers to make decisions, for which they are accountable to Parliament, and it is right that they should be challenged on those decisions and made to justify them. That is the role that a Minister undertakes when he accepts the post, but I am pleased to say that the Government have a reasonably good relationship—I hope a very good one—with the Quadripartite Committee. Indeed, I am not aware of any Government who spend more time accounting to Parliament for their export licensing operations, and that is as it should be. That demonstrates our commitment to accountability and transparency in the export licensing process. That does not mean that it is right for the Quadripartite Committee to play a role in scrutinising individual export licence applications before the Government have taken their decision on them.
The Government have made it clear that the form of prior parliamentary scrutiny proposed by the previous Quadripartite Committee would not be right in principle. It could not be made to work in practice without having a materially adverse impact on the efficiency and effectiveness of the export licensing process. If I remember rightly, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood and the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) both raised concerns about the delays and time taken for some decisions. If we prolong the period even further, we must consider the impact that that would have on the efficiency and effectiveness of the process.
The Government have the responsibility of ensuring that the licensing system delivers quick and accurate decisions to our industry. However, we are still considering how best we can increase still further the accountability and transparency of the current system in the context of Parliament. As a sign of our commitment, I am happy to offer confidential policy briefings to the Quadripartite Committee.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood also asked about our policy on end-use monitoring. We refuse applications in which there is a clear risk of the end use being in breach of the criteria. He referred to the example of Israel and the chassis. We do not employ a defence attaché solely to check on the equipment that we have sold to the Israelis. He has a series of roles, of which that is only one, and he has a wide range of duties. He must establish effective liaison with the Israeli defence forces on issues such as their actions on the west bank—my hon. Friend will remember the case of Ian Hook and others in which we needed effective information about what happened.
The roles of the limited numbers of staff that we have in Israel and the occupied territories are diverse. One role is to report any breaches that they see by Israel, and a report was made about the somewhat ancient chassis. None the less, we still need to resolve the issue with the
186WH
Israelis, and I hope that we will reach a situation in which they comply with the guarantees that they have given.
Mr. Berry: Although I am full of admiration for the individual who spotted the vehicles, we have been told specifically—I gave the quotations in my speech—that British staff in Tel Aviv do not undertake physical checks on end use. I only pointed that out because it is contrary to what we have just heard from the Minister, and to other statements that they sometimes carry out checks. I seek no more than clarification of the end-use monitoring policy.
Mr. O'Brien: I do not want to suggest that we employ someone specifically to carry out end-use monitoring and nothing else. We give a range of tasks to those who are employed in our embassies and consulates and see what they can do in the available time. End-use monitoring is one task, on a long list, that staff are sometimes able to undertake. However, if I said to my hon. Friend that their job was to carry out end-use monitoring in a broad and consistent way so that we catch all breaches, I would be misleading him. I do not want to do that.
I am saying only that there is a limited amount of time in which the staff are able to do certain things, and in this case they were able to identify a particular example. If there are other examples in other countries, they will undoubtedly be reported, and we carry out some inquiries, as was indicated in confidence to the Quadripartite Committee on Monday. We often impose certain re-export conditions, and much informal checking is carried out by posts. It would not be useful to have a formal requirement for end-use monitoring, because if we did that on a formal basis everywhere, it would consume a vast amount of resources. We must have a sense of realism about this. It is possible to do things on a limited basis in certain specific circumstances, but it is not possible to give my hon. Friend the blanket reassurance that he sought—that we shall carry out end-use monitoring everywhere.
Mr. Gardiner: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. O'Brien: I will give way briefly, although I have only two minutes remaining.
Mr. Gardiner: Will the Minister accept that that is not what my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) and I asked him to do? We requested him to put in place a system of end-use monitoring, such as that in the United States, in which the focus of attention—it is not a blanket check—is on those deals in which there is most likely to be a problem. The USA has shown that a quarter of the deals that they then check are subject to complaint.
Mr. O'Brien: I am grateful for that clarification of the position adopted. It would be useful if the Quadripartite Committee could give further clarification as to exactly what it wants, because it seems to me that the confusion lies not in the Government's policy, which is clear, but in the request. However, those matters can be discussed at length in due course.

187WH
I am aware that hon. Members have raised a number of other issues, and, given the limited time available, I shall have to respond to some of them in writing.
We seek to speed up the whole process of considering licensing applications. We aim to reduce the decision-making process to a reasonable period of time, and good results have recently been achieved in that area by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department of Trade and Industry. I should like to congratulate staff
188WH
in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on the speed at which decisions are being made, without any loss of quality. The Government's aim will continue to be to get export licensing decisions right every time—consistent with our stated policy—and to do that quickly and fairly. We take that aim seriously, and I can assure the House that we will continue to do so.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes to Seven o'clock.

DEFENCE

  Armed Forces Compensation Scheme
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what representations he has received within the last 12 months about changes to the criteria in the armed forces compensation scheme for service personnel claiming disability compensation; and if he will make a statement; [105299]

  (2) whether it is his intention to change the criteria of the armed forces compensation scheme for service personnel claiming disability compensation from the basis of reasonable doubt to the balance of probability; and if he will make a statement. [105300]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence currently provides compensation for death and disablement caused or aggravated by service under two schemes, the War Pension Scheme (WPS) and the Armed Forces Pension Scheme (AFPS). Each scheme operates under separate legislation and the standard of proof applied to claims under the two schemes is different.

  The War Pension Scheme was introduced in 1917 and its generous standard of proof reflects in particular the limits of medical understanding of the time. Claims may be made at any time after service release. Specifically, where a claim is made to a War Pension within seven years of termination of service, the onus is wholly on the Secretary of State to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the disablement was not due to service. Where a claim is made more than seven years after termination, the onus rests on the claimant to raise reasonable doubt by reliable evidence that the disablement is due to service, the claimant receiving the benefit of any reasonable doubt. The attributable benefits elements of the Armed Forces Pension Scheme introduced attributable pensions in 1973. This applies to disablements leading to medical discharge; it considers claims against the balance of probabilities standard of proof, in line with most other such schemes and the practice of civil courts. It places the onus of proof on the individual.

  It has not been considered appropriate so far to change these arrangements but the issue has been considered within the current review of armed forces compensation arrangements. In March 2001, we published proposals for a new armed forces compensation scheme based entirely on the balance of probabilities standard of proof A number of respondents have expressed their concern that this would not be appropriate to the special status of the armed forces and the demands placed on them. This view has been particularly strongly represented by ex-service organisations. We have been in close consultation with these and other interested groups and will continue
  306W
  to work with the ex-service community in finalising the details of the new scheme. We expect to make a final decision on the broad design of a new scheme shortly.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he intends to reply to the letter dated 28 January from the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan regarding his constituent Ms H. Forsyth of Banff. [105140]

  Dr. Moonie
  I wrote to the hon. Member on 13 February 2003, within our 15 working day target for answering ministerial correspondence.

  Gulf (US Contracts)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the value is of contracts with the United States for(a) rations, (b) clothing, (c) footwear and (d) logistical services for UK forces in the Gulf. [103733]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 18 March 2003]The United Kingdom has a long-standing bilateral arrangement with the United States that enables our personnel to receive logistical services and food from US and local sources. This arrangement provides a framework of enabling contracts, some elements of which are calculated on anticipated daily consumption rates and others on term hire rates. These arrangements apply mainly to base camps and are likely to remain in place for the duration of operations in Iraq. We also contract for support services independently where this is more appropriate. In addition, a number of items of clothing and footwear have been acquired from the US at a cost of around £250,000.

  Iraq
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the funding allocated to his Ministry for humanitarian relief in Iraq. [105007]

  Mr. Ingram
  The ambit of Defence Votes does not ordinarily include funding for humanitarian aid, which is a Department for International Development responsibility. However, £30 million has been made available, so far, for the conflict in Iraq, to cover the United Kingdom's legal requirements under the 1949 Geneva Convention for the Protection of Civilians in Time of War.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish the protocol for media access to(a) information and (b) field operations during the conflict in Iraq. [105373]

  Dr. Moonie
  Arrangements between the media and the Ministry of Defence during the conflict in Iraq are conducted in accordance with the details laid out in the Green Book—"Working Arrangements with the Media in times of Emergency, Tension, Conflict or War". This covers the practical arrangements for enabling media representatives to report events both at home and abroad and includes our plans for representative numbers of correspondents to accompany British Forces in the frontline. It also outlines the policy that would facilitate or restrict the activities of journalists
  307W
  during operations. A copy of the Green Book is available on the MOD website, at: www.mod.uk/news/green book/index, htm

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on arrangements he has made with the media to ensure that there is no release of information on casualties prior to the next of kin being informed. [105374]

  Dr. Moonie
  Arrangements between the media and the Ministry of Defence during the conflict in Iraq are conducted in accordance with the details laid out in the Green Book—"Working Arrangements with the Media in times of Emergency, Tension, Conflict or War". The document has been made available to the media and has been placed on the MOD website at:

  www.mod.uk/news/green book/index.htm

  The MOD recognises that casualty information is of legitimate interest to the media and the general public. However, the Green Book explains that our casualty notification process has been developed to minimise the distress of the families concerned, and states that the names of casualties will not be released or confirmed until the next of kin have been told officially. We recognise that on occasions the media may become aware of the names of individual casualties before official announcements are made. Editors are urged not to publish such information, gained from whatever source—even if it comes directly from a next of kin—until it is released or confirmed by the MOD. Editors are also urged to exercise extreme discretion in approaching next of kin.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish the advice he has given to the(a) print and (b) broadcast media to permit them to have access to the conflict in Iraq whilst maintaining personal safety. [105375]

  Dr. Moonie
  In relation to war correspondents embedded with United Kingdom forces in the Gulf, the arrangements for the print and broadcast media are conducted in accordance with the guidance set out in the Green Book, which is entitled "Working Arrangements with the Media in times of Emergency, Tension, Conflict or War". A copy of this is available on the Ministry of Defence web-site (www.MOD.UK).

  The Green Book sets out the arrangements for the selection of, and regulations for, accredited war correspondents. In return for protection and support, and access to other facilities, correspondents agree to undergo the necessary training and to abide by the operational security and safety measures required by the unit to which they are attached.

  The Ministry of Defence has no responsibility for the activities of independent media personnel. The current FCO travel advice is not to travel to Iraq. This advice has been strongly emphasised to the media by the Ministry of Defence.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) print and (b) broadcast journalists are accredited to coalition forces in Iraq; and how many are accredited to British forces. [105376]
  308W
  Dr. Moonie
  There are 128 print and broadcast journalists accredited to British forces in the Gulf. The Ministry of Defence does not hold the number of journalists that are currently in Iraq or the number of journalists accredited to coalition forces.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what monitoring his Department undertakes of reports from(a) print and (b) broadcast journalists operating in Iraq. [105377]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence does not exclusively monitor reports from print and broadcast journalists operating in Iraq. However, we do receive a daily press cutting service highlighting stories in the printed media with a defence interest and, during the present crisis, we have appointed a watchkeeper in our Press Office to monitor the broadcast output from the main channels. The Media Monitoring Unit of the Cabinet Office also provides the Department with a daily Iraq briefing.

  Separately, we have let a contract to provide a weekly evaluation of the printed media's coverage of the Iraq crisis.

  Munitions
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent research his Department has(a) conducted and (b) funded into new types of munitions to be used by United Kingdom forces to replace (i) cluster weapons and (ii) weapons containing depleted uranium. [104684]

  Mr. Ingram
  Weapons in service with the United Kingdom armed forces that dispense sub-munitions systems remain both effective and legal. We continue nevertheless to conduct and fund research programmes investigating the means to provide precise and discriminating methods of attacking targets, including terminal guided sub-munition technologies.

  We have no current plans to replace the in-service CHARM 3 depleted uranium round used in the Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank. Recent research on tank munitions has covered the penetration of armour process and support to commissioning new tank barrels for Challenger 2 tanks. Details of the Ministry of Defence's programme are available in the Library of the House.

  Theatre Missile Defence
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what consultations he has had with allies on the provision of theatre missile defence capabilities for UK troops when on joint operations; [104343]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the UK's theatre missile defence capabilities; and what plans he has to increase theatre missile defence capabilities; [104344]

  (3) what provisions he has made for theatre missile defence for troops on deployment if no capabilities have been provided by the UK's allies. [104342]

  Mr. Ingram
  The United Kingdom is continuing its work on the risks posed by ballistic missiles and on the technologies available to counter them. We remain in regular contact with allies about such matters and continue to co-operate with NATO in their feasibility
  309W
  studies on how best to defend deployed NATO forces through active theatre missile defence. Decisions about the need to increase theatre missile defence capabilities will be taken in light of the outcome of these studies.

  Defence against ballistic missiles has several components. Arms control, preventing supply and deterring use all have a part to play alongside defence against use. Military planning therefore includes consideration of how actively to prevent the use of ballistic missiles through threat reduction operations. Passive defensive steps are also considered, including the dispersal of forces and the provision of equipment to protect against the use of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons.

  United Kingdom armed forces operate with an appropriate range of capabilities and take into account what may be provided by coalition partners.

  Ulster Defence Regiment
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will set up a widows fund for families of soldiers killed in the Ulster Defence Regiment similar to that already in operation for widows of murdered police officers in Northern Ireland. [105134]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence has received several representations on this matter and I accordingly met with representatives from the Ulster Defence Regiment widows and widowers on 5 March 2003. The issue is currently receiving careful consideration and further advice has been sought, but the Ministry of Defence is not yet in a position to make a decision on the way ahead.

PRIME MINISTER

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he has had with the Spanish Government since 1 January on sovereignty over Gibraltar; and if he will make a statement. [104979]

  The Prime Minister
  I talk to the Spanish Prime Minister frequently on a range of EU and other foreign policy issues. Since 1 January, there has been no discussion of the issue of sovereignty.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Combined Heat and Power
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how she intends to meet her commitment to support field trials designed to evaluate the benefits of Micro-CHP given on page 48 of the Energy White Paper (Cm 5761) beyond the commitment within the Government's fuel poverty strategy. [103439]

  Mr. Morley
  I understand that The Carbon Trust will be working with the Energy Saving Trust and other stakeholders, including Defra, to undertake a major field trial for micro-CHP in order to evaluate the 310W
  potential benefits this innovative technology has to offer. The trial will aim to feature a range of technologies and end use applications.

  Agricultural Shows
  Mr. Curry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) whether the new interim rules for animal movements will continue the exemptions for cattle and sheep moving between shows within six days; and if she will make a statement; [103283]

  (2) what plans she has to permit farmers to exhibit livestock at country agricultural shows when these shows occur in the same area within a few days of each other and may offer multi-show championships. [103282]

  Mr. Morley
  We announced in a written statement on 23 January that the standstill would be reduced to 6 days for cattle, sheep and goats with effect from 4 March, but with far fewer exemptions.

  The removal of most of the exemptions is a counterbalance to the increased risk created by the reduction in the standstill period. The much shorter standstill should make it possible for show organisers to arrange events so that breeders and others wishing to exhibit at shows can plan their movements to comply with the rules.

  Animal Welfare (Snares)
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent research she has commissioned into the percentage of animals caught in snares which were non-target species. [102482]

  Mr. Morley
  This Department has not undertaken any recent research into the percentage non-target species caught in snares. However, we are considering ways in which to improve the correct use and effectiveness of snares.

  Avian Influenza
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much the Government spent on preventing Avian Influenza being brought to the UK in each of the last five years. [102367]

  Mr. Morley
  To prevent the introduction of Avian Influenza (AI) into the UK, the Government picks up the entire bill for the veterinary inspection and laboratory testing of imports of live poultry and their hatching eggs from Third Countries. This includes four veterinary officer visits and three animal health officer visits to quarantine premises in respect of each consignment. These costs are as follows.

  £

  1998

  16,800

  1999

  50,649

  2000

  52,672

  2001

  59,646

  2002

  87,330

  In addition, the Government also provided consultancy and support to the Whole Animal Import

  311W
  Programme. This support included carrying out tests for various diseases on various animal species and included work on AI. It is not possible to provide a breakdown only in respect of AI.

  Imports of live poultry and hatching eggs from EU member states are accompanied by an EU harmonised health certificate which includes assurances that live poultry is free from AI.

  Benzone
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the assessed volume of illegal use of benzone within the fishing industry; and what cooperation she has undertaken with the Secretary of State for Health in this matter. [103693]

  Mr. Morley
  Neither I nor the Food Standards Agency have knowledge of illegal use of benzone in the fishing industry. If the hon. Member has such information, I would be interested to know.

  Broiler Chickens
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many broiler chickens were dead on arrival at UK poultry slaughterhouses in 2002. [103293]

  Mr. Morley
  1,076,396 broiler chickens were dead on arrival at UK licensed poultry slaughterhouses in 2002. However, the total annual UK broiler throughput at these slaughterhouses is not available.

  In Northern Ireland, 88,165 broilers were dead on arrival at licensed poultry slaughterhouses. The total throughput of broilers at these slaughterhouses was 66,938,166.

  In Great Britain, 988,231 broilers were dead on arrival at licensed poultry slaughterhouses. The total throughput of all broilers, all cast hens and other poultry weighing less than 2kgs was 736,966,659.

  Climate Change Agreements
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to her answer of 6 February 2003,Official Report, column 373W, on climate change agreements, if she will place in the Library a summary of the information given to her Department by each sector with a climate change agreement. [103781]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 18 March 2003]The Department is analysing the information supplied by sector associations with the aim of re-certifying eligible facilities by 31 March. I will place summaries of the performance of each sector in the Library of the House at that time.

  Departmental Energy Policy
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she 312W
  has to increase expenditure in support of energy efficiency in (a) 2003 and (b) 2004; and if she will make a statement. [103309]

  Mr. Morley
  No final decisions have yet been made on the level of expenditure in support of energy efficiency in 2003 and 2004.

  Dolphins
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions she has had with her European colleagues concerning conservation of the dolphin population around UK shores; and if she will make a statement. [103841]

  Mr. Morley
  I have raised the issue of small cetacean bycatch and its impact on dolphin populations several times with Commissioner Fischler, both in person and in writing. Most recently, I wrote to him on 4 February, reinforcing the intervention made by the UK at the January meeting of the Agriculture and Fisheries Council and pressing in particular for wider observer coverage off the South West coast where a number of other member states' vessels pursue the pelagic fishery. I have also written to the French Minister and spoken individually to ministerial colleagues from Spain, Germany and Denmark.

  The outcome has been, progressively, the inclusion of action on cetacean bycatch firstly in the Commission's roadmap on CFP reform and secondly in the action plan on environmental matters under the CFP, and publication of the Commission's discussion paper on the reduction of cetacean bycatch in December 2002. I shall continue to fund our scientific work and to press for action, with a view to securing concrete proposals from the Commission and their adoption by the Council.

  E-mail Addresses
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs by what e-mail address members of the public may contact(a) her and (b) each of the Ministers in her Department; and for each e-mail address if she will state (i) the date it became active, and (ii) the number of e-mails received in each month since activation. [97456]

  Margaret Beckett
  Members of the public can contact my office and those of my Department's other Ministers at the following e-mail addresses:

  Secretaryofstate@defra.gsi.gov.uk

  mos.environment@defra.gsi.gov.uk

  mos.ruralaffairs@defra.gsi.gov.uk

  pus.commons@defra.gsi.gov.uk

  pus.lordsgdefra.gsi.gov.uk

  correspondence.section@defra.gsi.gov.uk

  helpline@defra.gsi.gov.uk

  The detailed information requested is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Emergency Discharges (Avon Catchment)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which members of the Strategic Water Partnership are considering
  313W
  emergency discharges into the Hampshire Avon Catchment; and if he will make a statement on the progress of their work. [103531]

  Mr. Morley
  I understand that Wessex Water plans to establish a series of Strategic Water Partnerships involving Wessex Water, District Councils, County Councils, Highways Authority, and Environment Agency. These partnerships will provide a framework for managing issues where there are shared responsibilities including planning, development, flooding, pollution, and bathing beaches.

  The Environment Agency has welcomed Strategic Water Partnerships as a means of promoting action on matters of shared responsibility including flooding and sewer flooding. To date, however, no such partnerships have been established in the Hampshire Avon Catchment.

  Warm Front Programme
  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent changes have been made to leasing arrangements in the provision of central heating systems through the Warm Front programme; and what provision is made for service and maintenance work to these installations. [99618]

  Mr. Morley
  New central heating systems installed under Warm Front until November 2002 were provided via a seven year lease arrangement. A decision was taken to move away from using the leasing arrangements from December 2002 and new systems are now purchased outright.

  The responsibility for maintenance and service of central heating systems bought under a lease agreement lies with the scheme managers for Warm Front, TXU Warm Front Ltd. and Eaga Partnership. The responsibility for the systems that are bought outright lies with the scheme managers for the first year.

  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what further measures are planned to raise public awareness of the Warm Front Programme; [103563]

  (2) what measures have been introduced to ensure the Warm Front Programme helps the people most vulnerable to cold-related ill heath; [103564]

  (3) what other measures are being taken besides the Warm Front Programme to tackle fuel poverty. [103562]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government's main programme for tackling fuel poverty in the private sector in England is the Home Energy Efficiency Scheme (HEES), now marketed as The Warm Front Team. Warm Front provides energy advice, insulation and heating measures depending upon the needs of the householder and the property type, to some of the most vulnerable members of society.

  The two scheme managers, TXU Warm Front Ltd and Eaga Partnership, carry out extensive marketing to promote the scheme. As well as the more traditional forms of advertising they work with organisations including local authorities, health visitors and local
  314W
  charities. The scheme managers work to co-ordinate these efforts to ensure maximum awareness of the scheme.

  A number of other Government policies will help tackle fuel poverty. The First Annual Progress Report on the UK Fuel Poverty Strategy, published on 4 March, provides an update on those policies. A copy is available in the Library.

  Fallen Stock
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what risk assessment has been undertaken on the disposal of fallen stock after the Animal By-products Regulation comes into effect; [103517]

  (2) what plans she has to meet all parties involved in the disposal of fallen stock before the ban on farm burial comes into force; [103516]

  (3) what estimate she has made of the level of fallen stock which will need to be collected annually after the introduction of the Animal By-products Regulation. [103518]

  Mr. Morley
  No formal risk assessment has been undertaken on the disposal of fallen stock after the Animal By-products Regulation comes into effect.

  However, animal by-products legislation already controls the collection, storage and transportation of animal by-products, including fallen stock, it also requires records to be kept of any consignment of animal by-products to assist in the auditing and traceability of this material.

  The Department regulates outlets which deal with fallen stock, such as knackers yards, hunt kennels, rendering and incineration plants. Officials are, therefore, involved in regular discussions with those industries and other interested parties. Since April 2002, we have been involved in discussions with livestock and disposal industry stakeholders over future arrangements and funding options for disposal of fallen stock.

  Although progress has been made on operation of a National Scheme we have not been able to reach an agreement on funding. Nevertheless, we are continuing our dialogue with the industry and plan to write shortly to individual farmers about the new rules.

  The industry estimate that the following will need to be collected annually:

  1,316,000 adult animal carcasses (bovine, ovine, swine and equine)

  2,262,000 immature animal carcasses (bovine, ovine, swine and equine)

  36,000,000 poultry carcasses (avians)

  In arriving at this figure, assumptions have been made about mortality rates for adult and immature animals and their average weight.

  Fisheries
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many industrial fish farms are in operation in the United
  315W
  Kingdom; what types of fish are farmed at these locations; and how much of each respective fish species was farmed in each of the past five years. [103945]

  Mr. Morley
  There are some 1,067 finfish and 428 shellfish (including crayfish) active farm sites in the United Kingdom. (A commercial fish farm business may own more than one site.)

  Finfish species1 (primarily for human consumption)

  Atlantic salmon2

  Rainbow trout2

  Brown trout2

  Halibut

  Cod

  Arctic char

  1997

  99,197

  16,268

  478

  No data

  No data

  No data

  1998

  110,784

  16,656

  450

  No data

  No data

  No data

  1999

  126,686

  17,288

  403

  4

  0

  3

  2000

  128,959

  15,353

  551

  5

  16

  7

  2001

  138,519

  16,403

  621

  80

  15

  4

  1 Figures in tonnes to nearest whole number

  2 Figures include some production for restocking

  Shellfish species (primarily for human consumption0

  Pacific oyster (000s)

  Native oyster (000s)

  Scallops (000s)

  Queens (000s)

  Mussels (tonnes)

  Cockles (tonnes)

  Clams (tonnes)

  1997

  4,424

  154

  870

  4,257

  13,000

  20

  36

  1998

  4,252

  391

  392

  3,676

  11,000

  53

  22

  1999

  4,136

  314

  214

  2,855

  10,000

  52

  19

  2000

  4,742

  169

  313

  2,084

  14,000

  150

  25

  2001

  4,911

  250

  733

  1,882

  17,000

  105

  34

  Course fish species (England and Wales only) Ornamental species for trade (mainly Koi, Ghost Koi, Orfe, Goldfish, other carp species, and Bream, Gudgeon, Roach, Rudd, Tench and Perch;

  (000s of fish)

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  3,519

  1,533

  1,669

  5,142

  7,348

  There is also significant production of coarse species for restocking fisheries. The main fish produced for the angling trade are Common and Mirror Carp which, between them, account for some 75 per cent. of total coarse fish production.

  Flood Defence
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what guidelines her Department has issued to the Association of British Insurers with regard to indicative minimum standards of flood defence; when it was issued; if she will make a statement on the relationship of these guidelines with the Department's Priority Score Scheme for flood defence; and if she will place a copy of the guidelines in the Library. [103687]

  Mr. Morley
  No specific guidelines on indicative minimum standards of flood defence have been issued to the Association of British Insurers. The published guidelines are however, freely available on the Defra website under the Project Appraisal Guidance Series (FCDPAG3, Section 6). There is no direct relationship between these guidelines and the Priority Score Scheme. However, the indicative standards feature in the economic analysis of proposals which is a major element of the Priority Score System.
  316W
  Production figures for the five year period up to 2001 (the latest year for which complete data are available) are as follows:

  Imported Meat
  Clive Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make it her policy to impose penalties on airlines and ferry companies whose passengers are found to have brought illegal meat imports and animal products into the United Kingdom. [103757]

  Mr. Morley
  We are working closely with the airlines to get our message across to passengers arriving in the UK from non-EU countries through announcements, in-flight videos and printed information. We have no immediate plans to impose penalties on airlines and ferry companies whose passengers are found to have brought illegal meat imports and animal products into the UK.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures she will take to ensure that all imported meat complies with United Kingdom animal welfare standards before being slaughtered. [103876]

  Mr. Morley
  WTO rules currently only permit the prohibition of goods on grounds of threat to human, animal or plant health. Restrictions based on the method of production are not permitted and could put us in breach of WTO rules. The ED is committed to animal welfare and negotiated to have non-trade concerns included in the Doha mandate, thereby ensuring that the issue of farm animal welfare is taken into account as part of the current Agreement on Agriculture negotiations. We will also support the Commission on developments following their recently published report on animal welfare standards in third countries.

  Milk Tokens
  David Burnside
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the likely impact on national milk production of the proposed removal of the daily 1 pint milk token for low income families with children under five. [102431]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 11 March 2003]The milk tokens represent some 130 million litres of milk per year, or 1 per cent. of the total production of milk in Great Britain. It is difficult to assess to what extent milk consumption might fall as a result of the proposals, as milk would still be available under the fixed value voucher system proposed by the Department of Health, albeit along with other foods.

  The dairy industry has expressed concern that the removal of the milk token system would have an adverse effect on milk rounds, given that milk delivered under the Welfare Food Scheme represents about 5 per cent. of all doorstep deliveries. The Department of Health has conducted a major consultation exercise on its proposals, the results of which have now been published.

  The reforms were proposed following medical advice that mothers and children required access to a broader range of foods than had been available under the scheme.

  Total Allowable Catches
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on proposed changes to total allowable catches within the 200 mile limit to incorporate vessels from EU accession countries. [103694]

  Mr. Morley
  The level of total allowable catches will continue to be based on scientific advice from ICES on the state of the fish stocks and on historical track record in accordance with the principle of relative stability.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Advertising in Scotland
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much the Department spent on advertising in Scotland in each year since 1999 on(a) television, (1) newspapers, (c) radio, (d) magazines, (e) billboards and (f) sporting events. [102334]

  SCS Staff

  Staff in bands A-C

  Flight duration

  Flight duration

  Airline Fare Class

  Up to 2½ hrs

  Over 2½ hrs

  Up to 2½ hrs

  Over 2½ hrs

  First/Economy

  Economy

  First

  Economy

  Economy

  Business/Economy or Equivalent

  Business

  Business

  Economy

  Business

  318W
  Ms Hewitt
  Information at the level of detail requested is not available, and where it is possible to disaggregate figures for advertising in Scotland, the information could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  Civil Contingency Planning
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry 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. [102628]

  Ms Hewitt
  The information is as follows:

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

  (b) DTI is fully committed to the Government's programme to increase UK resilience to disruptive events.

  It is active in a number of areas with colleagues from other Government Departments and Agencies and works closely with key sectors of the economy to increase resilience and robustness in contingency planning.

  Measures include a new crisis management suite, greater integration of contingency and continuity plans, and the strengthening of dedicated teams across the Department. The Department is contributing to central Government initiatives and has forged close links with the wider contingency planning community and stakeholders.

  Departmental resources are committed to this task in line with Departmental business planning and to reflect emerging priorities.

  Civil Service Travel
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry 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. [104975]

  Ms Hewitt
  Our approach to travel costs is to ensure that staff use the most efficient and economic means of travel, commensurate with operational needs. The key criteria in booking flights is value for money although there are guidelines on staff entitlement. Generally, for DTI staff, entitlement to class of air travel when on official duties is governed by the duration of flight, the fare structure on the route and by pay band (grade). The following table sets out the entitlements for air travel:

  Correspondence
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she intends to reply to the letter dated 16 October 2002 from the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan regarding car imports. [105141]

  Ms Hewitt
  As the hon. Member is aware his original letter was not received by my Department. A copy was faxed to my office on 24 March 2003 and will be dealt with as soon as possible.

  Departmental Invoices
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the occasions on which her Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies failed to pay valid invoices within 30 days or after the agreed credit period within financial year 2001–02. [104312]

  Ms Hewitt
  Information on the occasions where my Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies failed to pay valid invoices within 30 days or after the agreed credit period can only be obtained at disproportionate cost. However I am able to say that the percentage of bills which were paid by my Department within 30 days of receipt of a valid invoice was 98 per cent. for the financial year 2001–02. The average percentage of bills paid by my Department's agencies was 99 per cent. over the same period. The average percentage of bills paid by my Department's executive non- departmental public bodies was 89 per cent. over the same period.

  Discrimination Legislation
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans the Government has to deliver advice to citizens at a local level about the forthcoming age discrimination legislation. [104593]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 24 March 2003]Age legislation will be in force by December 2006, once extensive consultations planned for 2003 and 2004 have been completed. At this stage the strategy for delivering advice and guidance has not yet been formulated.

  East of England Development Agency
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many employees work in the East of England Development Agency; and what the employment costs including national insurance were in the last year for which figures are available. [104888]

  Alan Johnson
  Information on the income and expenditure of each of the Regional Development Agencies, including the average numbers of staff employed during the relevant year and details of salaries and wages, are set out in an annual report. Copies are placed in the Libraries of House and are available on the internet.

  According to the most recent annual report and accounts of the East of England Development Agency, which is available on the internet at http://www.eeda.org.uk, the average number of staff
  320W
  employed by the Agency during the year ending 31 March 2002 (including all agency and seconded staff) was 103.

  For the same period the cost of staff salaries and wages was £3,992.000.

  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the administrative cost for the East of England Development Agency was in the year ending(a) April 2001, (b) April 2002 and (c) April 2003. [104889]

  Alan Johnson
  Information on the income and expenditure of each of the Regional Development Agencies, including administrative costs, are set out in annual report. Copies are placed in the Library and are available on the internet.

  According to the most recent annual account, which is available at http://www.eeda.org.uk, salaries and wages and other administrative costs of the East of England Development Agency were £5.5 million in the year ending 31 March 2001 and £7.0 million in the year ending 31 March 2002. I understand that the total is forecast to be £7.6 million in the year ending 31 March 2003.

  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many board members of the East of England Development Agency previously worked for(a) Peterborough City Council and (b) local authorities in Hertfordshire. [104891]

  Alan Johnson
  Of the current board of the East of England Development Agency (EEDA) one board member, Dr Roger Ali, previously worked for Peterborough City Council. I understand that, in 1999–2000, Mr Ali was employed by the Council for one day per week in the Community Development Section to help establish a new African and Caribbean Community Centre/New Millennium Centre.

  No other members of the current board of EEDA have previously worked for any Hertfordshire local authority.

  Electricity
  Richard Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how she intends to attract long term investment for the construction of new electricity generating equipment. [104830]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Energy White Paper has set a long term framework for energy markets including electricity generation, with energy markets a cornerstone of energy policy. Such a framework is necessary to give companies the confidence to invest.

  Given current levels of capacity, including mothballed plant, and our expectations of growing renewables generation and energy efficiency improvements over the coming years, we are unlikely to need significant new investment in non-renewable power stations over the next five years or possibly longer. The UK market provides strong financial incentives for suppliers to contract for sufficient power. Incentives for investment in renewables will come mainly through the Renewables Obligation.
  321W
  At the same time, DTI and OFGEM will continue and expand our monitoring of energy security and we will look to OFGEM vigorously to apply and enforce licence conditions on industry participants relating to security.

  Employers' Liability Insurance
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to her answer of 13 March 2002,Official Report, column 362W, on employers' liability insurance, if she will make a statement on the income of workplace contacts; what estimate she makes of the number of construction and allied trade companies there are in the UK; and how many health and safety inspectors there are; and what priorities she has set for these duties. [104913]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Department does not have specific remit for health and safety matters. The Health and Safety Executive comes under the responsibility of the Department for Work and Pensions. HSE advises that it employs staff at pay band 5 to act as Workplace Contact Officers, their average salary cost is £19,883 (outside of London).

  The latest Construction Statistics Annual shows that, as of September 2002, there were approximately 166,000 construction and allied trade companies in the UK.

  HSE has increased the number of inspectors working in the construction industry from 118 to 150 over the last year as a result of its redirection of resources to HSE's Priority Programmes and the setting up of a new national HSE Construction Division. HSE's Construction Division has published an intervention strategy which identifies its key priorities for the medium term. This is available at www.hse.gov.uk/press/2002/construct.htm. It aims to:
  encourage greater commitment to achieving improved health and safety performance targets from all those in the construction procurement and supply chain;
  encourage better communication and co-operation between all those involved in delivering a safe and healthy work environment; and
  promote the development of a competent workforce at all levels.

  Their priorities for the year are:
  Reducing the incidence of cement dermatitis
  Reversing the increased incidence of hand arm vibration syndrome
  Reducing exposure to noise
  Reducing worker exposure to the risk of musculo-skeletal injury
  Workplace transport
  Work at height
  Slips, trips and falls

  In addition HSE investigates complaints and accidents, which meet published selection criteria.

  Employment Tribunal Service
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will require the Employment Tribunal Service to include size of company by work force in the statistics on applications to employment tribunals. [104899]
  322W
  Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 25 March 2003]The Employment Tribunals Service (ETS) does not currently receive details of company size from respondents submitting their notice of appearance to an employment tribunal.

  A requirement to provide such information is currently being considered as part of plans to revise the present notice of appearance form and will be included in a public consultation exercise in due course.

  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will ask the Employment Tribunal Service to add data on the size of companies to statistics they collect on applications to employment tribunals. [104139]

  Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 26 March 2003]The Employment Tribunals Service (ETS) does not currently receive details of company size from respondents submitting their notice of appearance to an Employment Tribunal.

  A requirement to provide such information is currently being considered as part of plans to revise the present notice of appearance form and will be included in a public consultation exercise in due course.

  LPG
  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations she has received on the future growth of the market for automotive liquid petroleum gas. [98643]

  Alan Johnson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on 26 February 2003,Official Report, column 560W.

  Lucky Goldstar
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the(a) dates and (b) amounts of payments of regional selective assistance to Lucky Goldstar since 1 May 1997. [105183]

  Alan Johnson
  No payments of regional selective assistance have been made to Lucky Goldstar by the Department of Trade and Industry since 1 May 1997. However, I understand that in Wales Regional Selective Assistance (RSA) has been paid to LG Electronics in relation to the company's investment at Newport. Responsibility for the RSA scheme in Wales now rests with the Welsh Assembly Government.

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list internal flights made by Ministers in her 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. [103592]

  Ms Hewitt
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, on 22 January 2003,Official Report, column 334W.

  Nuclear Power Stations (Terrorist Attacks)
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps her Department has taken to protect nuclear power stations from terrorist attack; and if she will make a statement. [105096]

  Mr. Wilson
  The UK's civil nuclear sites apply stringent security measures regulated by the Office for Civil Nuclear Security (OCNS), the security regulator. The security regulator works closely with the Health and Safety Executive, the safety regulator, which provides advice on the safety implications of events, including external hazards such as plane crashes, at nuclear installations. Security at nuclear sites is kept under regular review in the light of the prevailing threat and has been significantly enhanced since the terrorist attacks in the USA on 11 September 2001. It is not Government policy to disclose details of these measures, which could potentially be of use to terrorist under Exemption 1—Defence, Security and International Relation, of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Postal Services
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the Government's response to recommendation 18 of the Performance and Innovation Unit's report-Counter Revolution. [105347]

  Mr. Timms
  The Government contributed £25 million to the Your Guide pilot to test the concept of the Government general practitioner role for post offices in line with the Performance and Innovation Unit's recommendations 18 and 19. The evaluation of the pilot showed that a publicly funded national Your Guide scheme would not represent value for money. The pilot highlighted areas in which Government services might be delivered through post offices in the future and these are being further explored, together with alternative commercial options.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps are being taken to develop sub-post offices as Government general practitioner outlets. [105348]

  Mr. Timms
  The Your Guide pilot showed that it would neither significantly improve Government Departments' ability to meet their delivery of financial objectives nor raise sufficient revenue for post offices. A publicly funded national Your Guide would not therefore represent value for money but the pilot highlighted a number of areas in which Government Departments might deliver services through post offices in the future and we are exploring these, and potential alternative commercial options, further.

  Renewables Obligation
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for what reason electricity from combined heat and power sources fed into the National Grid is subject to the Renewables Obligation. [104554]

  Mr. Wilson
  The purpose of the Renewables Obligation is to secure a target level of our electricity supply from renewable energy. The obligation for each 324W
  electricity supplier is calculated by applying a percentage to that electricity supplier's total electricity sales to customers in England and Wales during each Obligation period. The same arrangement applies in Scotland under their corresponding Obligation. Total electricity sales includes electricity from all sources, including both CHP and renewables, so as to avoid market distortions. However, electricity sold under licence exempt arrangements, including CHP, is not subject to the Obligation.

  Rogue Traders
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps she is taking to protect consumers from the activities of rogue traders. [105092]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  In June 2001 the Government introduced Stop Now Orders, giving Trading Standards departments and other named bodies the power to seek injunctions against traders who do not comply with a range of legislation intended to safeguard the interests of consumers.

  Through the Enterprise Act 2002, the Government will enable the OFT, Trading Standards and other designated enforcers to obtain 'Stop Now Orders' against a wider range of illegal activities which harm the interests of consumers. It is our intention to commence these and other key provisions of the Act in the summer.

  In addition, we launched an awareness campaign last year to highlight the risks and warning signs associated with postal scams and explain how consumers can avoid becoming scam victims. Consumers were encouraged to send suspect mailings to the Office of Fair Trading for investigation.

  Scotland
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many times she has visited Scotland on official duties each year since 2000; and what meetings were held on each occasion. [103612]

  Ms Hewitt
  Since my appointment in June 2001, I have visited Scotland on one occasion in 2001 and one occasion in 2002.

  In line with exemptions 2 and 7 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, it is not 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.

  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry 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. [103656]

  Ms Hewitt
  Departmental 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 Cabinet Office on 10 March.

  Small Coal Mines
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to her answer of 13 March 2003,Official Report, column 361, on small coal mines, if she will set out the results of her meeting on 19 March 2003; and if she will make a statement. [105048]

  Ms Hewitt
  At the meeting between the Department, the small mines representatives and the claimants' solicitors on 19 March, the small mines representatives confirmed their agreement in principle to sign up to the Claims Handling Agreement for respiratory disease as soon as detailed terms could be agreed between the parties. This was confirmed by Counsel for the small mines at the court hearing on 20 March. However, before this can be achieved, all parties await sight of the expert's report commissioned by the claimants' solicitors, covering issues such as dust levels, dust suppression and respirator usage in small mines. This report responds to the expert's report produced by the small mines representatives and is expected to be available at the end of April. It will help to inform the final negotiations on the terms under which the small mines will accede to the Claims Handling Agreement.

  UK Steel
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the steel tariffs imposed by the US Government; and what discussions she has had with the US Government in relation to removing the tariffs on steel. [103858]

  Ms Hewitt
  I have taken every opportunity to press our concern about the continued imposition of these unjustified tariffs and to express support for the UK product exclusion requests, including a telephone conversation with Donald Evans, US Commerce Secretary on 26 March.

  On 21 March the US Administration announced the outcome of the second round of product exclusion requests which was launched in September last year. Of the 72 requests submitted by 10 companies, 62 were approved. As in the first exclusion round, the Government actively supported all UK requests liaising closely with UK companies and the US Administration.

  In April, the WTO Dispute Settlement Panel is expected to rule on the challenge to the US steel safeguard action by the EU (together with Brazil. China, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, South Korea and Switzerland). We expect the panel to rule against the US measures. We will urge the US administration to take account of its WTO obligations and the wider trade liberalisation agenda and come into full and prompt compliance with the ruling and immediately withdraw the tariffs.

ADVOCATE-GENERAL

  Overseas Trips
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Advocate General if she will list each of the overseas trips made by herself in 2002; and what the(a) purpose and (b) cost of each trip was. [101844]
  326W
  The Advocate-General for Scotland
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend, the Minister for the Cabinet Office, on 22 January,Official Report, column 334W.

SCOTLAND

  Award Schemes
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will list the award schemes in(a) 2001 and (b) 2002 promoted by the Department; what their scope was; when the relevant participating organisations are scheduled to be sent results; and whether other parties will be given notification of the results at the same time. [102060]

  Mrs. Liddell
  No award schemes have been promoted by my Department.

  Civil Contingency Planning
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will make a statement on her Department's responsibilities with regard to civil contingency planning; what action she is taking within her Department to improve such planning; and what action she is taking in collaboration with other Departments. [102629]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office on 21 March 2003,Official Report, column 957W.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what her estimate is of her Department's spending on(a) consultants, (b) advertising and publicity, (c) travel and (d) conferences in each year from 1999–2000 to 2002–03; and if she will make a statement. [90382]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Scotland Office was established in its present form on 1 July 1999.

  The information requested is as follows:

  £

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  12002–03

  Consultants

  0

  5,465

  17,864

  10,720

  Advertising

  0

  0

  0

  10,390

  Publicity

  21,000

  270,494

  186,564

  0

  Travel

  225,912

  388,194

  382,618

  370,000

  Conferences

  0

  0

  0

  3,296

  1 Estimate

  E-Mail Addresses
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland by what e-mail address members of the public may contact(a) her and (b) each of the Ministers in her Department; and for each e-mail address if she will state (i) the date it became active and (ii) the number of e-mails received in each month since activation. [97454]
  327W
  Mrs. Liddell
  The information requested is as follows:

  (a) and (b)—scottish.secretary@Scotland.gov.uk

  (i) June 19991

  (ii) The number of e-mails are shown in the table

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  January

  —

  30

  50

  137

  February

  —

  42

  56

  159

  March

  —

  45

  66

  —

  April

  —

  37

  55

  —

  May

  19

  28

  52

  —

  June

  13

  39

  60

  —

  July

  17

  39

  77

  —

  August

  19

  35

  59

  —

  September

  20

  39

  54

  —

  October

  25

  42

  48

  —

  November

  18

  67

  95

  —

  December

  16

  53

  101

  —

  1 Reliable/accurate records have only been kept since May 2000

  Gross Domestic Product
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on how many occasions since Quarter 2 of 1997 the percentage growth of GDP in Scotland has exceeded that of the UK as a whole. [101972]

  Mrs. Liddell
  On eight occasions since Quarter 2 of 1997 quarterly figures for GDP at constant basic prices have shown quarterly rates of growth for Scotland exceeding those for the UK as a whole.

  Minimum Wage
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will estimate the impact of increasing the minimum wage(a) in line with average earnings, (b) to £4.17 per hour, (c) to £4.87 per hour, (d) to £5.00 per hour and (e) to £5.30 per hour, on the cost of salaries of departmental employees (i) in total and (ii) for each nation of the United Kingdom in the next financial year. [90606]

  Mrs. Liddell
  In the current financial year, the lowest salary level in my department is £10,300, which equates to an hourly rate of £4.71. The effect of a minimum wage of £4.17 would therefore be nil.

  If the minimum wage was raised to higher levels there would be an effect on the cost of salaries but, given the very small numbers of staff involved, this would not be significant.

  Overseas Trips
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will list each of the overseas trips made by herself and other members of her ministerial team in 2002; and what the(a) purpose and (b) cost of each trip was. [101845]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend, the Minister for the Cabinet Office, on 22 January 2003,Official Report, column 334W.

TRANSPORT

  Aggregates Levy
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what funds his Department has received from the aggregates levy sustainability fund: and on which dates funds were received in each case. [105341]

  Mr. Jamieson
  None. My Department did not consider it could properly allocate funds within the criteria laid down by the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

  Rail Franchises
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimates he has made of the price of the bond for each rail franchise which would be returned to the Strategic Rail Authority should a franchisee default on its franchise agreement. [105343]

  Mr. Jamieson
  None. The amounts of performance bonds are included in franchise agreements between the Strategic Rail Authority and train operating companies. These agreements are available for inspection on the Authority's public register.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Hospitality
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland 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. [99575]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  On 23 February, as part of a continuing programme of briefing backbench MPs on NI issues, the Secretary of State provided dinner at the Hilton Hotel for a party of backbench Labour MPs at a total cost of £639.35.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how often Ministers in his Department have received hospitality in restaurants from outside groups in the last 12 months. [99498]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Since 1 April 2002, Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office have received hospitality in restaurants from outside groups on 27 occasions.

  Libraries Investment
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland pursuant to his answer of 5 March,Official Report, column 194W, when a decision will be made on which library facilities will benefit from the recently announced investment. [104729]

  Angela Smith
  A decision should be taken before the end of 2003 on which library projects are suitable for inclusion in the Strategic Investment Programme. The facilities that actually benefit will then depend on a number of factors including the outcome of the public private partnership procurement methodology that can take a year to 18 months to complete.
  329W
  The Department of Culture Arts and Leisure has commissioned PriceWaterhouseCoopers (PWC) to carry out a feasibility study to evaluate the potential for various forms of Public Private Partnership (PPP) to deliver improved value for money in library facilities when compared with more conventional procurement and to identify the forms of PPP that offer the greatest potential for improved value for money. The report is expected within a month and will help me to identify the high priority library projects that are most likely to attract private sector interest and therefore benefit from the Strategic Investment Programme. Within this programme £20 million has been identified for potential library and other information resources projects.

  Organic Management
  David Burnside
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what area of land is under organic management in Northern Ireland. [104557]

  Mr. Pearson
  The following is the response from the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development:

  The total area of land in Northern Ireland under organic management is 5,200 hectares.

  Band members

  Pay costs1 (£)

  Transport costs2 (£)

  Band uniform costs (£)

  Miscellaneous costs (£)

  Total (£)

  2000–01

  34

  1,213,061

  80,000

  5,772

  13,709

  1,312,542

  2001–02

  32

  1,214,444

  85,000

  0

  12,951

  1,312,395

  2002–03

  32

  1,252,990

  90,000

  0

  3,634

  1,346,624

  1 Pay costs based on average cost per rank.

  2 Estimated transport costs

  Programme for International Student Assessment
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether the results of the(a) 2003 and (b) previous programme for international student assessment will be considered by the review into the future of post primary education in Northern Ireland. [104514]

  Jane Kennedy
  The review of post-primary education will consider the results of PISA 2000, PISA 2003 when available, and other relevant statistical data, along with the views expressed in meetings with political parties, the education sector and parents and the responses to all strands of the consultation.

  Financial years

  Constituency

  2000–01 (£000s)

  2001–02 (£000s)

  2002–03 (£000s)

  North Belfast:

  Primary Schools

  511

  623

  552

  Secondary Schools (including Grammar Schools)

  1,040

  1,267

  673

  South Belfast:

  Primary Schools

  542

  412

  294

  Secondary Schools (including Grammar Schools)

  574

  271

  321

  East Belfast:

  Primary Schools

  415

  1,151

  274

  Secondary Schools (including Grammar Schools)

  416

  1,300

  342

  West Belfast:

  Primary Schools

  1,222

  250

  279

  Secondary Schools (including Grammar Schools)

  406

  978

  35

  Police Band
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) whether outside funding has been used to finance the police band; [105078]

  (2) how much the police band has cost in each of the last five years; [105133]

  (3) how many band members there were of the RUC/PSNI band in each of the last five years. [105135]

  Jane Kennedy
  Despite attempts to source private sector funding and a National Lottery grant, no outside funding has ever been secured to finance the police band.

  The established strength of the PSNI band is a complement of 40 members. The actual strength has varied slightly from time to time as members left and others joined the band. When the decision was taken to stand down the band there were 32 members.

  Cost figures for the band for the last three years are shown in the table. The PSNI advise that figures for years 1998–99 and 1999–2000 are not readily available in the timescale requested as they are in archive, however I shall write to the hon. Member when the information is provided and place a copy in the Library of the House.

  School Buildings
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much money has been allocated for(a) capital repairs and (b) new building in (i) primary and (ii) secondary schools in each Belfast constituency in each year since 1999. [103243]

  Jane Kennedy
  The money allocated for capital repairs, excluding maintenance work, is only available in the form requested from the 2000–01 financial year. The information is as follows:
  331W
  The money allocated for new building in my Department's capital programmes is as follows:

  Capital programmes

  Constituency

  1999(£m)

  2000(£m)

  2001(£m)

  2002(£m)

  2003(£m)

  North Belfast:

  Primary Schools

  -

  -

  3.80

  -

  -

  Secondary Schools (including Grammar Schools)

  0.03

  13.45

  1.00

  0.03

  33.20

  South Belfast:

  Primary Schools

  -

  1.40

  2.30

  -

  -

  Secondary Schools (including Grammar Schools)

  -

  1.05

  16.80

  -

  0.30

  East Belfast:

  Primary Schools

  -

  2.00

  -

  -

  6.10

  Secondary Schools (including Grammar Schools)

  -

  0.48

  0.27

  0.32

  47.00

  West Belfast:

  Primary Schools

  2.40

  5.10

  4.00

  1.40

  4.30

  Secondary Schools (including Grammar Schools)

  0.90

  0.95

  0.54

  21.20

  16.70

TREASURY

  Business Investment
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the level of business investment as a proportion of GDP since 1997 in(a) current and (b) constant prices; and if he will make a statement. [105165]

  John Healey
  In 2002, business investment stood at 12.4 per cent. of constant price GDP and 10.1 per cent. of current price GDP. Clearly the challenging global economic environment of recent years has had an adverse impact on investment in the UK as in all the other major economies. Nonetheless, even amidst the difficulties of the world economy in 2001 and 2002, business investment still stood 26 per cent. higher last year, in real terms, than it did in the year before this Government took office.

  Government Finance
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the Government's PPP and PFI liabilities. [105166]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Government accounts for their PPP and PFI liabilities in accordance with independently established accounting standards. Our treatment of PFI is audited by the National Audit Office and other independent audit bodies. We publish a full record of future payments under PFI contracts in the Budget.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many taxpayers paid income tax at the higher rate in(a) 2002 and (b) 1997; and if he will make a statement. [105167]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Member to table T2.1 of Inland Revenue Statistics which can be found on their website on www.inlandrevenue.gov.uk/stats/ income_tax/it_t01_1.htm

  Education (Developing Countries)
  Jim Dobbin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of his proposed International Finance Facility on education in developing countries. [105168]

  John Healey
  The proposed International Finance Facility would seek to double aid for the world's poorest countries from $50 billion a year today to $100 billion a year up to 2015. It is designed specifically to help provide the additional finance needed to meet the internationally agreed Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).

  This includes the goal of achieving universal primary education for all by 2015. Best available estimates suggest that achieving this would require around $10 billion more each year to be spent on education. The IFF would seek to provide this and the further finance needed to meet all the MDGs.

  Manufacturing
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what new plans he has to stimulate investment in manufacturing. [105169]

  John Healey
  The most important contribution Government can make is to create a stable macroeconomic environment in which manufacturers can invest, grow and prosper. The Government have also introduced measures to help UK manufacturers improve their investment, productivity and competitiveness. Cuts in corporation tax and the R&D tax credit will substantially benefit manufacturers, while new venture capital funds, increased RDA budgets, strong spending on science and innovation, and our initiatives to boost skills are all stimulating investment.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received about increases in national insurance contributions. [105171]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government have received a number of representations about the increases in national insurance contributions.

  World Trade
  Mr. Tom Harris
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent discussions he has had on progress on world trade liberalisation. [105172]

  John Healey
  I refer my hon. Friend to the Chancellor's reply to the hon. Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight) earlier today on plans to discuss progress at the IMF and World bank.

  International trade is a matter for the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. The Treasury contributes to the Government's policy discussion on trade issues, as well as in meetings of finance ministers touching on trade and the dialogue with international financial institutions.

  Business Incentives
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what pre-Budget submissions he has received on business incentives. [105173]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government have received a number of representations from businesses in all sectors of the economy. Ministers and officials have also met with business leaders to discuss representations, and to consider the role the Government can continue to play in fostering enterprise, improving productivity, and ensuring a competitive economy.

  Mapeley Contract
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the Mapeley STEPS PFI contract with the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise. [105174]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Chancellor made it clear to the House on 12 February 2003 that the Treasury would be studying the Treasury Select Committee Report into the STEPS deal. The Government will be responding to the committee's report in due course.

  Air Travel Insurance Cover
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received on insurance cover for those travelling by air in the event of a war or terrorist attack. [105291]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Chancellor has received no recent representations on insurance cover for those travelling by air in the event of war or terrorist attack.

  Allowances Indexation
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate of the rate of inflation in September 2002 was used for the purposes of calculation of the revenue raised by non-indexation of allowances in financial year 2003–04 as set out in line 1 of table 1.2 of Budget 2002 (HC 592); and if he will make a statement. [104756]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Budget 2002 forecast of Retail Price Index in September 2002 used for the purposes of 334W
  calculating the revenue raised by non-indexation of allowances in financial year 2003–04 is given in table C3 of the 2002 Financial Statement and Budget Report.

  Average Earnings
  David Davis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the gap between the average earnings of men and women was in(a) the East Riding of Yorkshire and (b) Yorkshire and the Humber in the last year for which figures are available. [105194]

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

  Letter from Len. Cook to Mr David Davis, dated 27 March 2003 As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question about the gap in average earnings between men and women in the East Riding of Yorkshire and in Yorkshire and the Humber. (105194)
  The table below shows the average hourly earnings excluding overtime for male and Female full-time employees in April 2002, the most recent date for which information is available. The data are from the New Earnings Survey and apply to people on adult rates whose pay was not affected by absence.

  Average hourly earning—April 2002

  £

  Men

  Women

  difference

  East Riding of Yorkshire UA

  10.47

  8.56

  1,91

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  10.72

  9.20

  1.52

  David Davis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the average earnings were, broken down by(a) gender and (b) 10-year age band for each year since 1997. [105283]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. David Davis, dated 27 March 2003:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question about the average earnings of people by gender and age band for each year since 1997. (105283)
  The table below shows the average hourly earnings excluding overtime for males and females, in ten year age bands, in April for each of the years specified. The data are from the New Earnings Survey and apply to people on adult rates working full-time whose pay was not affected by absence.

  Average hourly earnings—Great Britain

  £

  Age

  16–25

  26–53

  36–45

  46–55

  56–65

  Males

  April 1997

  6.32

  9.00

  10.93

  11.16

  9.26

  April 1998

  6.59

  9.42

  11.39

  11.82

  9.62

  April 1999

  7.01

  9.89

  11.83

  12.21

  10.23

  April 2000

  7.09

  10.36

  12.39

  12.68

  10.55

  April 2001

  7.49

  11.19

  13.16

  13.37

  11.18

  April 2002

  8.22

  12.06

  14.02

  13.86

  11.45

  335W

  Average hourly earnings—Great Britain

  £

  Age

  16–25

  26–53

  36–45

  46–55

  56–65

  Females

  April 1997

  5.67

  8.21

  8.75

  8.17

  7.06

  April 1998

  5.93

  8.60

  9.13

  8.50

  7.41

  April 1999

  6.29

  9.06

  9.59

  9.05

  7.87

  April 2000

  6.54

  9.43

  10.09

  9.41

  8.40

  April 2001

  6.97

  10.25

  10.72

  9.96

  8.96

  April 2002

  7.55

  10.95

  11.11

  10.43

  9.21

  Black Economy
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his most recent estimate is of the level of turnover of the black economy as it pertains to the construction industry. [104852]

  Dawn Primarolo
  It is not possible to provide reliable estimates about the level of turnover of the black economy as it pertains to the construction industry.

  Child Tax Credit
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many applicants for the Child Tax Credit from Staffordshire are waiting to hear(a) if they have qualified, (b) how much they will receive and (c) when they will be paid; and if he will make a statement. [105384]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Information about how many people have qualified for tax credits in Staffordshire, how much they will receive and when they will be paid is not available.

  The Inland Revenue will publish statistics on the Child and Working Tax Credit quarterly, beginning in August 2003. The first set of statistics will cover awards at early July 2003.

  Council Tax
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) pursuant to his answer of 18 March 2003,Official Report, column 674, on council tax, whether the definition of gross council tax for Great Britain used is the same as that used for the local taxes line of the average income tax tables contained within the document "The effects of taxes and benefits on household income 2000–01"; [104751]

  (2) to which parts of the UK the (a) domestic rates and (b) water charges element of the local taxes line of the average income tax tables contained within the document "The effects of taxes and benefits on household income 2000–01" are applicable. [104753]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.
  336W
  Letter from Len Cook to Matthew Taylor, dated 27 March 2003:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on whether the definition of gross council tax for Great Britain, used in the answer to your question of 18th March in the Official Report, column 674, is the same as that used for the local taxes line contained within the document 'The effects of taxes and benefits on household income 2000–01'. In addition you asked to which parts of the UK the (a) domestic rates and (b) water charges elements of the local taxes line in the same document were applicable. (104751, 104753)
  The definition of gross council tax for Great Britain, used in the answer was the same as that used within the local taxes line of the tables contained within the document 'The effects of taxes and benefits on household income 2000–01.' However, the local taxes category used in the published tables for the United Kingdom includes council taxes, water and sewerage charges for England, Scotland and Wales and domestic rates in Northern Ireland.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will break down the figures for council tax as a percentage of gross income in his answer of 18 March 2003,Official Report, column 674, on council tax, into figures for (a) England, (b) Wales and (c) Scotland. [104752]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Matthew Taylor, dated 27 March 2003:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer asking for a break down of the figures for council tax as a percentage of gross income for (a) England, (b) Wales and (c) Scotland, as given for Great Britain in the answer to your earlier question on 18th March in the Official Report, column 674. (104752)
  Estimates for council taxes and income are based on the analysis "The effects of taxes and benefits on household income 2000–01" produced by the ONS and published on the National Statistics website on April 19th 2002 and in Economic Trends in the May 2002 edition. The analysis can be obtained from the House of Commons library. This includes measures of income inequality for the United Kingdom as a whole based on data from the Family Expenditure Survey. Sample sizes for each country are only sufficient to allow a break down to be given by quintiles of income distribution and not by decile as given for Great Britain in the answer to your previous question.
  The following table shows the estimated gross and net council tax for all households in Great Britain and (a) England, (b) Scotland and (c) Wales, for each income quintile where households are ranked by equivalised disposable income. The net council tax figures are gross council tax less benefits and discounts. The table also shows the equivalised disposable income quintile point boundaries, which have been calculated separately for Great Britain and each country. For example, the 1st quintile point for each country is the income below which one fifth of households in that country lie.
  Council tax benefit is available to low income households to help them meet their local tax liability. The Family Expenditure Survey collects data on the amount of council tax benefit received by households who take up their entitlement. Where a household reports taking up their council tax benefit entitlement, this has been deducted from the council tax liability to produce the net figures.

  337W

  Council tax as a percentage of gross income 2000–01

  Great Britain

  Percentage

  Quintile groups of all households ranked by equivalised disposable income

  Bottom

  2nd

  3rd

  4th

  Top

  All households

  Quintile points (equivalised disposable income £ per year)

  Great Britain

  9,821

  13,890

  19,122

  27,253

  England

  9,903

  14,102

  19,591

  27,916

  Scotland

  9,468

  12,842

  17,051

  23,892

  Wales

  9,182

  12,191

  16,316

  21,067

  Gross council tax

  Great Britain

  7.0

  4.3

  3.0

  2.3

  1.5

  2.6

  England

  7.1

  4.3

  2.9

  2.2

  1.5

  2.5

  Scotland

  7.0

  4.8

  3.5

  2.8

  2.0

  3.1

  Wales

  6.0

  3.8

  3.0

  2.2

  1.7

  2.6

  Net council tax1

  Great Britain

  4.2

  3.3

  2.7

  2.2

  1.5

  2.2

  England

  4.3

  3.3

  2.7

  2.1

  1.4

  2.2

  Scotland

  4.0

  3.6

  3.3

  2.7

  2.0

  2.7

  Wales

  3.0

  2.7

  2.7

  2.0

  1.7

  2.2

  1 Net council taxes rates after deducting discounts

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics, based on the analysis 'The effects of taxes and in Economic Trends No. 582 May 2002.

  Dormant Accounts
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what critieria are used to identify National Savings and Investments which are dormant savings and investment accounts; how much remains in such accounts; and how many such accounts there are. [104982]

  Ruth Kelly
  In common with other financial institutions, National Savings and Investments (NS&I) identifies a holding as dormant when it knows that it has lost touch with its customer—e.g. mail returned as undelivered. Given current IT capability, it is not yet possible to define and precisely quantify dormant holdings because the nature of some NS&I products means there may not be any contact with the holder for many years but the holding is still live.

  "Unclaimed monies" in the NS&I Product Accounts relate to products which have been redeemed by the Treasury, or where monthly interest or prizes are due. These monies are regarded as unclaimed when NS&I have been unable to make the payment and where the sums involved have been transferred to the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt. The total at 31 March 2002 was 30.1m. But it is not possible to say how many such holdings exist.

  Equitable Life
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he has taken to ensure that the Penrose Inquiry into Equitable Life will report as soon as possible. [105239]

  Ruth Kelly
  Lord Penrose is independent of the Treasury. It is, therefore, for Lord Penrose to determine the procedures for his Inquiry, including the timetable for reporting to Ministers. Lord Penrose has said that his aim is to report to Ministers in June.

  The Treasury has co-operated fully with Lord Penrose's Inquiry and has provided him with all the resources which he has asked for.

  Equity Prices
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assumptions were used in forming the assumption in paragraph 2.44 of the pre-Budget Report 2002, that equity prices will rise in line with money GDP. [105320]

  Ruth Kelly
  I refer the hon. Member to paragraph 11 of the Comptroller and Auditor General's report "Audit of Assumptions for the Pre-Budget 2000 Report" (HC 959, Session 1999–2000).

  Fiscal Projections
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether National Audit Office audits of the key assumptions used for the fiscal projections made in the 2002 pre-Budget report audit(a) the process used in making these assumptions and (b) the assumptions themselves. [105333]

  Ruth Kelly
  In accordance with Sections 156 and 157 of the 1998 Finance Act, the National Audit Office has been invited to audit any changes to the key assumptions and conventions underlying the fiscal projections; these are set out in Box B1 of the 2002 pre-Budget report (Cm 5664). In addition, prior to the March 2000 Budget my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer invited the Comptroller and Auditor General to carry out a three-year 'rolling review' of these assumptions.

  The remit for this exercise is set out in paragraph 6 of the Comptroller's report on the Audit of Assumptions for the 2002 Pre-Budget Report (HC 109, Session 2002–03):
  To ensure that the key audited assumptions underpinning projections of the public finances remain valid, the Comptroller and Auditor General shall examine each audited assumption three years after its most recent audit (a) to review whether the assumption has resulted in reasonable and cautious projections of the elements of the public finances projections it relates to since it was first audited; and (b) to check that it remains a reasonable and cautious assumption to use in future projections of the public finance;.

  Fiscal Rules
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer with reference to paragraph 2.10 of the pre-Budget report, Cm 5664, whether the Government are on target to meet their fiscal rules. [105334]

  Ruth Kelly
  Consistent with the "Code for Fiscal Stability", updated projections for the public finances will be set out in the Budget on 9 April 2003.

  Food Imports
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on steps he is taking to enhance the ability of HM Customs and Excise to check food imports. [104892]

  John Healey
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs made clear in her written ministerial statement on 25 March 2003,Official Report, column 5WS, HM Customs and Excise will take on responsibility for anti-smuggling controls on meat and other products of animal origin arriving from third countries with effect from 11 April 2003.

  Appropriate powers covering England, Wales and Scotland will come into force then, with equivalent powers in Northern Ireland following later. Commensurate with these new responsibilities, the Department for the Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs (Defra) will make a transfer 1 o Customs from the funds that the Government have made available to tackle these illegal imports. Customs will use these funds to increase front-line detection resources and provide support for this with improved intelligence, publicity and appropriate follow-up to detections.

  FTSE 100
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what research was commissioned by his Department prior to the publication of the pre-budget report into the level of the FTSE 100 index between March and October 2002. [105340]

  Ruth Kelly
  The 2002 pre-Budget report included an extensive discussion of global equity market developments during 2002, including analysis of the FTSE 100 index. This discussion is set out in Box A1 on page 153 of the pre-Budget report. The audited equity price assumption for the public finance projections relates to the FTSE All-Share index and is set out in Box B1 on page 188 of the pre-Budget report.

  Gross Domestic Product
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his Department's assessment is of how the current conflict in the middle east will affect GDP growth in(a) the UK and (b) the other G7 countries. [105335]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government will publish updated forecasts for UK and G7 GDP growth in the Budget on 9 April taking into account all relevant factors, including the situation in the middle east.

  David Davis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the GDP was in each region in each year since 1997. [105287]
  340W
  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. David Davis dated 27 March 2003:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question on estimates of regional gross domestic product (GDP). (105287)
  The term gross value added (GVA) is now used. Although these economic estimates have been historically referred to as GDP, under the European System of Accounts 95 (ESA95), they should be referred to as GVA at basic prices rather than GDP. This is because they are produced at basic prices, which includes the effects of taxes less subsidies on production. ONS has effected the change from GDP at factor cost to GVA at basic prices as part of implementation of ESA95, along with all other EU countries.
  Latest estimates of regional GDP were published in February 2001 for the period 1989 to 1999. The following table shows GVA by Government Office Region (GOR) for the calendar years 1997 to 1999.

  Total gross value added

  £ million

  Government office region

  1997

  1998

  1999

  North East

  24,202

  25,294

  25,875

  North West

  72,414

  75,275

  77,562

  Yorkshire and The Humber

  53,182

  55,457

  57,554

  East Midlands

  47,261

  49,413

  50,906

  West Midlands

  57,783

  61,130

  63,495

  East of England

  72,698

  77,962

  81,793

  London

  108,559

  118,499

  122,816

  South East

  108,276

  116,024

  121,956

  South West

  53,580

  56,064

  58,151

  Wales

  28,010

  29,541

  30,689

  Scotland

  58,650

  62,153

  64,050

  Northern Ireland

  15,952

  16,501

  17,003

  Extra-Regio1

  14,560

  11,983

  14,350

  United Kingdom2

  715,127

  755,297

  3787,386

  1 Extra Regio is that part of the UK's economic territory which cannot be allocated to any specific region. The contribution to UK GDP of UK embassies abroad and UK forces stationed overseas is included in Extra-Regio, along with the element of GDP relating to activities taking place on the continental shelf.

  2 Figures for all years may not sum due to rounding.

  3 Regional figures for the latest year do not sum to the UK total due to the statistical discrepancy in the National Accounts. For years up to 1998 figures are based on fully reconciled national estimates of income and expenditure. At the time of this publication the 1999 data had not been completely reconciled and a statistical discrepancy exists, which is not broken down by region. For 1999 this discrepancy is £1,188 million.

  Government Spending
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list(a) total Government spending, (b) the change in Government spending and (c) the proportion of total Government spending used for long-term capital investment in each year since 1999. [105325]

  Mr. Boateng
  Table B27 in the pre-Budget report 2002 sets out total managed expenditure and public sector investment in real terms from 1970–71.

  Insurance and Corporation Taxes Act
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what reasons the recent changes were made by the Inland Revenue to their interpretation of section 660 of
  341W
  the Insurance and Corporation Taxes Act 1988; and what additional revenue he expects the Exchequer to receive as a result. [104794]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue has not changed its interpretation of sections 660A to 669 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988.

  Private Investment
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what research was conducted to reach his prediction in paragraph 2.26 of the pre-Budget report that private investment is expected to increase during 2003. [105336]

  Ruth Kelly
  Full details of the private investment forecast are set out in Annex A of the pre-Budget report.

  Public Sector Finances
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place in the Library a copy of the assessment made by the Treasury Public Sector Finances Team and the Inland Revenue which was presented at the Treasury Management Board meeting on 4 November 2002. [104763]

  Mr. Boateng
  The presentation made to the Treasury Management Board constitutes internal advice and is exempt from disclosure under Exemption 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Registration Officers
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress he is making to introduce a right for registration officers to be heard at employment tribunals when they are unfairly dismissed. [105346]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Dr. Iddon, dated 27 March 2003:
  As National Statistician and Registrar General, I have been asked to reply to your recent parliamentary question concerning the progress to introduce a right for registration officers to be heard at employment tribunals when they are unfairly dismissed. (105346)
  In July 2002 the Department of Trade and Industry issued a Discussion Document of Employment Rights in Relation to Statutory Employment Rights. Currently they are analysing the responses to this wide-ranging discussion document, including those held by registration officers.
  The White Paper, Civil Registration: Vital Change [CM5355], proposes that registration officers will be transferred to local authority employment and receive the employment protection currently held by local government officers, including the right to be heard at an employment tribunal. This will require legislative change.

  RPIX Inflation
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assumptions were behind his assessment made in paragraph 2.28 of the pre-Budget report that RPIX inflation would fall below the Government's 25 per cent. target. [105337]
  342W
  Ruth Kelly
  A discussion of the RPIX inflation forecast can be found in paragraphs A55-A59 of Annex A of the pre-Budget report.

  Stamp Duty
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will conduct a public consultation on modernising stamp duty, with particular reference to(a) lease duty, (b) anti-avoidance measures and (c) tax reliefs. [105600]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Chancellor announced a wide-ranging reform of stamp duty on land and buildings in the UK in his 2002 Budget. Consultation on this reform was launched with the publication of a consultative document on 17 April 2002 entitled "Modernising Stamp Duty on Land and Buildings in the UK", seeking views on the detail of the modernised regime. This document included the three particular aspects to which the question refers. In addition, a number of discussions were held last year with representative bodies.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Active Community Unit
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what initiatives are planned for the constituency of Buckingham funded by the Active Community Unit; and what target he has for involvement in volunteering of residents in the constituency. [104689]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Active Community Unit funds a wide range of national voluntary and community sector organisations which benefit every area of England although no separate projects for Buckingham alone. The Government are committed to increasing community participation, including volunteering, by 5 per cent. by 2006; there is not a separate target for Buckingham alone.

  Aldershot Barracks (Bomb)
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made in securing convictions against those responsible for the bomb at the Aldershot military barracks on 22 February 1972. [104131]

  Mr. Blunkett
  The case remains open. Should any new evidence or intelligence come, to the attention of the police service, in this or any other similar cases, it will, of course, be investigated fully.

  Civil Contingency Planning
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements are in place to establish a national network of observers to monitor and report evidence of chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear attacks on the UK population. [103430]

  Mr. Blunkett
  The Government have taken several approaches to monitor for chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear releases, accidental or deliberate. These approaches include the well-established Radiological Incident Monitoring Network
  343W
  (RIMNET), air pollution monitors, the Department of Health's surveillance system and also the experience of the health and emergency services.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many units in the civil Departments are trained to respond to a chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear terrorist attack. [103431]

  Mr. Blunkett
  The emergency services are trained to provide the immediate response to a chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear (CBRN) incident, whether it is accidental or deliberate. There are also specialist bodies within the health service, such as the Chemical Incident Response Service; specialist agencies within Departments, such as the Environment Agency; and public bodies such as the National Radiological Protection Board or the Food Standards Agency.

  These organisations, and others like them, are trained in the short, medium and long-term responses required to any incident involving CBRN material. They have assisted and continue to work with the Government in reviewing and maintaining contingency plans to make sure we maintain an effective response to potential CBRN incidents.

  Community Support Officers
  Richard Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what security policing community support officers have provided in central London in the last month. [104012]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  There are currently 196 community support officers fulfilling an important security role in the City of Westminster.

  The precise deployment of police and community support officers involved in security roles is regularly reviewed and varied in line with the latest intelligence. It is not the Metropolitan Police Service's policy to disclose this information for security reasons.

  Connexions Service
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average time taken to process a Criminal Records Bureau check on an employee or consultant of the Connexions service has been. [103682]

  Hilary Benn
  There are no IT procedures at present to extract the information requested from the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) database. The estimated average turnaround of checks processed by the CRB remains at approximately five weeks. This is measured from the point at which a correctly completed form is received by the CRB, accompanied by all relevant supporting details.

  Data Protection
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what items of personal data which the Security Service has released to data subjects following requests under the Data Protection Act 1998; and if he will make a statement. [104409]
  344W
  Mr. Blunkett
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) on 24 February 2003,Official Report, column 328W.

  Drug Testing
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which EU countries have compulsory drug-testing on arrest; and what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of adopting this policy. [104589]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  We are not aware of any European Union countries which have, on arrest, compulsory drug testing on a comparable basis with the provision for testing persons in police detention after charge, introduced in England and Wales under the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000.

  That provision, with other provisions introduced under the Act for testing persons under probation supervision, is being fully evaluated as part of the drug testing pilot programme operating in nine sites in England and Wales. A preliminary findings report was published as HO Findings 176 in May 2002. A further interim report on the emerging findings from the pilot programme is being published very shortly as HO Findings 180 and will be placed in the Library. A full final evaluation report is due in spring 2004.

  Experience Corps
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what initiatives are being undertaken by the Experience Corps for volunteering in the constituency of Buckingham. [104686]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Experience Corps is a national initiative. Its aim is to encourage more people aged 50 and over to become or to remain active in their local communities. It encourages participation by people who have not volunteered before and provides mechanisms to assist the sector to ensure that new volunteers are invited to participate in the full range of volunteering opportunities. It has no initiatives specific to Buckingham but its services are likely to benefit people nationwide, including residents of Buckingham.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the Experience Corps that have been set up in the constituency of Buckingham; and how much funding each corps has received. [104687]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Experience Corps is a national initiative. Funding for the Experience Corps amounts to a total of £19.9 million over three years to March 2004. To date they have received £11.67 million. Funding has not been allocated by constituency.

  Illegal Drugs (Afghanistan)
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent estimate he has made of the proportion of(a) heroin, (b) cannabis and (c) other illegal drugs used within the United Kingdom which come from Afghanistan. [104685]
  345W
  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Her Majesty's Customs and Excise estimates that up to 95 per cent. of the heroin consumed in the United Kingdom each year originates from opium produced in Afghanistan. There are no indications that cannabis or any other illegal drugs originating from Afghanistan are being smuggled into the UK.

  Immigration Rules
  Mr. Simon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what changes will be made to the definition of public funds in Rule 6 of the Immigration Rules to reflect(a) the forthcoming abolition of certain benefits and (b) the introduction of new tax credits. [104440]

  Beverley Hughes
  From April the Inland Revenue is introducing two new tax credits, child tax credit (CTC) and working tax credit (WTC). These will replace working families tax credit (WFTC) and disabled person's tax credit (DPTC). WFTC and DPTC will be removed from the list of public funds given at paragraph 6 of the Immigration Rules, and WTC and CTC will be added in their place, by means of a rules change later this year.

  Mr. Simon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether a claim under the terms of Regulation 3(2) of The Tax Credits (Immigration) Regulations 2003 (S.I. 2003, No. 653, by a couple including a person who is subject to immigration control will not be considered to be a breach of any restriction contained in a visa. [104441]

  Beverley Hughes
  The provisions of Regulation 3(2) of The Tax Credits (Immigration) Regulations 2003 will be fully taken into account when any changes are made to the list of public funds given at paragraph 6 of the Immigration Rules. In line with this regulation, receipt of tax credits by a couple, including one member who is a person subject to immigration control, will not be regarded as a breach of any condition of leave to enter or remain.

  Indonesia
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to release Home Office papers from 1975–76 concerning Indonesia, East Timor and the Balebo killings. [103921]

  Mr. Blunkett
  A check has been made through various sources but we have been unable to establish any Home Office documents relating to the events specified in the question and therefore there are no relevant papers to release.

  Mental Health
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the funding arrangements will be for mental health provision within prisons after April. [105005]

  Hilary Benn
  Budgetary responsibility for prison health is being transferred from the Prison Service to the Department of Health from 1 April 2003. However, for the first three years the majority of resourcing for prison health, including most primary care mental health 346W
  provision, will be transferred back to the Prison Service, which will continue to deliver or commission most services through individual prisons as before.

  Funding for those NHS prison mental health in-reach services established before the end of 2002–03 was included in the baseline resource level allocations issued to the Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) concerned in December 2002. Further allocations, in respect of new in-reach services to be developed in 2003–04 and additional support For some existing services, will be made to the relevant PCTs shortly.

  Miscarriages of Justice
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent guidelines he has issued to the police on the reinvestigation of miscarriages of justice. [104353]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  There is no national guidance on this issue. It is for individual police forces to decide how to respond on the basis of the Court of Appeal's ruling and the circumstances of the individual case. The police will review the evidence available and any comments or findings made by the Court in cases where convictions are overturned.

  New Hall Prison
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many(a) male and (b) female officers are employed with juvenile girls at New Hall prison; [104068]

  (2) how many staff at the New Hall prison have had training in child protection; and what this comprised; [104064]

  (3) how many times control and restraint have been applied by male staff on juvenile girls in New Hall prison. [104067]

  Hilary Benn
  14 members of the staff at New Hall prison and young offender institution have been trained in child protection. This includes four who have been trained as trainers so that further training can be rolled out within the establishment from April.

  Training of trainers involves a two day course and trainers deliver a three hour module to staff. The module provides background on the legislation and goes on to concentrate on recognition of and response to problems; for example, signs and symptoms of abuse and how to deal with them.

  Between 1 April 2002 and 17 March 2003 there were 71 incidents at New Hall involving the use of control and restraint on juveniles. About 46 of those involved male staff. In all, 231 staff were involved in the incidents and of those about '73 were male.

  There are 18 male officers and 29 female officers on the Juvenile and Young Offender Unit at New Hall.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the hon. Member for Sutton
  347W
  and Cheam will receive replies to his questions (a) 102841, (b) 101017, (c) 101032, (d) 89980, (e) 89990 and (f) 89993. [105293]

  Hilary Benn
  Question 101032 was answered on 12 March 2003,Official Report, column 307W. Questions 89980, 89990 and 89993 were all withdrawn. I will reply as soon as possible to questions 102841 and 101017.

  Police Numbers
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the population per police officer was in each year since 1997 in(a) England and (b) Surrey. [104844]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  [holding answer on 25 March 2003]The tables give population per police officer in England and Surrey in each year from 1997 to 2002.

  England

  Population (mid year estimates for previous year)

  Police strength

  Population per police officer

  March 1997

  48,903,440

  118,459

  413

  March 1998

  49,089,085

  118,139

  416

  March 1999

  49,284,242

  117,195

  421

  March 2000

  49,494,582

  115,324

  429

  March 2001

  49,752,864

  116,548

  427

  March 2002

  49,997,089

  120,073

  416

  Surrey

  Population (mid year estimates for previous year)

  Police strength

  Population per police officer

  March 1997

  775,226

  1,620

  479

  March 1998

  776,643

  1,608

  483

  March 1999

  784,360

  1,662

  472

  March 2000

  786,729

  1,785

  441

  March 2001

  1,078,067

  2,066

  522

  March 2002

  1,080,647

  1,992

  543

  Note:

  The figures for Surrey were affected by the boundary changes in April 2000

  Police Officers (Portsmouth)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) full-time and (b) part-time police officers there were in the Portsmouth City area in each year since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [104946]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Information is not collected on a regular basis about the number of officers deployed to Basic Command Units within force areas. I would however refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) on 2 December 2002,Official Report, column 589W, setting out police strength for each Basic Command Unit for each force in England and Wales as at 31 March 2002.

  The deployment of resources between the 12 territorial divisions and other specialist operational and support units of the Hampshire Constabulary is an operational matter for the Chief Constable.

  Prisoners (Drug Treatment)
  Mr. Nick Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answer of 18 March,Official Report, column 710W, on drug treatment of prisoners, how many offenders did not require drug and alcohol detoxification on entering prison between 1 April 2001 and 31 March 2002. [105071]

  Hilary Benn
  The information sought is not available and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost. As my previous answer explained, the Prison Service and the Department of Health are only able to report the number of detoxifications carried out. This figure does not necessarily reflect the actual detoxification need, nor—by extension—the number of prisoners who do not require the intervention.

  Prisons (Juvenile Girls)
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether juvenile girls are held with adult women prisoners. [104065]

  Hilary Benn
  In two establishments, Brockhill and Eastwood Park, prisoners under 21 are housed together in wings. The juveniles are in a dedicated part of the wing in their own single rooms. All offenders have meals, fresh air and recreation together under close supervision. Juveniles receive special education and physical education provision. Some mixing with young offenders occurs under close supervision during education.

  At Bullwood Hall juveniles are in a dedicated wing and are accommodated separately within education. Some mixing with older girls under supervision occurs with common events such as chapel.

  New Hall has a separate unit for juveniles but also has additional accommodation that has recently been established to cater for increased numbers of young women. Juvenile girls are accommodated in that facility when operationally necessary. All juveniles have their own dedicated education but mixing does occur at times and is closely supervised.

  The arrangements outlined apply to remand and sentenced girls at those establishments. Additional remand facilities for juvenile girls exist at Low Newton, Styal and Holloway. These require juveniles to share with young offenders. Finance has recently been obtained to provide special facilities for juveniles at Holloway.

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many juvenile girls in prison are pregnant. [104066]

  Hilary Benn
  The information requested is not available.

  Probation Officers (Suffolk)
  Mr. Ruffiey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many probation officers were in post in Suffolk in each year since 1997; and how many(a) offences and (b) offenders the Probation Service in Suffolk dealt with in each year since 1997. [104800]
  349W
  Hilary Benn
  The information requested is as follows:

  Numbers of probation officers1,2

  Suffolk

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Probation officers

  89

  94

  95.4

  97

  97.5

  Probation Service officers

  12

  9

  16

  18

  25

  Total

  101

  103

  111.4

  115

  122.5

  1 Numbers shown as whole time equivalents.

  2 Information shown taken at 31 December.

  Although the question specifically asks for the number of probation officers, the information on Probation Service officers has also been provided. There has been an increasing growth in the use of Probation Service officers to support the work undertaken by probation officers. In particular, the use of accredited programme has seen a number low/medium risk offenders supervised as part of a group rather than on an individual basis as has occurred in the past. Probation Service officers, who receive specific training to enable them to manage these programmes and supervise the offenders participating, run these accredited programmes.

  (a) Probation figures are reported by person and therefore information pertaining to the number of offences dealt with by the probation service are not available.

  (b) Suffolk:

  Persons starting supervision by the Probation Service

  Number of offenders

  1997

  1,346

  1998

  1,467

  1999

  1,420

  2000

  1,418

  2001

  1,373

  Source:

  Figures obtained from RDS Probation Statistics 2001.

  Scotland
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many times he has visited Scotland on official duties each year since 2000; and what meetings were held on each occasion. [103604]

  Mr. Blunkett
  Since becoming Home Secretary, I have visited Scotland once on official business. I have also visited several times on party business. In line with exemptions 2 and 7 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, it is not normal practice to release details of specific meetings or their content, as some of these discussions may have taken place on a confidential basis.

  Special Constabulary (Suffolk)
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the strength was of the special constabulary in Suffolk in each year since 1997. [104815]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The information requested is set out in the table. The latest available figures are for March 2002, when there were 308 special constables in Suffolk constabulary. Figures for 31 March 2003 will be published in due course with other police personnel statistical data.
  350W

  Year (as at 31 March)

  Special constable strength in Suffolk

  1997

  379

  1998

  397

  1999

  420

  2000

  391

  2001

  349

  2002

  308

  Source:

  Home Office Research, Development and Statistical Group.

  The National Policing Plan 2003–06 reaffirms our commitment to introducing measures to increase the numbers and effectiveness of the special constabulary. The National Specials Weekend which was held on 21–23 February provided an opportunity for forces to
  "encourage more recruits by raising the profile of the Special Constabulary and recognising the enormous contribution made by its members to local policing".
  The new specials website, which can be found at www.specialconstables.gov.uk, has been designed so that specials and their managers can keep abreast of developments and share good practice. Guidance on good practice in all aspects of specials' local recruitment, management and deployment is being produced by the Home Office with the Association of Chief Police Officers, and will be published on this site.

  Additionally, we have introduced amendments to the Special Constabulary Regulations to allow police authorities to submit schemes, which they have agreed with the chief constable, for the payment of special constables. Such schemes will require the approval of the Secretary of State. Running a number of trial schemes will help establish to what extent payments to specials have a positive effect on their recruitment and retention and the number of hours they are able to offer their force. As announced by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on 24 March, the first such scheme to be authorised is in Workington in Cumbria.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Burundi
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent discussions her Department has had with the World Food Programme regarding the humanitarian situation in Burundi. [105117]

  Clare Short
  The DFID representative in Bujumbura is in regular contact with WFP and the UN co-ordination team and regularly attends the weekly contact group for UN and other agencies which is co-ordinated by the UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs.

  In early March WFP distributed 7,744 tons of food to over 750,000 beneficiaries. They currently have just under 3,500 tons of stock available. They are appealing for further contributions in order to maintain deliveries. We are considering this request in the context of our overall humanitarian response.

  Departmental Invoices
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the occasions
  351W
  on which her Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies failed to pay valid invoices within 30 days or after the agreed credit period within financial year 2001–02. [104311]

  Clare Short
  In the 2001–2002 financial year my department received 34,435 invoices. 96.62 per cent. of valid invoices were paid within the prompt payment deadline.

  Emergency Preparedness
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on a Joint NGO Emergency Preparedness Initiative. [105024]

  Clare Short
  The Joint NGO Emergency Preparedness Initiative (JNEPI) is a consortium of non-governmental organisations consisting of the International Medical Corps, International Rescue Committee, Mercy Corps, Save the Children U.S. and World Vision U.S. It aims to serve as a clearing house for information gathered by its members and other agencies on the Iraq situation. It is currently based in Amman, Jordan. My Department is in regular contact with JNEPI on humanitarian preparedness planning.

  Iraq
  Mr. Lyons
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much UK will invest in reconstruction and aid to Iraq in 2003–04. [104728]

  Clare Short
  My Department has an ongoing programme of humanitarian support to the people of Iraq which is delivered through NGOs and international organisations. This programme is allocated £6 million in 2003–04.

  In addition, I have committed £50 million to support preparations and work by humanitarian agencies in the current crisis. This includes £32 million for the Red Cross/Red Crescent and £8 million for the World Food Programme. My Department has a further £40 million set aside for the immediate humanitarian response and is considering further assistance in line with emerging needs.

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

  It is too soon to allocate funds for the post-war reconstruction of Iraq.

  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what criteria will be used to determine whether Iraq is too insecure for civilian humanitarian agencies to operate within its borders. [104873]

  Clare Short
  Humanitarian agencies cannot operate until a permissive security environment has been established. Until such time as alternative arrangements are made, the military will discharge their humanitarian obligations under the Geneva and The Hague 352W
  conventions in order to provide relief in the interim in the territory they occupy. The Office of the UN Security Co-ordinator (UNSECOORD) provides security advice to the UN humanitarian agencies. Once the situation allows, NGOs will need to undertake their own security assessments before engaging. Security updates are being provided through the Humanitarian Operations Centre in Kuwait.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much pre-positioned stocks of humanitarian aid is held by USAID for the people of Iraq. [105020]

  Clare Short
  So far, USAID has announced $154 million for humanitarian relief, food distribution, reconstruction and transition initiatives. The State Department's Bureau for Population, Refugees and Migration has also contributed over $15 million to agency pre-positioning efforts.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what is being done to(a) ensure the safety of pre-positioned stocks of humanitarian aid for Iraqi people and (b) open access to them. [105021]

  Clare Short
  DFID has been in close discussion with the Ministry of Defence over many months working to minimise the humanitarian impact of any conflict; both to limit 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.

  DFID has provided funding to humanitarian agencies to enable them to pre-position stocks for the Iraqi people. Agencies use their standard operating procedures to monitor these stocks. The armed forces provide security advice on access issues. Distribution of humanitarian supplies is based on assessments of need and giving priority to the most urgent cases of distress, rather than open access to all.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much money her Department has given to(a) USAID, (b) the UN and (c) non-governmental organisations for humanitarian contingency plans for Iraq. [105022]

  Clare Short
  USAID is the development arm of the US government. DFID obviously does not fund it.

  To date, DFID has committed £50 million to support preparations and work by humanitarian agencies in the current crisis. Of this, £13 million has been committed to UN agencies and £32 million to the International Red Cross/Red Crescent movement. £5 million has been committed to NGOs, of which specific agreements have been reached to date for £1 million. My Department has a further £40 million set aside for the immediate humanitarian response and is considering further assistance in line with emerging needs. We anticipate a further appeal from the UN and are continuing to assess proposals from NGOs.

  DFID also provide 19 per cent. of European Community (EC) funding for Iraq. On 21 March the College of European Commissioners proposed to release an additional €79 million from the Emergency

  353W
  Aid Reserve, increasing their total commitment to €100 million. This funding is still to be approved by the Council.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development which international non-governmental organisations and local Iraqi non-governmental organisations she is in discussions with concerning the situation in Iraq; and when these discussions commenced. [105023]

  Clare Short
  My officials have been meeting with NGOs in London for several weeks and are liasing with them in the region. Until now we have not been in a position to meet with local Iraqi non-governmental organisations.

  DFID has received and is urgently assessing a substantial number of proposals from NGOs.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the likelihood of using frozen Iraqi Government assets for humanitarian relief and post-conflict reconstruction; and how much this money is estimated to be. [105025]

  Clare Short
  In accordance with UN Security Council resolutions 661, 687 and 778, the UK Government have the power to freeze the accounts of the Government of Iraq, bodies incorporated in Iraq and residents of Iraq. UK banks hold US$648 million in frozen Iraqi assets.

  The UK Government do not have the power to appropriate the assets in these accounts, and we are considering how best to deal with them. Subject to protecting the legitimate interests of private asset holders, we are keen that those assets held in the UK, as well as those held worldwide, should be used for the future benefit of the people of Iraq.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans are in place to deal with water and sanitation contaminated by biological weapons in Iraq. [105026]

  Clare Short
  Use of biological weapons is a risk which no humanitarian agency is properly prepared to respond to. UK and US military strategy aims to minimise this risk. The Ministry of Defence are considering what limited response they could provide in the event of an attack on Iraqi civilians.

  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what recent discussions and representations she has had with the(a) United States, (b) United Nations, (c) European Union, (d) other states and (e) organisations and individuals regarding the reconstruction and development of (i) broadcasting and (ii) cultural services in Iraq; and if she will make a statement; [105039]

  (2) how much her Department has committed to the reconstruction of broadcasting and cultural services in Iraq, broken down by type; and what proportion this constitutes of the total post-conflict funds for such measures. [105040]

  Clare Short
  It is too soon to allocate funds for the post-war reconstruction of Iraqi broadcasting and cultural services. We are having some discussions on these and other reconstruction issues, but our first 354W
  priority is to secure a UN mandate to provide legal authority for the overall reconstruction effort. This would make possible the engagement of the International Financial Institutions and the wider international community. The Government are holding on-going discussions with key partners to ensure such a mandate is put in place.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Council Tax (Park Homes)
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what recent representations he has received regarding the setting of lower council tax bands for residents of park homes. [104435]

  Mr. Leslie
  In the past 12 months, the Office of Deputy Prime Minister has received one letter from the British Holiday and Home Parks Association and a further nine letters from residents of park and mobile homes requesting a lower council tax band for such homes.

  The Association also sent in a response to last summer's consultation exercise on the draft Local Government Bill. Hon. Members also expressed views during recent stages of the Local Government Bill.

  Housing Standards
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) whether housing associations are obliged to stipulate that the sub-contractors are fully accredited and work to national standards; [104739]

  (2) whether local government may ensure that housing association clients participate in the selection of building contractors chosen to perform work in their homes; [104740]

  (3) what action (a) councils and (b) residents are able to take against sub-contractors of housing associations if their work is deemed substandard or unsafe. [104741]

  Mr. McNulty
  Housing associations, like any independent businesses, are responsible for selecting building contractors to carry out work on their stock.

  The Housing Corporation's 'regulatory code' requires all housing associations to comply with statutory regulations and sets out probity and procurement policies relating to the selection of contractors and consultants by housing associations. The code also requires housing associations to take account of feedback from tenants on any aspect of the service they receive. In addition housing associations must aim to deliver continuous improvements and value for money in their services, using best value techniques.

  As with any services provided by housing associations, tenants may pursue complaints about work by sub-contractors through individual associations' formal complaints procedure, with recourse to the Independent Housing Ombudsman Service if they remain dissatisfied.

  Local Authorities (Uncollected Debt)
  Mr. Michael Foster
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what estimate he has made of the level of uncollected debt of each district council in England; [104770]

  (2) what the average level of uncollected debt is for local authorities in England. [104769]

  Mr. Leslie
  Central Government do not collect comprehensive information on levels of uncollected local authority debt. It does, however, collect information on local authority rentarrears and business rate arrears.

  Local authority rent arrears in England are reported to have totalled about £560 million as at 31 March 2002. Of this, about £350 million were in respect of current tenants, with the remaining £210 million being owed by former tenants. Figures for individual local authorities, and totals for each class of authority, have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Arrears of business rates owed to local authorities in England are estimated to have totalled almost £800 million as at 31 March 2002. Figures for individual local authorities, and totals for each class of authority, have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Central government does not currently collect information on the level of community charge or council tax arrears owed to English local authorities. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister estimates, however, that arrears in England at 1 April 2001 totalled £185 million for community charge and £1,435 million for council tax. These estimates are based on information supplied to CIPFA on its revenue collection statistics return, and on information on amounts of community charge and council tax received, which central government collects from billing authorities on the QRC4 return.

  After discussions with local government we will, however, be collecting information from English billing authorities on the level of community charge and council tax arrears as at 31 March 2003 on the QRC4 return for 2002–03.

  In addition, local authorities have some other types of uncollected debt, such as uncollected fees and charges for services. Information on these is not collected by central government.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the arrangements are for the review of the balance of funding for local government. [105372]

  Mr. Raynsford
  As announced to the House on 20 January, the balance of funding review would begin in April and the terms of reference for the review were published. These set out the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's approach to the review, the sort of people we envisaged as being on the review's steering group and the proposed working methods, timing and outputs. A copy of the terms of reference of the review has been placed in the Library of the House and can also be found on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister web-site at http://www.local.dtlr.gov.uk/finance/balance.htm. The 356W
  Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will be announcing very shortly the members of the steering group for the review and the date of the first meeting.

  Millennium Dome
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the monthly running costs of the Millennium Dome were in the last six months. [104424]

  Mr. McNulty
  Final cost figures are not yet available for the first two months of 2003, as English Partnerships are awaiting a number of outstanding invoices. However, the Dome costs* incurred for the six months up to December 2002 was £1.493 million. This is made up according to the following monthly breakdown:
  * Monthly costs include rates, utilities, security and maintenance, and English Partnerships' staff costs on management and maintenance of the Dome. Costs are calculated on an accruals basis and may be subject to reassessments, by the relevant authorities, of rates or other charges included in the cost of managing and maintaining the Dome.

  £

  Month

  Cost

  July

  250,000

  August

  245,000

  September

  242,000

  October

  241,000

  November

  262,000

  December

  253,000

  Total:

  1,493,000

  These costs, and other costs incurred by English Partnerships since they took ownership of the Dome on 1 July 2001, will be recovered from sale proceeds.

  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of progress in handing over the Millennium Dome to Anschutz Entertainment Group; when he expects the handover to be completed; and if he will make a statement. [104425]

  Mr. McNulty
  The deal to hand over the Dome to Anschutz Entertainment Group (AEG) is primarily conditional upon the granting of planning permission. On 23 December 2002 Meridian Delta Ltd., jointly with English Partnership, AEG and Quintain Estates and Development, submitted a planning application to the London borough of Greenwich.

  The London borough of Greenwich is currently considering the application and will have to decide in due course whether to grant planning permission. If it is minded to do so, the application will be referred to the Mayor of London and the First Secretary of State under the normal planning procedures.

  As the application is going through the planning process I am unable to speculate on the likely timing of completing the deal and handing over the Dome to AEG.

  Pay Costs
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the total pay costs incurred by(a) the Social Exclusion Unit, (b) the Neighbourhood Renewal Unit and (c) the Homelessness Directorate have been in each year since their creation. [103067]
  357W
  Mrs. Roche
  Tabled is the total pay costs for the Social Exclusion Unit (SEU) for each year since its creation in 1997; the Homelessness Directorate since its creation in 2000 and the Neighbourhood Renewal Unit (NRU) since its creation in 2001. The figures for the years prior to 2001–02 are in cash terms. The figures for the year 2001–02 are on a resource basis.

  £000

  Year

  SEU

  Homelessness

  NRU

  1997–98

  46

  —

  —

  1998–99

  419

  —

  —

  1999–2000

  810

  —

  —

  2000–01

  1,146

  1,055

  —

  2001–02

  1,367

  984

  2,395

  Social Housing Grant
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what notice he gave to(a) housing associations and (b) local councils of his intentions to end the local authority housing grant; what consultations he held in each case; how many homes have been built by (i) housing associations and (ii) local councils using the grant since 1996; what estimate he has made of the effect of ending the grant on the provision of affordable homes for (a) key workers and (b) people on low incomes; and how many homes planned to be built will not now be built because of the ending of the grant. [102616]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister consulted local authorities, the housing corporation, the national housing federation and other key figures in the housing world on the principle of abolishing local authority social housing grant (LASHG) last autumn. In the light of work on the "Sustainable Communities: Building for the Future", we decided to make this reform quickly—provided transitional funding arrangements were in place to ensure that well-advanced, good quality schemes were able to go ahead.

  Local authorities use registered social landlords (RSLs) as the vehicle for building homes with LASHG. They do not use this grant to develop units themselves. The following table shows the dwellings completed in each year by RSLs using the grant:
  Dwellings completed:

  1996–97: 9,609

  1997–98: 10,152

  1998–99: 9,929

  1999–2000: 8,678

  2000–01: 8,419

  2001–02: 6,971

  In my statement of 5 March I announced increased provision for transitional arrangements for LASHG. Transitional funding will now support investment in social housing of up to £550 million to £50 million more than we provided in 2002–03 from LASHG, and higher than in any previous year. The number of affordable homes to be built in 2003–04 using this funding will not
  358W
  be known until after 30 June 2003, which is the deadline for both with-debt and debt-free authorities to submit new schemes for 2003–04 to the housing corporation.

  As my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister announced on 5 February, the measures set out in the "Sustainable Communities: Building for the Future" will provide £5 billion for more affordable homes over the next three years, including at least £1 billion for key worker housing, much of which will be distributed following advice from the regional housing boards, in line with regional housing strategies.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Cuba
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the United Kingdom's relations with Cuba. [104583]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The UK's bilateral relationship with Cuba is one of constructive engagement. HMG co-operates with Cuba in a number of areas including the fight against drug trafficking, HIV/AIDS, child protection and in science and sport. We share the EU goal of encouraging a process of transition to a pluralist democracy with respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms in Cuba. With our EU partners, we take every opportunity to make clear our concerns about human rights and the one-party system in Cuba. We have raised the recent arrests of dissidents with the Cuban authorities.

  Departmental Creche Facilities
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what creche facilities are provided by his Department; and at what cost. [104302]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The FCO nursery has now been open for 18 months and can take up to 36 children. Parents pay between £110–£130 per week, depending on their grade and the age of the child. The subsidy is approximately £90,000 per annum, depending on the take-up of places and age of the children.

  The FCO is also an employer partner in the Buffer Bear network of nurseries, with access to 10 priority places on the waiting list. The cost of a place varies depending on, among other things, the location of the nursery. Staff are offered a subsidy of £20–£40 per week depending on their grade. These nurseries are based at key commuter points and offer choice for parents who do not wish to bring their children into London.

  Staff are also eligible to use the Westminster holiday playscheme, which caters for 4 to12-year-olds during school holidays, at three sites in central London. The cost is £30 per day, which is split equally between the FCO and the parent. The subsidy for financial year

  359W
  2002–03 will be in the region of £4,100. Places are offered on a first come, first served basis, which means the number of users varies each year.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Spanish Government since 1 January on sovereignty over Gibraltar; and if he will make a statement. [104980]

  Mr. Straw
  I have had several discussions with my Spanish counterpart on a range of issues since 1 January 2003. None of these concentrated on Gibraltar.

  Iran
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent assessment he has made of women's rights in Iran; what recent representations he has made to the Iranian Government on women's rights; and if he will make a statement. [104937]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  In Iran women make up over half the university intake, and are able to work, drive, and vote. There are 13 women MPs, a female Vice-President and many representatives on town and city councils. Nevertheless, we share the concerns expressed in the EU Council Conclusions of 19 March at the discrimination, in law and in practice, against women and girls in Iran. The head of the Iranian Judiciary has said there is a need to review the laws which deny women their rights. We encourage the efforts being made in Iran to have legislation passed which will permit Iran to ratify without reservations the UN Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent assessment he has made of the decision by the Iranian Government not to remove stoning from the Islamic Punishment Act; and if he will make a statement. [104940]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Although the Iranian Government have not removed stoning from the Iranian penal code we welcome their recent de facto moratorium on death sentences by stoning and hope that it is the first step towards the abolition of this practice. The British Government opposes the death penalty in all circumstances and urges all states to abolish the death penalty. Debate on such issues is growing in Iran and we and our EU partners continue to make clear our views to the Iranian Government at every suitable opportunity.

  Nigeria
  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received concerning attacks upon Christians and animists by militant Muslims in the central and northern states of Nigeria, with particular reference to Plateau state; and what representations he will make to the Nigerian authorities concerning these attacks. [104735]
  360W
  Mr. Rammell
  The British High Commission in Abuja systematically reports the violent clashes between Christian and Muslim communities in northern Nigeria, although we are not aware of attacks on animists.

  In July last year, a British Government team specialising in conflict prevention visited Plateau state to see what help the UK could offer. The team convened a round-table discussion for Christians and Muslims. We also support the efforts of Coventry Cathedral's Centre for Reconciliation, who have been trying to build trust between the religious communities in Kaduna over the last year. They plan to extend their work to Plateau State.

  As I told my hon. Friend, the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) on 22 January 2003, Official Report, column 357W, we remain in close touch with the Nigerian authorities on the issue of violence in northern Nigeria. Officials from the British High Commission in Abuja regularly visit the northern states, where the majority of religious violence takes place, and raise the matter of violence with the governors of the states concerned.

  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received concerning the declared aim of militant Muslims in Nigeria to have Sharia law imposed on a majority of the states, in order to mount a challenge to the country's constitution. [104736]

  Mr. Rammell
  Some political commentators in Nigeria have claimed that militant Moslems in the north are working towards the adoption of Sharia law by a majority of states in the Federation, with the aim of eventually altering the constitution to make Nigeria an Islamic state. But there is no indication that the majority of Moslems in the country support these moves.

  Plane Spotters
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many of the British plane spotters charged with espionage and associated charges have not received their bail money since they were acquitted in November 2002; what action the Foreign Office has taken to assist them in the return of this money; and what further action the Foreign Office plans to take. [101199]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The 12 British plane spotters have not yet received their bail money but Greek legal procedures can be lengthy. We advised the plane spotters to instruct a lawyer to apply for the return of the bail money on their behalf. Our ambassador in Athens wrote to the Minister of Justice on 28 January 2003, asking for this procedure to be expedited, and is actively pursuing this. We will continue to offer the plane spotters all the consular assistance we properly can.

  Rachel Corrie
  Richard Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions his Department has had with(a) The US Government and (b) the Government of Israel about the death of Rachel Corrie; and if he will make representations to the Israeli Government about its treatment of foreign nationals attempting to prevent the destruction of Palestinian homes by Israeli forces. [104771]
  361W
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We continue to make clear our deep concerns about the treatment of all civilians in the Occupied Territories by the Israeli authorities. I raised my concerns about civilian deaths in the Occupied Territories, including that of Rachel Corrie, in a meeting with the Israeli Ambassador on 19 March. The indiscriminate use of force by the Israel Defence Forces only fuels the cycle of violence and makes a comprehensive settlement harder to reach. We have always recognised Israel's right to take steps to provide security for its citizens, but these actions must fall within the parameters of international law.

  Officials at the Consulate General in Jerusalem have discussed Rachel Corrie's death with their US counterparts.

  Title

  Purpose

  Date

  Cost (£000)

  (a) Conferences

  Building a sustainable heritage held at the Science Museum

  To raise awareness of the principles of sustainable development to the public through DCMS sectors

  30April 2002

  7

  People and places launch

  To launch social inclusion policy for the built environment—held at the Dulwich picture Gallery held at the Dulwich picture Gallery.

  June 2002

  1.1

  Golden Jubilee Faith Forum, St. James Palace

  To bring together young people of faith from across the UK to explore the practical dimension of faith and service to the community

  9–10 June 2002

  59

  DCMS Finance Conference at the British Museum

  To bring finance directors from the Departments non-departmental public bodies up to date on recent developments, share best practice and assist in networking.

  28 January 2003

  2

  Building Tomorrow: Culture in Regeneration Conference at The Lowry

  A discussion between Ministers and key players at out the role played by culture in the regeneration of urban and rural areas

  25 February 2003

  31.2

  (b) Seminars

  Golden Jubilee seminars

  To brief local community and voluntary groups of events planned in Plymouth and Bristol

  27 March 2002

  0.8

  Accounting Officers Seminar, Tower of London

  To address a range of common strategic issues

  13 May 2002

  1.8

  Public libraries seminar

  To consult professionals on the Government's strategic framework for the public library service

  18 June 2002

  3.7

  Visual Arts seminar, London

  To discuss the structures and support required to assist the visual arts over the next 10 years

  10 July 2002

  0.3

  Exploiting the scientific research programmes

  To raise awareness within Government of the scientific, of national museums seminar research and educational work of the national museums

  22 July 2002

  0.3

  Creativity for wealth and welfare seminar

  To discuss the contribution creativity can make to wealth and welfare by participants from government, the academic world and others

  26 September 2002

  0.3

  Cultural leadership seminar at the Globe Theatre

  To discuss leadership and management issues with the cultural sector

  16 October 2002

  1.5

  Fresh Perspectives Seminar

  To raise awareness of core principles for involving children and young people among DCMS sectors

  21 November 2002

  4.2

  PE school sport and club links; open morning

  To update key stakeholders on the content and delivery of the Government's strategy for PE, school sport and club links

  5 December 2002

  1.6

  NDPB Chief Executives' Spring Seminar, London

  To address a range of common strategic issues

  3 March 2003

  7.2

  Implementing recommendations of the Coaching Task Force

  To consult with key stakeholders on the Government's proposals

  10 March 2003

  2.4

  Capital of Culture Event

  To acknowledge and celebrate the 12 cities short listed for the event

  14 October 2002

  7.6

  (c) Workshops

  Creative Industries Networking Event, London

  To bring together a range of organisations from the creative industries to share best practice

  July 2002

  6

  Informal Commonwealth Sports Ministers Meeting

  To discuss a range of relevant sports policy issues, including anti-doping, women in sport and sport and social cohesion

  24 July 2002

  35.5

  Developing a closer working relationship between the DCMS and local government

  Workshop to explore and develop opportunities for DCMS to engage more systematically with local government

  7 October 2002

  0.4

  (d) Exhibitions1

  (e) Press conferences

  Treasure Annual Report 2000

  Launch at British Museum

  14 August 2002

  0

  1 None

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Departmental Events
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list the(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. [104282]

  Dr. Howells
  Details of the events sponsored by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport that took place on non-departmental premises in the last 12 months are listed in the following table.

  Noise Pollution
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what work her Department is undertaking to monitor and act against noise pollution from public houses; [105041]

  (2) if she will list those organisations and individuals contracted to undertake research and analysis of noise pollution from public houses on her behalf; and when those contracts were agreed. [105042]

  Dr. Howells
  DCMS does not monitor noise from public houses and has not contracted any organisations or individuals to undertake research and analysis of noise pollution from public houses. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is the lead Department for policy relating to the control of noise pollution and nuisance and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Rural Affairs and Urban Quality of Life answered questions on this subject on 13 January 2003,Official Report, column 375W, and 20 January 2003, Official Report, column 104–5W.

  The Licensing Bill currently before the House of Commons will allow licensing authorities to attach conditions to premises licences and club premises certificates if they are necessary to address noise nuisance. Local residents and others will be able to make representations about applications for licences and certificates which they believe will lead to noise problems and to request reviews of licences and certificates where noise problems exist.

  Regional Cultural Consortiums
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport pursuant to the answer of 14 March,Official Report, column 429W, on regional cultural consortiums, if she will estimate the administrative costs for each consortium for (a) January to April 2003 and (b) financial year 2003–04. [104701]

  Mr. Caborn
  (a) Each consortium has the following funds available for the period January to April 2003.

  Regional cultural consortium

  £

  Eastern

  87.116

  East Midlands

  106,936

  North East

  88,386

  North West

  88,497

  South East

  84,084

  South West

  96,185

  West Midlands

  95,543

  Yorkshire

  86,656

  It is not possible to detail the exact expenditure by each consortium for the period in question until the end of the period.

  (b) For the financial year 2003–04, each Consortium has a budget of £125,000 and will continue to receive support from staff based within the Government Offices in the regions. As stated in my answer of 14 March, the Regional Development Agencies and the various regional cultural agencies have all been encouraged to help with funding and other means of support.

  Sports
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what action she is taking to encourage the(a) Football Association, (b) Rugby Football Union, (c) Lawn Tennis Association and (d) England and Wales Cricket Board to (i) increase participation in their sports, (ii) increase participation in their sports by those of Asian origin and (iii) increase participation in their sports by those living in inner city areas; and if she will make a statement. [104750]

  Mr. Caborn
  Sport's governing bodies are essential to the Government's plans to increase levels of sporting participation.

  (i) £40 million in new Lottery funding has recently been made available to national governing bodies to improve their mechanisms for delivering improvements in participation levels. In addition, the Government has taken steps to assist governing-body affiliated, and other, Community Amateur Sports Clubs in offering opportunities for people of all ages to participate in healthy recreation. DCMS worked closely with the Charity Commission on the revised guidance issued in March 2002, which will make many more local clubs are eligible for the financial benefits of charitable status;

  (ii) The Government have worked closely with the Football Association, the Rugby Football Union, the Lawn Tennis Association and the England and Wales Cricket Board increase participation among Asian people. I fully support the efforts of these governing bodies in this area, which include FA projects in Leicester and elsewhere, the RFU's social inclusion programmes including its work at the Islamic High School for Girls in Central Manchester, the LTA's inner city tennis projects and the ECB's Racial Equality Intermediate Level Award-approved coaching projects;

  (iii) all four of these governing bodies run sporting access schemes for children in inner urban areas, which complement Sport England's Sport Action Zones initiative in some of the most socially and economically deprived areas of the country. The Government will be investing £60 million over the three years from 2003–04 through the Community Clubs Investment Programme, the focus of which will be on increasing participation levels in deprived areas and among disadvantaged groups. The Government have funded additional and complementary sporting initiatives in deprived areas through the Positive Futures and Splash projects.

  Sports Facilities (Refurbishment)
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many public sports facilities in(a) Harrow, (b) London and (c) England are in need of refurbishment; and if she will make a statement. [104831]

  Mr. Caborn
  Figures on the number of public sports facilities in Harrow, London and England, which are in need of refurbishment are not available. Local authorities are the key providers of sport and recreation facilities in their areas and significant investment from the National Lottery has helped to create new state of the art community facilities. DCMS, in partnership with Sport England is developing an England-wide database
  365W
  of sports facilities, which will enable more strategic Government investment in those areas and facilities that are most important.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  International Law
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what steps the Government is taking to encourage states who have acceded to the Hague conventions also to become members of the Hague Conference on Private International Law. [102502]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  I apologise for my late reply, which is due to an administrative error. As part of its consistent support for the Hague Conference, the Government has encouraged the rapid and recent world-wide expansion of the Conference's membership; in particular, it routinely endorses applications to join from individual countries. In 2000 my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor wrote to the Ministers of Justice in South Africa, New Zealand and India to advocate membership of the conference; the first two of these countries have subsequently joined. He will continue to promote the advantages of membership on his visits to countries which have yet to join.

  Judgment Debtors
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make it the policy of the Government to allow postal service of form N39 requiring a judgment debtor to attend an oral examination at the county court. [104773]

  Yvette Cooper
  No. The order must be served on the debtor personally and the creditor must file an affidavit by the person who served the order giving details of how and when it was served. This is because non-attendance at court by the debtor may be treated as contempt of court and result in his imprisonment.

  Not-for-profit Agencies
  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if the Lord Chancellor will ensure that Legal Services Commission funding for not-for-profit agencies continues to guarantee RPI increases in salary scales; and if he will make a statement. [104505]

  Paddy Tipping
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what inflation increase has been awarded to not-for-profit agencies providing general civil contracts from 1 April 2003; and if she will make a statement. [104738]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  From April 2003, not for profit organisations offering legal services as part of the community legal service will be issued with a replacement contract by the Legal Services Commission (LSC). The new 'Not for Profit Contract', in common with the contract for solicitors, contains no guarantee of annual remuneration increases. However, my Department and the LSC are monitoring actively the provider base in all areas of law and will consider as 366W
  matters develop whether measures to enhance remuneration rates are possible within available resources.

  My right hon. and Learned Friend the Lord Chancellor and I recognise that people working in not for profit organisations are dedicated, efficient and caring individuals, providing important services to the socially excluded and disadvantaged, for rates of remuneration that will inevitably fall short of what they can earn in the private sector. However, our scope for improving the position with regard to remuneration is limited by resource constraints.

PRIVY COUNCIL

  External Reports
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the President of the Council 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. [103722]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  My Department has not commissioned any external reports from 2000 to date. The additional information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Benefit Payment Methods
  Mr. David Stewart:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what estimate he has made of the use of the(a) post office card account, (b) basic bank account and (c) direct payment into personal bank account of pensions and benefits in (i) 2003–04, (ii) 2004–05 and (iii) 2005–06. [104574]

  Malcolm Wicks
  At the start of the main move to direct payment in April 2003, there will be some 13 million benefit recipients paid by order book or giro.

  At present 85 per cent. of our customers (including 90 per cent. of pensioners) already have access to a suitable account for direct payment and we expect the majority of our customers will choose to use that account. For this reason our operating assumption is that about three million customers will open a post office card account.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pensioners draw their benefits at(a) post offices and (b) banks or building societies in the Havant constituency. [104578]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Some customers who are paid direct into an account can also collect their benefit in cash at post offices through network banking arrangements at the post office. There is no data available on the number of benefit claims collected in this way. Girocheques can be cashed either over-the-counter at a post office or through a bank account. For the purposes of this answer, girocheques have been treated as an over-the-counter method of payment.
  367W
  Figures have been compiled from those living in the Havant constituency from the data available on the 25 January 2003, and will include an overlap where some pensioners are receiving some benefits at the post office and some into a bank or building society. The number of pensioners in the Havant constituency are shown in the following table:

  Number of pensioners

  Total pensioners receiving benefit

  20,032

  Drawing benefits solely at a post office

  8,410

  Benefits solely paid direct into a bank or building society

  10,832

  Pensioners on more than one benefit, paid by combination of post office and direct into a bank or building society

  790

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pensioners in the Northavon constituency collect benefits from post offices; and how many have migrated from over-the-counter payments to direct bank transfers in the last 12 weeks. [105297]

  Malcolm Wicks
  From data available at 25 January 2003 the number of pensioners in the Northavon constituency that collect benefits from post offices is approximately 8,300.

  The information is not available in the format requested for the second part of the question.

  A comparison of the data available at 25 January 2003 with the same records available at 2 November 2002 indicates that just over 50 pensioners have

  Number of occupational pension schemes recorded by the Pensions Scheme Registry1

  Closed2

  Frozen3

  Winding up4

  Wound up5

  1 April 1998 to 31 March 1999

  243

  297

  154

  7,427

  1 April 1999 to 31 March 2000

  286

  425

  4,521

  8,185

  1 April 2000 to 31 March 2001

  341

  555

  1,702

  6,119

  1 April 2001 to 31 March 2002

  525

  558

  2,206

  4,731

  1 April 2002 to 19 March 2003

  414

  658

  1,471

  3,599

  1 The Pension Schemes Registry (PSR) is not designed or intended to provide a comprehensive or continuous statistical record of the status of schemes. The PSR registers schemes for tracing purposes and collects the levy from pension schemes, including those in the process of winding up. New scheme data is being reported to the PSR on a continuous basis. Therefore, the figures are subject to continuous revision. When a scheme has changed status, the previous status of the scheme is not recorded on the registry. Schemes have up to 12 months to notify OPRA of any status change so the data for the current year are particularly provisional. The data in the table do not include any schemes that may have changed their benefit type (money purchase, salary related or hybrid) but not their status code (open, closed, frozen, winding up, or wound up).

  2 A closed scheme is a registerable scheme to which no new members may be admitted, but existing members can continue to make contributions and accrue benefits.

  3 A frozen scheme is a registerable scheme under which benefits continue to be payable to existing members, and to which no new members may be admitted, no further contributions can be made by existing members, and no further benefits accrue to existing members (although benefits which have already accrued to them may be increased).

  4 A winding up scheme is one which has notified OPRA that it has commenced winding up procedures.

  5 A wound up scheme is one which has notified OPRA that it has completed winding up procedures.

  Note:

  The data in the table relate to private sector occupational pension schemes. In addition to data on occupational schemes, the registry also collects data on personal pension and public sector schemes. These schemes are not included in the table.

  Source:

  OPRA.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam will receive replies to his questions(a) 101909 and (b) 97567. [105294]

  Maria Eagle
  Replies were giver to the hon. Member on 25 March 2003.
  368W
  migrated at least one benefit from payments at a post office to payments directly into a bank or building society account. These figures will be influenced by people who may have moved away from, or into the area during the period of the comparison.

  Benefit-based Statistics
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what impact he expects the move from benefit-based statistics to ones focused on client groups will have on the information available via written parliamentary questions. [100791]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The move away from publishing individual benefit statistics towards a greater focus on client group based releases will have no effect on the information available via written parliamentary questions.

  Company Pension Funds
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many company pension funds have been(a) closed and (b) closed to new entrants in each of the last five years. [103911]

  Mr. McCartney
  Information on pension schemes is held by the Pension Schemes Registry that is maintained by the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority. Some data on the number of occupational pension schemes recorded by the Registry are provided in the table. The figures relate to the position as at 19 March 2003.

  Construction Industry
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will require statutory bodies that place orders with the construction industry for the improvement of public services to be required to ensure through main contractors that all sub- and specialist-contractors hold employers' liability compulsory insurance. [104851]
  369W
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The Department for Work and Pensions maintains standard clauses in contracts with its direct contractors to ensure that required insurance policies, including employers' liability compulsory insurance, are taken out and maintained.

  The Department does not have any specific procedures to ensure that main contractors in the construction industry working for statutory bodies also ensure that all their specialist and sub-contractors have the required insurance policies in place. However there is a general requirement on all suppliers specified within the contracting arrangements to ensure that they meet all their legal obligations in this area.

  Department of Social Security

  Employment Service

  Department for Work and Pensions

  Date

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  31 December 1997

  0

  746

  0

  62

  —

  —

  31 December 1998

  0

  654

  1

  81

  —

  —

  31 December 1999

  1

  431

  0

  84

  —

  —

  31 December 2000

  1

  426

  0

  121

  —

  —

  31 December 2001

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  700

  31 December 2002

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  1,214

  20 March 2003

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  1,132

  Notes:

  1. Figures reflect the numbers of staff in post at the specified dates and include staff who have been over state pension age during the year.

  2. Figures from 31 December 2001 reflect the position in the Department for Work and Pensions following the Machinery of Government changes effective from June 2001.

  Older People
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many older people live in fuel poverty. 1104455].

  Mr. McCartney
  The English House Condition Survey of 2001 shows that between 1996 and 2001 the number of households with at least one person over age 60 in fuel poverty, after taking all income into account, fell by over 50 per cent. The figures fell from just over two million to around 940,000.

  This change is due to a number of measures introduced by this Government including changes in income, lower fuel prices and installation of energy efficiency measures.

  The minimum income guarantee, introduced in April 1999, has boosted the income of the poorest pensioners and means that, from April, no single pensioner will need to live on less than £102.10 a week (£155.80 for couples). In 2003–04, the Government will spend an extra £7.5 billion a year on pensioners as a result of policies introduced since 1997. This includes £3.5 billion more on the poorest third of pensioners—almost six times more than an earnings-link in the basic state pension since 1998 would have given them.

  Most people aged 60 and over are entitled to a winter fuel payment of up to £200. More than 11 million people aged 60 and over receive payments, totalling £1.7 billion.

  Overall, prices for all fuel and light for domestic customers fell by 13 per cent in real terms between 1997 and 2002.

  VAT on fuel was reduced shortly after we came to office.
  370W
  We will consider the introduction of specific procedures within the context of the review of employers' liability compulsory insurance.

  Departmental Staff (Pension Age)
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many(a) male and (b) female employees of his Department, its predecessor and its executive agencies have been over state pension age in each year since 1997. [104580]

  Mr. McCartney
  The information for men aged 65 and over and women aged 60 and over working in the Department is in the following table.

  500,000 private sector households—many of them pensioners—have been assisted with energy efficiency measures through the home energy efficiency scheme, which is marketed as Warm Front.

  Parents with Care (Child Support)
  Andrew Selous
  TO ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many parents with care entitled to child support received(a) no child support and (b) less than they should be receiving in the last year for which figures are available; and what the total of unpaid child support arrears was. [102287]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The administration for the Child Support Agency is a matter for the chief executive, Mr. Doug Smith. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Doug Smith to Mr. Andrew Selous, dated 27 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 how many parents with care entitled to child support received (a) no child support and (b) less than they should be receiving in the last year for which figures are available; and what the total of unpaid child support arrears was.
  In the year to 30 November 20021 estimate that 384,000 parents with care were entitled to receive child maintenance following an assessment made by this Agency. Of those 79,000 received no payment and 193,000 received less than they were entitled to.
  In the same period I estimate that £790 million in child support was charged in relation to full maintenance assessments. Of this around £250 million was not paid.
  We have now started to implement the new child support arrangements legislated in the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000. These will facilitate an improvement in the number of parents with care who receive their maintenance entitlement on a regular basis.

  Pension (Part-time Workers)
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what timescale he has proposed to settle the outstanding public sector part-time workers' pension cases. [104568]

  Mr. McCartney
  No general time-scale has been proposed for such a settlement. That is a matter for the individual schemes and employers concerned.

  A number of outstanding issues remain in respect of public sector schemes. Practical arrangements for a settlement in relation to public sector schemes are to be the subject of a case management hearing before the London Employment Tribunal at the end of March.

  Pension Provision
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many working age people are in work; how many employees there are; how many people are self-employed; how many are covered by a state second pension; how many have a private pension; and how many have no private pension in 2002–03. [104564]

  Mr. McCartney
  The working age population is 34.2 million. There are 25.5 million people in work, of which 22.6 million are employees and 2.9 million are self-employed.

  Of the total working age population of 34.2 million, approximately 25.6 million people are accruing rights to the state second pension or a contracted-out equivalent. This includes people receiving credits due to caring responsibilities or disability.

  There are 14.7 million people of working age currently making contributions to a private pension, and 19.5 million people of working age not making contributions to a private pension.

  These estimates are based on the Family Resources Survey 2001–02.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people who are accruing entitlement to the basic state pension, including effective accrual through home responsibilities protection, are not accruing entitlement to the state second pension or a funded pension through contracting-out arrangements. [104576]
  372W
  Mr. McCartney
  We estimate that approximately 5 million people of working age are accruing rights to the basic state pension but not accruing rights to the state second pension or a contracted-out equivalent.

  All sources of credits for both the basic state pension and state second pension have been included to determine which people are accruing future pension rights.

  Source:

  The figure of 5 million was calculated using information on individual characteristics from the Family Resources Survey 2001–02.

  Pensioner Households
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pensioner households in which the benefit recipient or their partner is(a) over 60 and (b) over 75 are in receipt of (i) an amount of council tax benefit and (ii) full council tax benefit. [103992]

  Mr. McCartney
  The information is shown in the following table:

  CTB claimant and/or partner over 60 and over 75 with full/partial benefit, Great Britain—May 2001

  Over 601

  Over 752

  All CTB recipients

  2,345,000

  1,170,000

  Partial CTB

  685,000

  304,000

  Full CTB

  1,660,000

  867,000

  1 'Over 60' refers to benefit units where the claimant and/or partner are aged over 60 (ie aged 61 and over).

  2 'Over 75' refers to benefit units where the claimant and/or partner are aged over 75 (ie aged 76 and over).

  Source:

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

  Pension Credit
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will place a copy of the Regulatory Impact Assessment for the Pension Credit in the Library; and if he will make a statement. [105177]

  Mr. McCartney
  A summary of the Pension Credit Regulatory Impact Assessment can be found at paragraphs 183–84 of the Explanatory Notes to the State Pension Credit Bill as brought from the House of Lords on 25 February 2002, a copy of which is in the Library. The proposals are expected to have a minimal impact on business.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  ADHD
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how many schoolchildren there are with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder in(a) the Jarrow constituency, (b) south Tyneside, (c) north-east and (d) England; [104584]

  (2) what procedures are in place to identify schoolchildren with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder; [104585]

  (3) what measures have been introduced to help schoolchildren with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. [104586]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Information on the number of schoolchildren with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) is not collected centrally. From January 2004 the Department will be collecting data on SEN by type of need. This will include children with Behavioural, Emotional and Social Difficulties, but will not contain a separate category for ADHD.

  All schools and local education authorities have statutory duties to identify, assess and make suitable provision for children with SEN, which includes those pupils with behavioural difficulties and ADHD. The SEN Code of Practice provides practical advice to schools and Early Years settings to help them carry out these duties. It recommends a graduated, school-based approach to meet the needs of children with SEN, and specifically offers a range of interventions for schools to use in supporting pupils who are hyperactive and lack concentration.

  Children with ADHD normally receive help and support from within the spectrum of child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS) which range from primary care, including school and social services interventions, to specialist and inpatient services. Child and adolescent psychiatrists, and increasingly paediatricians, provide specialist diagnostic and treatment services for children with ADHD, supported by members of multidisciplinary teams. The joint DfES/DH good practice guidance for schools "Supporting Pupils With Medical Needs" gives advice to schools and LEAs on supporting pupils with medical needs, including those who may be prescribed medication for ADHD.

  Educational Psychologists
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how many educational psychologist training scheme places were available in each of the last five years; and how many were taken up; [104420]

  (2) how many qualified educational psychologists there were in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement on the extent to which the need for qualified educational psychologists has been met in each of the last five years. [104421]
  374W
  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  In formation on the number of places available under the grant scheme for the training of educational psychologists, and the take-up of such places, is not collected centrally.

  The latest available information on the number of qualified educational psychologists employed by local education authorities in England is given in the following table:

  EPs (full-time equivalent)

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  In Post

  1,729.1

  1,817.5

  1,866.2

  1,883.9

  1,944.8

  On secondment

  59.0

  49.0

  62.5

  70.5

  74.9

  Total

  1,788.1

  1,866.5

  1,928.7

  1,954.4

  2,019.7

  Decisions on the recruitment, retention and deployment of educational psychologists are matters for LEAs, as employers, to determine in light of local circumstances and available resources.

  The Department is facilitating on-going discussions involving a range of partners, including representatives of the Local Government Association, on developing a new shorter entry training route for educational psychologists. It has been agreed that, subject to the outcome of an implementation study, and the necessary funding being secured, the partners will work towards an implementation date for the new arrangements of September 2005.

  External Reports
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills 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. [103715]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Full details of the external research commissioned by the Department between 1997 and 2001 are presented in the Department's Annual Report on Research (1997, 1998 and 1999) and Report of the DIES Research Conference 2001. Copies are available in the House of Commons Library. Details for 2002–2003 have also been placed in the Library.

  Information for 2002–2003 includes ongoing projects. Results from these projects will not yet be publicly available. Results of the Department's externally commissioned work are routinely published in line with the requirements of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  In addition to its research programme, the Department commissions a wide variety of external experts and independent bodies to help officials and

  375W
  others deliver its objectives. These include study materials for teachers, good practice guides and discussion papers. Information on these is not held centrally and therefore cannot be supplied on the grounds of disproportionate cost.

  Investors in People
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will encourage companies with Investors in People status to develop links with schools; and if he will make a statement. [104960]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  We welcome the involvement of business in education. We are therefore keen to encourage companies with Investors in People status to develop links with schools. We want schools and businesses to work together to help us in our drive to raise standards of achievement for all children; develop an understanding of the world of work and improve

  Group: Aged 5–10; as at 25 March 2003; Funds: Total funding; Price base: Real terms 2001–02; Actual/Rounded: Rounded

  £million/£pp:£ per pupil

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  201 City of London

  3,390

  3,390

  3,730

  3,950

  4,050

  4,490

  202 Camden

  3,330

  3,420

  3,660

  4,050

  4,450

  4,650

  203 Greenwich

  3,140

  3,240

  3,450

  3,830

  4,110

  4,230

  204 Hackney

  3,550

  3,620

  3,840

  4,160

  4,430

  4,630

  205 Hammersmith and Fulham

  3,300

  3,400

  3,610

  3,970

  4,340

  4,630

  206 Islington

  3,350

  3,450

  3,650

  4,050

  4,430

  4,570

  207 Kensington and Chelsea

  3,030

  3,300

  3,590

  3,970

  4,420

  4,820

  208 Lambeth

  3,450

  3,600

  3,840

  4,130

  4,390

  4,590

  209 Lewisham

  3,280

  3,380

  3,550

  3,860

  4,170

  4,330

  210 Southwark

  3,380

  3,480

  3,700

  3,980

  4,270

  4,460

  211 Tower Hamlets

  3,590

  3,670

  3,890

  4,250

  4,640

  4,870

  212 Wandsworth

  3,110

  3,160

  3,380

  3,660

  3,980

  4,050

  213 Westminster

  3,120

  3,270

  3,520

  3,900

  4,210

  4,480

  301 Barking and Dagenham

  2,740

  2,810

  2,920

  3,150

  3,420

  3,580

  302 Barnet

  2,560

  2,640

  2,770

  2,920

  3,230

  3,350

  303 Bexley

  2,460

  2,540

  2,650

  2,810

  3,040

  3,150

  304 Brent

  2,950

  3,040

  3,170

  3,350

  3,690

  3,850

  305 Bromley

  2,420

  2,490

  2,640

  2,830

  3,050

  3,140

  306 Croydon

  2,630

  2,720

  2,850

  3,030

  3,250

  3,370

  307 Ealing

  2,770

  2,850

  2,990

  3,220

  3,530

  3,620

  308 Enfield

  2,680

  2,740

  2,870

  3,070

  3,380

  3,540

  309 Haringey

  3,090

  3,160

  3,330

  3,610

  3,950

  4,110

  310 Harrow

  2,520

  2,590

  2,690

  2,890

  3,110

  3,250

  311 Havering

  2,430

  2,490

  2,580

  2,760

  3,000

  3,100

  312 Hillingdon

  2,510

  2,610

  2,770

  2,920

  3,140

  3,270

  313 Hounslow

  2,730

  2,800

  2,950

  3,160

  3,450

  3,660

  314 Kingston upon Thames

  2,420

  2,490

  2,620

  2,850

  3,110

  3,210

  315 Merton

  2,590

  2,660

  2,780

  3,010

  3,320

  3,370

  316 Newham

  3,070

  3,200

  3,370

  3,640

  3,960

  4,080

  317 Redbridge

  2,600

  2,670

  2,770

  2,970

  3,210

  3,310

  318 Richmond upon Thames

  2,370

  2,450

  2,570

  2,770

  2,990

  3,070

  319 Sutton

  2,470

  2,550

  2,680

  2,850

  3,080

  3,180

  320 Waltham Forest

  2,860

  2,940

  3,090

  3,340

  3,660

  3,790

  330 Birmingham

  2,500

  2,580

  2,750

  3,040

  3,320

  3,410

  331 Coventry

  2,390

  2,470

  2,590

  2,850

  3,030

  3,120

  332 Dudley

  2,180

  2,240

  2,360

  2,550

  2,720

  2,820

  333 Sandwell

  2,390

  2,490

  2,660

  2,850

  3,080

  3,210

  334 Solihull

  2,200

  2,270

  2,390

  2,590

  2,770

  2,850

  335 Walsall

  2,320

  2,380

  2,520

  2,750

  2,940

  3,040

  336 Wolverhampton

  2,410

  2,480

  2,650

  2,870

  3,100

  3,300

  340 Knowsley

  2,660

  2,710

  2,880

  3,230

  3,550

  3,640

  341 Liverpool

  2,570

  2,660

  2,830

  3,220

  3,500

  3,610

  342 St. Helens

  2,290

  2,350

  2,480

  2,720

  3,010

  3,100

  343 Sefton

  2,280

  2,350

  2,490

  2,740

  2,990

  3,100

  376W
  employability; acquire knowledge, skills and attitudes about enterprise capability; financial literary and economic and business understanding.

  Education business links activities help increase motivation and attendance, and underpins, and put in context what is taught in the classroom; and prepare young people more effectively for adulthood and their working life.

  Local Education Authority Finance
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the funding per pupil was for(a) 5–10 year olds and (b) 11–15 year olds for each local education authority in England in each year since 1997.[105284]

  Mr. Miliband
  The following table contains the information required. The figures include funding through the Education Standard Spending Assessment and grants and are expressed in real terms.

  Comparable figures for 2003–04 are not yet available.
  377W

  Group: Aged 5–10; as at 25 March 2003; Funds: Total funding; Price base: Real terms 2001–02; Actual/Rounded: Rounded

  £million/£pp: £ per pupil

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  344 Wirral

  2,350

  2,420

  2,550

  2,810

  3,070

  3,190

  350 Bolton

  2,280

  2,350

  2,510

  2,760

  2,920

  3,030

  351 Bury

  2,200

  2,290

  2,440

  2,630

  2,810

  2,910

  352 Manchester

  2,640

  2,740

  2,940

  3,320

  3,610

  3,710

  353 Oldham

  2,350

  2,420

  2,560

  2,800

  3,010

  3,190

  354 Rochdale

  2,370

  2,440

  2,580

  2,850

  3,070

  3,240

  355 Salford

  2,390

  2,470

  2,650

  2,970

  3,260

  3,330

  356 Stockport

  2,180

  2,240

  2,380

  2,590

  2,760

  2,840

  357 Tameside

  2,260

  2,340

  2,470

  2,680

  2,920

  3,020

  358 Trafford

  2,230

  2,300

  2,440

  2,650

  2,860

  2,910

  359 Wigan

  2,220

  2,290

  2,440

  2,650

  2,850

  2,920

  370 Barnsley

  2,290

  2,370

  2,530

  2,740

  2,960

  3,060

  371 Doncaster

  2,360

  2,430

  2,580

  2,800

  3,000

  3,110

  372 Rotherham

  2,280

  2,360

  2,530

  2,830

  3,080

  3,150

  373 Sheffield

  2,310

  2,390

  2,570

  2,870

  3,100

  3,200

  380 Bradford

  2,410

  2,480

  2,660

  2,960

  3,240

  3,290

  381 Calderdale

  2,290

  2,370

  2,530

  2,750

  2,950

  3,040

  382 Kirklees

  2,320

  2,400

  2,550

  2,750

  2,970

  3,070

  383 Leeds

  2,290

  2,360

  2,510

  2,790

  3,040

  3,150

  384 Wakefield

  2,230

  2,290

  2,440

  2,680

  2,870

  2,960

  390 Gateshead

  2,330

  2,390

  2,550

  2,830

  3,100

  3,180

  391 Newcastle upon Tyne

  2,450

  2,560

  2,710

  3,000

  3,280

  3,370

  392 North Tyneside

  2,270

  2,330

  2,460

  2,710

  2,940

  3,070

  393 South Tyneside

  2,380

  2,470

  2,620

  2,900

  3,190

  3,270

  394 Sunderland

  2,330

  2,400

  2,530

  2,790

  3,060

  3,150

  420 Isles of Scilly

  4,110

  4,320

  4,760

  5,140

  5,700

  7,230

  800 Bath and North East Somerset

  2,150

  2,230

  2,400

  2,600

  2,760

  2,820

  801 Bristol, City of

  2,340

  2,410

  2,540

  2,790

  3,000

  3,120

  802 North Somerset

  2,180

  2,270

  2,430

  2,630

  2,770

  2,860

  803 South Gloucestershire

  2,140

  2,210

  2,360

  2,520

  2,660

  2,720

  805 Hartlepool

  2,350

  2,420

  2,570

  2,810

  3,050

  3,150

  806 Middlesbrough

  2,450

  2,560

  2,720

  2,960

  3,250

  3,380

  807 Redcar and Cleveland

  2,360

  2,430

  2,560

  2,840

  3,110

  3,200

  808 Stockton-on-Tees

  2,310

  2,370

  2,530

  2,820

  3,100

  3,210

  810 Kingston Upon Hull, City of

  2,410

  2,490

  2,650

  2,920

  3,150

  3,260

  811 East Riding of Yorkshire

  2,200

  2,270

  2,420

  2,650

  2,820

  2,890

  812 North East Lincolnshire

  2,320

  2,410

  2,570

  2,810

  3,010

  3,110

  813 North Lincolnshire

  2,280

  2,390

  2,560

  2,780

  2,930

  3,000

  815 North Yorkshire

  2,250

  2,320

  2,470

  2,700

  2,880

  2,960

  816 York

  2,190

  2,270

  2,420

  2,650

  2,800

  2,850

  820 Bedfordshire

  2,300

  2,370

  2,500

  2,730

  2,930

  3,030

  821 Luton

  2,500

  2,580

  2,710

  2,930

  3,150

  3,310

  825 Buckinghamshire

  2,310

  2,380

  2,540

  2,730

  2,930

  3,040

  826 Milton Keynes

  2,380

  2,450

  2,590

  2,790

  2,990

  3,120

  830 Derbyshire

  2,190

  2,260

  2,410

  2,620

  2,800

  2,890

  831 Derby

  2,320

  2,420

  2,600

  2,790

  2,970

  3,100

  835 Dorset

  2,200

  2,270

  2,420

  2,620

  2,780

  2,860

  836 Poole

  2,170

  2,230

  2,350

  2,530

  2,690

  2,770

  837 Bournemouth

  2,280

  2,340

  2,460

  2,690

  2,840

  2,900

  840 Durham

  2,290

  2,370

  2,530

  2,780

  3,050

  3,110

  841 Darlington

  2,290

  2,350

  2,500

  2,740

  2,930

  3,000

  845 East Sussex

  2,340

  2,430

  2,570

  2,810

  2,990

  3,080

  846 Brighton and Hove

  2,430

  2,520

  2,670

  2,930

  3,140

  3,220

  850 Hampshire

  2,240

  2,310

  2,420

  2,610

  2,810

  2,900

  851 Portsmouth

  2,410

  2,490

  2,600

  2,790

  3,050

  3,150

  852 Southampton

  2,430

  2,510

  2,620

  2,820

  3,070

  3,150

  855 Leicestershire

  2,140

  2,200

  2,330

  2,510

  2,660

  2,730

  856 Leicester

  2,460

  2,560

  2,720

  2,950

  3,170

  3,310

  857 Rutland

  2,170

  2,250

  2,450

  2,660

  2,900

  2,980

  860 Staffordshire

  2,170

  2,220

  2,350

  2,550

  2,710

  2,790

  861 Stoke-on-Trent

  2,290

  2,350

  2,490

  2,780

  3,050

  3,200

  865 Wiltshire

  2,220

  2,290

  2,440

  2,630

  2,780

  2,860

  866 Swindon

  2,210

  2,270

  2,410

  2,600

  2,760

  2,840

  867 Bracknell Forest

  2,340

  2,430

  2,530

  2,720

  2,910

  3,030

  868 Windsor and Maidenhead

  2,340

  2,430

  2,560

  2,780

  3,000

  3,110

  869 West Berkshire

  2,230

  2,330

  2,460

  2,710

  2,910

  2,990

  870 Reading

  2,400

  2,480

  2,610

  2,860

  3,060

  3,230

  871 Slough

  2,720

  2,850

  3,010

  3,200

  3,450

  3,640

  872 Wokingham

  2,140

  2,210

  2,310

  2,510

  2,710

  2,790

  378W 379W

  Group: Aged 5–10; as at 25 March 2003; Funds: Total funding; Price base: Real terms 2001–02; Actual/Rounded: Rounded

  £ million/£pp: £per pupil

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  873 Cambridgeshire

  2,220

  2,290

  2,450

  2,640

  2,790

  2,860

  874 Peterborough

  2,350

  2,430

  2,600

  2,800

  2,970

  3,090

  875 Cheshire

  2,190

  2,250

  2,380

  2,590

  2,760

  2,830

  876 Halton

  2,380

  2,440

  2,590

  2,880

  3,160

  3,260

  877 Warrington

  2,180

  2,240

  2,340

  2,540

  2,730

  2,800

  878 Devon

  2,270

  2,360

  2,490

  2,680

  2,840

  2,930

  879 Plymouth

  2,290

  2,380

  2,540

  2,750

  2,900

  3,000

  880 Torbay

  2,310

  2,350

  2,500

  2,710

  2,880

  2,950

  881 Essex

  2,340

  2,420

  2,550

  2,760

  2,960

  3,050

  882 Southend-on-Sea

  2,380

  2,450

  2,600

  2,830

  3,060

  3,160

  883 Thurrock

  2,490

  2,570

  2,700

  2,890

  3,100

  3,240

  884 Herefordshire

  2,290

  2,390

  2,550

  2,750

  2,900

  3,000

  885 Worcestershire

  2,190

  2,240

  2,370

  2,560

  2,740

  2,820

  886 Kent

  2,350

  2,420

  2,540

  2,750

  2,950

  3,040

  887 Medway

  2,330

  2,400

  2,530

  2,730

  2,930

  3,020

  888 Lancashire

  2,270

  2,340

  2,480

  2,700

  2,890

  2,970

  889 Blackburn with Darwin

  2,430

  2,540

  2,740

  2,980

  3,230

  3,310

  890 Blackpool

  2,280

  2,370

  2,510

  2,740

  2,900

  3,040

  891 Nottinghamshire

  2,200

  2,260

  2,400

  2,630

  2,790

  2,870

  892 Nottingham

  2,520

  2,610

  2,780

  3,030

  3,290

  3,440

  893 Shropshire

  2,240

  2,290

  2,440

  2,650

  2,830

  2,930

  894 Telford and Wrekin

  2,310

  2,370

  2,530

  2,760

  2,960

  3,000

  908 Cornwall

  2,310

  2,370

  2,520

  2,730

  2,920

  3,000

  909 Cumbria

  2,270

  2,330

  2,490

  2,730

  2,930

  3,010

  916 Gloucestershire

  2,210

  2,270

  2,420

  2,650

  2,810

  2,880

  919 Hertfordshire

  2,390

  2,460

  2,580

  2,790

  2,990

  3,080

  921 Isle of Wight

  2,440

  2,520

  2,650

  2,890

  3,070

  3,170

  925 Lincolnshire

  2,280

  2,340

  2,480

  2,680

  2,870

  2,970

  926 Norfolk

  2,290

  2,360

  2,510

  2,740

  2,940

  3,040

  928 Northamptonshire

  2,240

  2,300

  2,430

  2,630

  2,790

  2,870

  929 Northumberland

  2,270

  2,340

  2,480

  2,690

  2,920

  2,970

  931 Oxfordshire

  2,300

  2,390

  2,530

  2,730

  2,900

  3,010

  933 Somerset

  2,240

  2,300

  2,440

  2,650

  2,810

  2,900

  935 Suffolk

  2,220

  2,290

  2,410

  2,600

  2,760

  2,850

  936 Surrey

  2,350

  2,420

  2,540

  2,730

  2,920

  3,010

  937 Warwickshire

  2,190

  2,260

  2,400

  2,590

  2,770

  2,860

  938 West Sussex

  2,290

  2,360

  2,470

  2,660

  2,850

  2,950

  Notes:

  Coverage:

  Figures reflect education SSA settlement figures (primary sub-block), plus all revenue grants in DfES's Departmental Expenditure Limits relevant to pupils aged 5–10 (excluding EMA and a handful of others where it is not possible to get figures on a comparable basis over time).

  The pupil numbers used to convert £ million figures to £ per pupil are the maintained pupils underlying the SSA settlement calculations. 1997–98 figures for LEAs subject to Local Government Reorganisation in that year have been estimated, pro-rata to their post LGR figures.

  Status:

  2002–03 figures are provisional.

  Price Base:

  Real terms, 2001–02 prices, based on GDP deflators as at December 2002

  Rounding:

  Figures are rounded to the nearest 10. Totals may not sum due to rounding.

  Ministerial Visits (Scotland)
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many times he has visited Scotland on official duties each year since 2000; and what meetings were held on each occasion. [103610]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Since I became Secretary of State on 24 October 2002, I have visited Scotland once on 14 February 2003. While I was there I conducted a range of visits including a meeting with Cathy Jamieson MSP, Minister for Education and Young People, a tour of the Student Loan Company's offices and a meeting with Colin Ward, Chief Executive of the Student Loan Company.

  Pension Schemes
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list the(a) funded and (b) unfunded public sector pension schemes for which his 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 he will make a statement. [104920]

  Mr. Miliband
  The only public service pension scheme for which this Department has responsibility is the unfunded Teachers' Pension Scheme. The Government Actuary has recently produced his report on the
  381W
  valuation of the scheme as at 31 March 2001. As part of changes made to the long term funding arrangements of the scheme, the values of both the assets and liabilities were determined at that date to be £142,880 million. As a result, the scheme has no deficit. A copy of the Government Actuary's report is available from the Library.

  School Buildings
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much money has been allocated for(a) capital repairs and (b) new buildings in (i) primary and (ii) secondary schools in the Portsmouth area in each year since 1997; and if he will make a statement. 1104945]

  Mr. Miliband
  We do not hold complete information in the form requested. However, in 1997–98 the Government introduced New Deal for Schools (NDS) as a new additional programme targeted specifically at addressing the backlog of urgent repairs in school buildings that had built up after eighteen years of under-funding under the previous administration. This programme was bid based and was in addition to other capital funds made available to Portsmouth local

  Table A: New Deal for Schools

  Allocations to schools in Portsmouth local education authority

  £

  NDS 1 (1997–98)

  Cliffdale Primary

  Replacement of swimming pool

  1210,000

  Mayfield

  Boiler replacements

  Isambard Brunel Junior

  Upgrade of toilets

  NDS 2 (1998–99)

  Copnor Infant School

  Installation of additional fire exit

  2,000

  Craneswater Junior School

  Replacement of inadequate fire doors

  4,000

  Saxon Shore Infant

  Repairs to unsafe fire doors

  6,600

  Waterside School

  Sealing of door (fire precaution)

  500

  Springfield School

  Installation of additional balustrade rail (safety precaution)

  1,200

  Arundel Court Junior School

  Replacement of unreliable boiler

  15,000

  Corpus Christi RC Primary

  Replacement of unreliable boiler

  7,000

  College Park Infant School

  Replacement of unreliable boiler

  4,000

  Milton Park Infants School

  Replacement of leaking flat roof

  18,000

  Court Lane Junior

  Replacement of dilapidated Horsa kitchen- dining block

  170,000

  Devonshire Infant School

  Renewal of leaking valley gutters

  3,600

  Prior Secondary

  Replacement of rotting windows

  18,000

  College Park Infant

  Replacement of dilapidated 50-year-old Horsa buildings

  250,000

  Craneswater Junior

  Repairs to leaking walls

  13,500

  Arundel Court Infants School and Nursery Unit

  Safety improvements to boiler

  1,700

  Cliffdale Primary

  Replacement of unsafe electrical wiring

  55,000

  Springfield School

  Installation of pool dosing controls

  5,000

  Springfield School

  Repairs to fire alarm

  15,000

  Craneswater Junior

  Replacement of inefficient boiler

  40,000

  St George's Beneficial

  Replacement of unreliable boiler

  45,000

  St George's Beneficial

  Replacement of deteriorating tank room floor

  500

  Springfield School

  Securing of windows

  10,000

  Priory Secondary

  Installation of safety barriers on footpath

  10,000

  Paulsgrove Primary School

  Replacement of unreliable boiler

  40,000

  NDS 3 (1999–2000)

  Court Lane Infant School

  Replacement of temporary accommodation

  1,052,828

  Package (various schools)

  Flat roofing and insulation

  11,456,978

  Mayfield School

  Windows and doors framing

  606,604

  1 Denotes allocations made for multiple school or 'package' projects. We do not hold details of the individual schools included in these projects. Local education authorities hold details of the schools that benefited and of the value of each school's allocation.

  382W
  education authority. NDS ran through four phases from 1997–98 to 2000–01. Table A shows the schools in the Portsmouth area which benefited from investment through the original NDS programme. From 2001–02 most capital funding available for building improvements in schools has been allocated to local authorities and schools by needs-related formulae. It is for local authorities and schools to decide how their capital allocations are invested and prioritised between projects, in line with their local asset management planning. Also, from 2000–01 every school has received direct capital allocations to address their highest priorities. In addition, each year authorities have been able to bid for Basic Need funding for the provision of new pupil places. Table B shows all capital funding for school buildings allocated to Portsmouth LEA (including voluntary aided schools) since 1998–99. Looking to the future, I announced on 26 February proposals for a new approach to capital investment in a paper, "Building schools for the future". This will be a programme of rebuilding and renewal to ensure that secondary education in every part of England has facilities of 21st century standard within 10 to 15 years from 2005–06, subject to future public spending decisions. We will also aim to provide substantial investment in primary school buildings.
  383W

  Table B: Portsmouth LEA capital allocations

  £ million

  Total

  1997–98

  3.1

  1998–99

  115.9

  1999–2000

  3.1

  2000–01

  5.2

  2001–02

  3.8

  2002–03

  4.3

  2003–04

  5.9

  1 Includes £12.4 million of Private Finance Initiative credits for Miltoncross Secondary, a newly built school.

  Special Advisers
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many special advisers in the Department(a) have left and (b) will be leaving to work in Scotland for the Labour Party in the forthcoming Scottish parliamentary elections. [103611]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The rules relating to Special Advisers' political activities are set out in the Model Contract for Special Advisers. Further guidance in respect of elections for the Scottish Parliament is set out at paragraph 13 of the Guidance on Conduct for Civil Servants in UK Departments, published by the Cabinet Office on 10 March.

  The reasons for a Special Adviser's resignation are a private matter between the Department and Adviser, and are therefore exempt from disclosure under paragraph 12 of the Code of Practice on Access to Information.

  Standards Fund
  Mr. Stevenson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much was made available to Stoke-on-Trent LEA under the Standards Fund in each year since 1999. [104999]

  Mr. Miliband
  The following table shows allocations for the Standards Fund for Stoke-on-Trent local education authority in 1999–2000, 2000–01, 2001–02 and 2002–03. The figures include both Government grant and local authority contributions.

  1999–2000 Standards fund allocations for city of Stoke-on-Trent council

  £

  Administrative support in small schools

  57,084

  Applications for education action zones

  30,000

  Books for schools

  1,585

  Class size initiative

  1,080,242

  Computer systems for chairs of education

  2,000

  Drug prevention

  39,355

  Early years training and development

  67,342

  Education and health partnerships

  19,000

  Education maintenance allowance pilots

  1,024,683

  Ethnic minority achievements

  614,112

  Laptops for heads of small primary and special schools

  15,466

  Literacy and numeracy summer schools

  119,500

  Local education authority music services

  148,000

  Local recruitment measures

  50,000

  National grid for learning

  1,000,000

  Playing for success

  100,000

  Primary literacy and numeracy strategies

  687,782

  Qualifications

  46,275

  School asset management plans

  33,610

  384W

  1999–2000 Standards fund allocations for city of Stoke-on-Trent council

  £

  School improvement

  1,445,382

  School leadership

  122,631

  School security

  115,898

  Social inclusion

  342,484

  Special educational needs

  272,855

  Support for parent governor representatives

  1,000

  Work related learning at Key Stage 4

  49,500

  Working environment fund

  99,860

  Year 6 literacy and numeracy booster classes

  277,910

  Total

  7,863,556

  2000–01 Standards fund allocations for city of Stoke-on-Trent council

  £

  Administrative support for small schools

  172,735

  Beacon schools

  56,000

  Best practice research scholarships

  34,335

  City learning centres: design and capital costs

  300,000

  Class size initiative

  1,165,476

  Developing and extending maintained nursery school services

  69,032

  Devolved formula capital for schools

  1,501,654

  Early years training and development

  67,858

  Education and health partnerships

  33,706

  Ethnic minority pupils and traveller achievement

  614,112

  Excellence in cities: development

  25,676

  Excellence in cities: excellence challenge

  12,739

  Excellence in cities: gifted and talented children

  361,000

  Excellence in cities: learning mentors and learning support units

  676,000

  Key Stage 3 numeracy: secondary schools conference

  14,656

  Literacy and numeracy: summer schools and Key Stage 3

  132,000

  Local education authority music services

  238,000

  National grid for learning

  1,000,000

  New national curriculum

  90,500

  Maintained nursery capital

  92,200

  Performance management training

  207,252

  Pilot education maintenance allowance

  2,397,843

  Playing for success

  125,000

  Primary literacy and numeracy strategies

  860,176

  Qualifications

  36,429

  School improvement

  1,640,597

  School laboratories for the 21st century

  155,850

  School leadership

  85,985

  School security

  114,362

  Seed capital challenge

  172,790

  Small education action zones

  20,000

  Small school support fund

  86,834

  Social inclusion, drugs and youth

  1,067,179

  Special educational needs

  341,025

  Specialist schools

  158,386

  Study support

  180,886

  Summer schools for gifted and talented pupils

  18,000

  Support for parent governor representatives

  1,200

  Teacher incentives

  13,682

  Teaching assistants

  758,183

  Teenage pregnancies

  93,000

  Working environment fund

  99,860

  Year 6 literacy and numeracy booster classes

  247,392

  Total

  15,539,590

  2001–02 Standards fund allocations for city of Stoke-on-Trent council

  £

  Adult:pupil ratios in reception classes

  346,792

  Advanced skills teachers

  172,439

  Child protection co-ordinators

  39,600

  Children in public care

  41,661

  Children of asylum seekers

  16,000

  City learning centres

  2,400,000

  Class size initiative

  1,255,664

  Devolved capital

  2,226,443

  Drug prevention and advisers

  65,760

  Early professional development

  264,800

  Early years training and development

  76,293

  385W

  2001–02 Standards fund allocations for city of Stoke-on-Trent council

  £

  Education health partnerships

  32,798

  Ethnic minority achievement

  614,112

  Excellence in cities: Beacon schools

  139,000

  Excellence in cities: excellence challenge

  211,101

  Excellence in cities: secondary

  1,778,000

  Gifted and talented children

  18,000

  Induction of newly qualified teachers

  441,363

  Information management strategy

  153,893

  Key Stage 3: national implementation

  274,803

  Literacy and numeracy summer schools

  100,000

  Local education authority music services

  219,400

  Maintained nursery school service

  140,650

  National curriculum

  90,336

  National grid for learning

  1,356,063

  NDS capital projects

  8,896

  NDS condition funding

  1,696,708

  Performance management

  136,283

  Playing for success

  113,506

  Primary literacy and numeracy strategies

  927,979

  Qualifications

  15,870

  School achievement awards

  340,950

  School improvement

  1,017,000

  School laboratories

  287,409

  School leadership

  95,563

  School security

  112,855

  Seed capital challenge

  191,087

  Sick children

  11,903

  Small education action zones

  424,951

  Small schools fund

  336,606

  Social inclusion: pupil support

  1,282,329

  Special educational needs

  434,461

  Specialist schools

  341,809

  Study support

  284,029

  Supported early retirement scheme for heads

  40,000

  Teachers' sabbaticals

  36,000

  Teaching assistants

  1,118,490

  Teenage pregnancies

  93,000

  Truancy buster awards

  8,000

  Year 6 booster classes

  261,114

  Year 9 booster classes

  76,500

  Total

  22,168,269

  2002–03 Standards fund allocations for city of Stoke-on-Trent council

  £

  Adult:pupil ratios in reception classes

  667,708

  Advanced skills teachers (ASTs)

  179,028

  Beacon schools

  194,500

  Capital funding for nursery education in disadvantaged areas

  112,125

  Capital projects

  712,070

  Child protection co-ordinators

  53,000

  Children of asylum seekers

  45,500

  City learning centres

  740,000

  Class size initiative

  1,526,403

  Condition funding

  2,590,072

  Devolved formula capital

  1,767,214

  Drug, alcohol and tobacco prevention and advisers

  79,038

  Early professional development pilot programme

  309,300

  Early years training and development

  76,293

  Education health partnerships

  53,012

  e-Learning credits

  141,925

  Electronic registration systems in secondary schools

  105,650

  Ethnic minority achievement

  614,112

  Excellence challenge

  483,631

  Excellence in cities (EiC) and excellence clusters

  1,881,134

  Gifted and talented summer schools

  18,000

  Induction of newly qualified teachers

  414,521

  Information management strategy

  38,526

  Key Stage 3 strategy

  924,394

  Laptops for teachers

  284,129

  LEA music services

  264,374

  National grid for learning

  1,685,167

  386W

  2002–03 Standards fund allocations for city of Stoke-on-Trent council

  £

  New school security projects

  50,520

  Nursery schools project

  67,694

  Performance management and threshold assessment

  133,088

  Playing for success

  113,504

  Primary literacy and numeracy strategies

  900,152

  Qualifications

  14,470

  School achievement awards

  293,210

  School improvement

  1,217,170

  Seed challenge capital

  315,712

  Sick children and children in public care

  59,876

  Small education action zones

  601,007

  Small schools fund

  296,000

  Social inclusion: pupil support

  1,309,855

  Special educational needs

  484,996

  Specialist schools

  401,803

  Staff workspaces

  66,755

  Study support

  495,172

  Teacher recruitment incentives

  160,191

  Teacher sabbaticals

  72,000

  Teaching assistants

  1,080,649

  Teenage pregnancy

  62,128

  Training for educational visits coordinators

  18,100

  Year 6 booster classes

  232,210

  Total

  24,407,088

  Teachers
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many newly qualified teachers employed in(a) the primary and (b) the secondary sector have left their posts within (i) one year, (ii) two years and (iii) three years in each of the past six years, broken down in the case of secondary school teachers by the subject of their qualification. [102253]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information requested has been placed in the Libraries.

  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many teachers(a) left and (b) joined the teaching profession in (i) Suffolk, (ii) Norfolk and (iii) Cambridgeshire in each year since 1997. [104825]

  Mr. Miliband
  The table shows the numbers of teachers leaving1 full-time or part time2 service in the maintained schools sector and teachers entering or returning3 to full-time or part-time teaching in the maintained schools sector.
  1 Leavers are those who were in full-time or part-time teaching in the maintained schools sector immediately before the period shown, who were not in service in that sector at the end of the period shown. Teachers moving LEA within the maintained sector in England are not counted as leavers. Teachers leaving are based on pension returns. Some teachers may have moved from known service to service not recorded on the teacher pension return. Some leavers will be taking career breaks and will return to service at a later date.
  2 Around 10–20 per cent. of part-timers may not be included.
  3 Those in service in the maintained schools sector at the end of the period shown who were not in service in that sector in England immediately before the period shown. Includes newly qualified entrants, those who deferred entry and those returning from breaks or transferring from outside the maintained schools sector in England. Teachers moving LEA within the maintained sector in England are not counted as entrants.

  387W

  1 April 1997 to 31 March 1998

  1 April 1998 to 31 March 1999

  1 April 1999 to 31 March 20001

  Leavers

  Entrants/returners

  Leavers

  Entrants/returners

  Leavers

  Entrants/returners

  Suffolk

  460

  560

  440

  490

  460

  470

  Norfolk

  480

  570

  480

  450

  460

  560

  Cambridgeshire2

  540

  610

  540

  580

  530

  560

  1 The most recent data available at LEA level are for 1999/2000.

  2 Cambridgeshire was affected by local government reorganisation in 1998, with Cambridgeshire and Peterborough becoming separate authorities as of 1 April 1998. For 1998/99 and 1999/2000 the table provides aggregate figures for Cambridgeshire and Peterborough.

HEALTH

  Public Dividend Capital
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the future use of public dividend capital in the NHS. [104212]

  Mr. Hutton
  Public dividend capital will continue to be available in the future as a source of financing for national health service trusts and NHS foundation trusts.

  Acrylamide (Cooked Food)
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received and what research he has evaluated on the impact on human health caused by the presence of acrylamide in certain cooked foods; what action he proposes to take as a result; and if he will make a statement. [104562]

  Ms Blears
  The Food Standards Agency (FSA) has received several representations following reports that acrylamide had been found to occur in a wide range of home-cooked and processed foods.

  Research on the formation of acrylamide in certain cooked foods and its possible impact on human health is still at an early stage. Acrylamide has been shown to cause various types of cancer in laboratory animals. It is considered to have the potential to cause cancer in humans, but a link has not been proven.

  The FSA considers that exposure to acrylamide should be kept as low as reasonably practicable and is commissioning research and surveillance that aims to assist in minimising the amounts occurring in food. Meanwhile, FSA advice remains that, on the basis of current evidence, people should eat a balanced diet, including a variety of fruit and vegetables and that as part of a balanced diet people should moderate their consumption of fried and fatty foods.

  Anti-TNFA Treatment
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS patients are receiving anti-TNFa treatment. [103272]

  Mr. Hutton
  We do not hold centrally information about drugs prescribed and dispensed in hospitals, which is where the anti-TNFa drugs, Etanercept (Enbrel) and Infliximab (Remicade) are prescribed.

  The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) was asked to appraise the use of anti-TNFa drugs and issued its guidance on 22 March 2002. NICE has
  388W
  recommended the use of Etanercept for the treatment of juvenile idiopathic arthritis and Etanercept and Infliximab for rhematoid arthritis.

  We have issued directions obliging health authorities and primary care trusts to provide appropriate funding for recommended treatments. This is in line with our manifesto commitment to ensure that patients receive drugs and treatments recommended by NICE on the national health service if deemed appropriate by their clinicians.

  Assisted Suicide/Euthanasia
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what procedures there are to monitor whether a terminally ill patient has received an assisted suicide or voluntary euthanasia from(a) a member of the health care team and (b) a family member. [104536]

  Mr. Lammy
  Euthanasia, the intentional taking of life at the patient's request or for a merciful motive, is unlawful in the United Kingdom. Similarly, assisted suicide is unlawful under the Suicide Act 1961. The investigation of alleged criminal offences and the decision whether to prefer charges in a particular case are operational matters for the chief officer of the police force concerned.

  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what procedures are in place for NHS Direct staff dealing with patients' inquiries relating to assisted suicides or voluntary euthanasia. [104537]

  Mr. Lammy
  There are no standard procedures in place for NHS Direct staff dealing with inquiries relating to assisted suicide or voluntary euthanasia, as they are both unlawful in the United Kingdom.

  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS-funded training programmes provide guidance on dealing with patient requests for a medically assisted suicide or voluntary euthanasia. [104560]

  Mr. Lammy
  Euthanasia, the intentional taking of life at the patient's request or for a merciful motive, is unlawful in the United Kingdom. Similarly, assisted suicide is unlawful under the Suicide Act 1961. The Department of Health is not aware of any national health service funded training programmes to deal with such requests.

  Budgeted Expenditure
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the budgeted expenditure per head of population on health was in each strategic health authority area for(a) 2001–02, (b) 2002–03 and (c) 2003–04. [103765]
  389W
  Mr. Hutton
  Strategic health authorities were established on 1 October 2002. The Department does not make revenue allocations directly to strategic health authorities.

  Civil Contingency Planning
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his Department's(a) responsibilities and (b) assets with regard to civil contingency planning; what funds are committed; what action he is taking within his Department to improve such planning; and what action he is taking in collaboration with other Departments. [102622]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department of Health's responsibilities for civil contingency planning are to work with the Cabinet Office Civil Contingencies Secretariat, other Government Departments and the national health service to ensure there are adequate arrangements to protect the health of the population and continue to provide NHS care.

  The Department of Health has been working with the NHS, strengthening arrangements to ensure we are as prepared as we can be in responding to a range of possible new threats, such as the deliberate release of chemical or biological agents or incidents associated with radiological or nuclear hazards.

  The recent National Audit Office report, "Facing the Challenge: NHS Emergency Planning in England", made a series of recommendations for improving emergency planning arrangements which are being taken forward. The Department of Health is working with the NHS to ensure all its organisations have reviewed and enhanced their state of readiness.

  The Department of Health has issued specific guidance to the NHS on the public health response to the deliberate release of chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear (CBRN) incidents, mass decontamination and mass casualties. A new protective suit has been issued for use by ambulance and accident and emergency staff working on the decontamination of patients. Significant funds have been made available to pay for these suits as well as the stockpiling of drugs and vaccines which could be used in the event of an attack on the United Kingdom. Further work is being done to look at what additional resources may be needed to maintain vigilance and improve preparedness.

  The Department of Health has made available, through the emergency planning section of its website at www.doh.gov.uk/epcu, a comprehensive package of guidance for clinicians on dealing with the consequences of deliberate release. This information is regularly updated. The website contains a link to the Public Health Laboratory Service website at www.phls.org.uk, which provides additional clinical and other information. The Department has recently sponsored clinically led sessions to widen understanding in the NHS about the treatment of burns and biological, chemical and blast injuries.

  Civil Defence
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what criteria and methods of assessment are in place to 390W
  evaluate the efficacy of the major incident plans put in place by individual primary care trusts; and if he will make a statement. [103433]

  Mr. Hutton
  Primary care trusts (PCTs), in common with all national health service organisations, are required to demonstrate their "preparedness" for major incidents. PCTs, together with partner organisations, need to be able to draw upon well-defined, effective procedures and processes.

  All PCTs must have in place a major incident plan that is backed up by practical arrangements and processes including evidence of staff briefings, exercises and appropriate training.

  The criteria used to determine whether or not a PCT is "prepared" are largely those set out in the recent National Audit Office report, Facing the Challenge: NHS Emergency Planning in England.

  PCTs, as well as other NHS organisations, have been supported by health emergency planning advisers ('HEPAs'). HEPAs have particular expertise in emergency planning and, together with Regional Directors of Public Health, have been advising PCTs on the adequacy of their major incident plans.

  Once complete, each PCT's plan will reviewed and assessed by the appropriate strategic health authority and this will have been done by the end of this month.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) paramedics and (b) ambulance drivers have received training to deal with the aftermath of a (i) nuclear, (ii) chemical, (iii) biological and (iv) conventional terrorist attack in the last 12 months, broken down by primary care trust. [105097]

  Mr. Lammy
  In the light of the current threat, preparations have been stepped up to ensure that all National Health Service organisations are as prepared as they can be for responding to a range of possible threats, including the deliberate release of chemical or biological agents or incidents associated with radiological or nuclear hazards.

  Comprehensive reviews have been undertaken by NHS organisations of their preparedness that will be completed by the end of March. Responsibility for staff training and testing local plans rests with each NHS organisation and training support material, developed as part of the national programme, has been made available to each ambulance service.

  Information on numbers trained is not held centrally.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what financial resources his Department has allocated to training(a) ambulance drivers and (b) paramedics to deal with the aftermath of a terrorist attack, broken down by primary care trust. [105098]

  Mr. Lammy
  As part of a £5 million national programme, protective suits and decontamination units are being made available to all hospitals with accident and emergency departments and ambulance services in England to enable them to respond to chemical, biological or radiological incidents. Training material and support were also made available as part of that programme.
  391W
  Every national health service organisation has a basic responsibility to maintain and improve its preparedness to respond to major incidents of all kinds and funding is included in general allocations.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent steps he has taken to upgrade his Department's plans in the event of deliberate release of biological weapons; and if he will make a statement. [103866]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department has contingency plans for the deliberate release of biological weapons. These are kept under careful and continuous review. Recent developments include:In December, the Department published 'Interim Guidelines for Smallpox Response and Management'. These will be revised in the light of comments received.
  The Department has also contributed to the Home Office's 'Strategic National Guidance on the Decontamination of People Exposed to CBRN Substances Or Material'£February 2003.

  The Department has made available through the emergency planning section of its website www.doh.gov.uk/epcu a comprehensive package of guidance for clinicians on dealing with the consequences of deliberate release. This information is regularly updated. The Public Health Laboratory Service website www.phls.org.uk provides addition al clinical and other information, which is updated regularly.

  In addition, the Department has taken action to substantially increase the stocks of smallpox vaccine. A core group of national health service staff is in the process of being vaccinated against smallpox as part of the smallpox emergency plans. The Department has also stockpiled antibiotics to treat anthrax, plague and tularaemia—a proportion of these are held in "pods" at strategic locations across the United Kingdom, to allow rapid distribution in an emergency.

  Within the NHS, plans for deliberate release are being continually updated. All primary care trusts and NHS trusts are reviewing their level of preparedness. Regional directors of public health are co-ordinating the responses in their regions.

  The Health Protection Agency will be taking forward chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear training and building on that already undertaken.

  Delayed Discharges
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what delayed discharge targets have been set for each primary care trust in(a) Suffolk, (b) Norfolk, (c) Essex and (d) Cambridgeshire since March 2002. [104829]

  Mr. Lammy
  Delayed discharge targets are set by strategic health authorities in conjunction with local authorities. Target figures for delayed discharges by primary care trust are not held centrally.

  Diabetic Screening
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) when he expects to receive the UK screening report into type 2 high risk diabetic screening; [104569]
  392W
  (2) when he expects to receive advice from the results of the nine inner city area pilot sites for screening for those most at risk of developing diabetes. [104570]

  Mr. Lammy
  The results of the pilot sites will inform the advice on targeted screening for type 2 diabetes that the United Kingdom National Screening Committee will provide in 2005.

  Doctors and Nurses
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) doctors and (b) nurses were employed in (i) each health authority and (ii) each primary care trust in the Eastern region in each year since 1997. [104839]

  Mr. Lammy
  The information requested has been placed in the Library.

  Dyslexia
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department is sponsoring into the management of dyslexia. [104157]

  Ms Blears
  The main Government agency for research into the causes of and treatments for disease is the Medical Research Council (MRC), which receives its funding from the Department of Trade and Industry via the Office of Science and Technology. The MRC is not currently funding any research into the management of dyslexia, but is funding some basic research of relevance to dyslexia. The MRC always welcomes high quality applications for research into any aspect of human health and these are considered in open competition with other demands on funding.

  The Department funds research to support policy and the delivery of effective practice in health and social care. The Department is not currently funding any research into the management of dyslexia.

  Eastern Asian Virus
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his assessment is of the threat to the United Kingdom from the new virus from eastern Asia. [104401]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 25 March 2003]Of the cases of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) reported so far, almost all have occurred in health care workers involved in the direct care of a reported case or in close contacts, such as family members. There is no evidence to date that the disease spreads through casual contact.

  The threat to the United Kingdom from SARS therefore, at this time, appears to be small. Nonetheless, since the cause is yet unconfirmed, the UK has taken a precautionary stance.

  The Department of Health and Public Health Laboratory Service (PHLS) 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 Thursday 13 March. We also issued advice to the public and travellers to South East Asia about SARS. Full information and advice has been kept up to date on the PHLS website www.phls.co.uk/topics_az/ SARS/menu.htm.
  393W
  The Department of Health and PHLS continue to monitor the situation.

  Food Labelling
  Mr. Roger Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many food samples have been tested for correct(a) labelling, (b) composition, (c) claims and (d) other presentational matters in each of the last 10 years; and what proportion of those samples were found not to comply with the statements made about them; [102865]

  (2) how many food sample checks regarding labelling have been undertaken by (a) the Food Standards Agency and (b) local authorities in each of the last 10 years. [103010]

  Ms Blears
  Details of food sampling checks by local authorities are not recorded in the form requested by the hon. Member. It is not possible to identify separately those samples taken for labelling purposes for all of the last ten years. Such information that is available for all sampling activity is shown in the tables.

  The responsibility for enforcing the food labelling regulations, made under the Food Safety Act 1990, rests with local authorities. Figures for samples taken for this purpose are shown in table 1.

  The Food Standards Agency (FSA) receives annual returns from local authorities, under the European Union's Official Controls Directive, EEC/89/397, for all food sampling activity, not just for labelling checks. Before 2001, details of the reasons why samples were found to be unsatisfactory are not readily available. However, in 2001, under the new Framework Agreement on local authority food law enforcement, implemented by the FSA with effect from 1 January that

  Table 2: Food Authenticity Programme Surveys

  Date Published

  Survey Title

  Number of samples taken

  Proportion of samples deemed unsatisfactory (Percentage)

  Tested for: Labelling (L), Composition (C) or both (L,C)

  October 1993

  Fish and fish products

  239

  9

  L

  May 1994

  Authenticity of soluble coffee

  344

  15

  C

  February 1995

  Dried durum wheat pasta

  249

  Less than 1

  L

  November 1995

  Single seed vegetable oils

  291

  8

  C

  April 1996

  Labelling of previously frozen meat and poultry

  534

  8

  L

  March 1997

  Undeclared irradiation of foodstuffs

  789

  Less than 1

  L

  November 1997

  Added water in cured pork

  614

  3

  L

  November 1997

  Whisky substitution in the on-trade

  161

  3

  L

  September 1998

  Substitution of smoked salmon with trout

  289

  2

  L

  April 1999

  Orange juice authenticity

  186

  0

  L

  April 1999

  Substitution of species in meat products

  570

  15

  L

  June 1999

  Authenticity of olive oils

  125

  3

  C

  March 2000

  Apple juice authenticity

  151

  Less than 1

  L

  April 2000

  Tuna species in tuna products

  607

  Less than 1

  L

  Nov 2000

  Added water in whole chickens and chicken parts

  261

  27

  L,C

  December 2001

  Meat content, added water and hydrolysed protein catering chicken breasts

  68

  46

  L,C

  May 2002

  Corn (maize) oil survey

  61

  0

  C

  June 2002

  Irradiated Foods—herbs and spices, dietary supplements and prawn and shrimps

  543

  12

  L

  August 2002

  Antimony, arsenic, bromate and nickel contents of bottled water

  161

  0

  C

  394W
  year, 17 per cent. (27,280 samples) of the 163,993 official and informal samples taken were found to be unsatisfactory. Of these unsatisfactory samples, 31 per cent. (8,418) were found to be unsatisfactory with regard to labelling and presentation, and 24 per cent. (6,551) for composition.

  Official samples are those taken in the course of an official inspection procedure under the Food Safety Act 1990, where the results can be used in legal proceedings if appropriate. Informal samples are taken during other visits, such as for monitoring or screening.

  Over the last ten years, the FSA and its predecessor bodies have published the results of a number of surveys aimed at identifying problems with the labelling of food products, and carried out under its Food Authenticity Programme. These surveys have covered 6,523 samples, as shown in table 2.

  Table 1: Samples for all Foodstuffs Figures for the United Kingdom, for all sampling purposes

  Total number of official samples

  Total number of informal samples

  1992

  65,398

  176,433

  1993

  67,959

  179,001

  1994

  65,162

  181,202

  1995

  63,726

  183,327

  1996

  62,350

  168,972

  1997

  65,130

  158,687

  1998

  59,950

  138,099

  1999

  50,379

  140,719

  2000

  41,089

  137,349

  20011,2

  86,614

  77,379

  1 The definitions of official and informal samples changed in 2001;

  2 The 2001 figures have been revised and corrected since the OCD return was made on 31 July 2002.

  Source:

  UK return under European Union Official Controls Directive, EEC/89/397
  395W

  Table 2: Food Authenticity Programme Surveys

  Date Published

  Survey Title

  Number of samples taken

  Proportion of samples deemed unsatisfactory (Percentage)

  Tested for: Labelling (L), Composition (C) or both (L,C)

  December 2002

  Added water in raw scallops, ice£glazed (peeled) scampi tails and scampi content in coated (breaded) scampi products.

  255

  37

  L

  March 2003

  Meat content, added water and hydrolysed protein in catering chicken breast.

  25

  60

  L,C

  Total

  6,523

  Food Standards Agency
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what(a) action the Food Standards Agency is taking and (b) advice the Food Standards Agency have issued to counter the threat from terrorism to food safety in the United Kingdom. [104908]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 25 March 2003]The Food Standards Agency (FSA) will take the lead role in managing the consequences of any actual incident of food contamination. The FSA already undertakes such work in respect of the several hundred relatively minor accidental and adventitious environmental food contamination incidents that occur each year, ensuring that contaminated food does not reach the public. The FSA regularly exercises its response to major incidents.

  With the agreement of other Departments, the FSA reminded the food industry in November 2002 of the importance of maintaining vigilance against potential malicious attacks on the food supply. This was a general reminder rather than a response to any new intelligence suggesting a specific threat. This advice remains current.

  Foodstuffs
  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his policy is on which foodstuffs of non-animal origin should be tested on(a) all occasions and (b) a 'spot-check' basis under the proposals in the EU document of 10 February (EC Draft 6090/03). [102848]

  Ms Blears
  The Food Standards Agency has lead responsibility for this proposal on official feed and food controls. I am advised by the FSA that the negotiations on it are due to begin shortly. The FSA will press for provisions that ensure the frequency of testing of foods of non-animal origin is risk-based and proportionate. In effect, this would mean spot checks and random analytical testing for 'low risk' products but increased checks and analytical testing, up to a level of 100 per cent. (depending on the nature of the risk), for foods included in the list of 'high risk' products that is envisaged under the proposal. The commodities included in this list and the required level of testing will not be static over time but rather will vary depending on identification of new risks and the control of others. Currently, the European Commission publish decisions regarding those commodities front specified countries that should be subject to 100 per cent. documentary and analytical checks. This includes aflatoxins in various nuts and dried fruits from certain countries. It is understood that such products would be included in the `high risk' list under the proposal and would require 100 per cent. testing.

  Fund Disbursement
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which funds centrally administered by his Department are only disbursed on evidence of minimum levels of spending on information technology; and if he will make a statement. [104428]

  Ms Blears
  For 2003–04, strategic health authorities have been tasked with planning their new information management and technology (IMandT) investment against an indicative budget, which represents a weighted share of £200 million. This new investment will be released when local communities have demonstrated that they are maintaining their historic levels of IMandT investment from baseline allocations.

  GP Contracts
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the cost of the income guarantee proposals for GPs; and if he will make a statement. [105043]

  Mr. Hutton
  The General Practitioners Committee of the British Medical Association is discussing with the National Health Service Confederation and the Department of Health proposals for ensuring that practices are not financially destabilised from the introduction of the new general medical services contract. Further information will become available once proposals have been agreed.

  GP Vacancies
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many general practitioner vacancies there are in the Bury St. Edmunds constituency. [104819]

  Mr. Lammy
  General practitioner vacancy rates by constituency are not available. The General Practitioner Recruitment Retention and Vacancy Survey for 2002 only provides vacancy rates to Directorate of Health and Social Care level.

  Hospital Costs
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the average cost per bed per week for a patient in a NHS(a) acute hospital and (b) non-acute hospital in (i) Suffolk, (ii) Cambridgeshire and (iii) Essex. [104805]

  Mr. Lammy
  Figures for the average cost per bed per week for patients in national health service acute and non-acute hospitals are not held centrally.

  Meat Unfit for Human Consumption
  Mr. Roger Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much meat, broken down by type, has been identified as unfit for human consumption by Government Departments and Government agencies in(a) farms, (b) abattoirs and (c) retailers in each of the last 10 years; and how many (i) prosecutions and (ii) convictions have resulted. [102864]

  Ms Blears
  I am advised by the Food Standards Agency (FSA) that the information requested is not collected centrally.

  However, the FSA does collect certain information from local food authorities as required under EC Directive 89/397/EEC on official controls and under the FSA's framework agreement on local authority food law enforcement. The information is published in the annual return to the European Commission under the official controls directive, copies of which are in the Library. The information collected does not provide a breakdown of information in the way requested. Details of results of samples taken, and of consequent prosecutions, are recorded for meat, game and poultry, but are not divided by type or species nor record if the meat was found unfit for human consumption.

  NHS Hospital, Public Health Medicine and Community Health Services (HCHS): Medical and dental staff and non-medical staff within west Suffolk Hospital NHS Trust as at 30 September each year

  Numbers (headcount)

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  All HCHS staff within West Suffolk Hospital NHS Trust

  2,084

  1,996

  2,237

  2,310

  2,479

  Of which

  All medical and dental staff

  173

  183

  177

  206

  208

  All non-medical staff

  1,911

  1,813

  2,060

  2,104

  2,271

  Of which

  All qualified nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff

  688

  612

  719

  728

  832

  All other non-medical staff

  1,223

  1,201

  1,341

  1,376

  1,439

  Source:

  Department of Health Medical and Dental Workforce Census

  Department of Health Non-Medical Workforce Census

  MRI Scanner Appointments
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what the average waiting time for MRI scanner appointments was on the latest date for which figures are available, broken down by hospital; [104900]

  (2) what plans he has to reduce waiting time for MRI scanner appointments. [104901]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answers 25 March 2003]Data are not collected centrally on waiting times for a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan. The length of time that a patient may have to wait for any scan is dependent on their clinical condition. Emergency cases need to be seen immediately. Other cases will be carried out as quickly as possible, dependent on the clinical priority of all patients waiting to be scanned.

  Where an MRI scan forms part of the diagnostic process for a patient urgently referred with suspected cancer, this will be covered by the target of a maximum two months wait from urgent referral to first treatment, which will be in place for all cancers by the end of 2005.

  To increase the capacity of diagnostic services, funding has been made available for the provision of new and replacement scanners. The New Opportunities
  398W
  The Meat Hygiene Service (MHS) collects information on the quantity of meat surrendered by the operators of licensed slaughterhouses and cutting plants as unfit for human consumption following MHS inspection. The in formation collected records the species, number of carcasses or weight of meat rejected, and the reason for rejection. The MHS keeps these receipts for a year but the information is not collated centrally.

  Information about meat intended for human consumption that is condemned on farm is not collected. Under the Fresh Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1995 (as amended) the slaughter and dressing of animals intended for sale for human consumption must take place in a licensed slaughterhouse.

  Medical Staff (West Suffolk Hospital)
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) doctors, (b) nurses and (c) other staff were employed at West Suffolk Hospital in each of the last five years. [104810]

  Mr. Lammy
  The information is shown in the table.

  Fund has provided funding for 57 MRI scanners and the NHS Cancer Plan has provided funding for a further 50 MRI and 50 computed tomography (CT) scanners through central purchasing programmes by 2004.

  National Programmes
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 6 March 2003,Official Report, column 1214W, on the National Programmes, whether he plans to make copies of the presentation available to hon. Members in advance of its presentation to the Healthcare Computing Conference. [103364]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 17 March 2003]The current plan is to make copies or summaries of presentations available after the conference. The conference organisers also include copies of presentations in their packs that arc available after the event. A copy will be placed in the Library.

  NHS Estates Contract
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps have been taken to prevent conflicts
  399W
  of interest concerning property valuation as part of the NHS estates contract; and if he will make a statement. [102879]

  Mr. Hutton
  NHS Estates follows guidance set out in 'Estatecode', which reflects 'Government Accounting'. The guidance advises that a professional valuation must be obtained prior to a property being marketed to act as a guide price. This valuation can be undertaken either by qualified in-house staff, the District Valuer or a suitably qualified private sector valuer.

  If a sale is complex, the potential use is unclear or the sale proceeds exceed £5 million, a professional valuation is to be obtained independent of the marketing agent. An alternative would be the District Valuer or a surveyor in private practice.

  NHS Management Consultants
  Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the(a) names and (b) fees for each contract of the management consultants currently employed by the NHS; and if he will make a statement on their role within the NHS. [104654]

  Mr. Hutton
  This information is not collected centrally. The placement of contracts for management consultants is mainly undertaken at a local level by National Health Service trusts themselves.

  NHS Numbers
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the authorised uses of the NHS number are; whether the use of the NHS number for non-NHS purposes is permitted; if he will bring forward legislation to limit the use of the number for non-NHS purposes; and if he will make a statement. [104518]

  Mr. Lammy
  The national health service number is an administrative identifier created by the NHS and used to maintain the privacy of patient information and to provide an unambiguous means of linking health care records.

  All those delivering health and social care services either within, or in conjunction with, the NHS, are authorised to use the NHS number. Health and social care services includes preventative medicine, clinical diagnosis, clinical research, and the provision of care and treatment.

  The use of the NHS number for other purposes is not permitted.

  The NHS number is personal data for the purposes of the Data Protection Act 1998 and therefore must be used and processed in accordance with data protection principles. Officials are obtaining legal advice on whether specific regulations for the use of the NHS number need to be introduced under UK and European data protection legislation.

  The NHS number sits at the heart of the modern health care agenda as a vital tool for sharing information within the NHS and with its partners in delivering health and social care services. It is central to the vision of seamless patient care and the life-long electronic health record. Access to the NHS number
  400W
  tracing service is restricted to NHS health and social care staff, and is subject to strict confidentiality and security safeguards.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average number of doctors in(a) West Suffolk Hospital trust, (b) Norfolk and Norwich Health Care NHS trust, (c) James Paget NHS trust, (d) Ipswich NHS trust and (e) Addenbrookes NHS trust, is per 100 beds. [104798]

  Mr. Lammy
  The information is shown in the table.

  Hospital, Public Health Medicine and Community Health Services (HCHS): medical and dental staff within specified trusts, as at 30 September 2001

  numbers (headcount)

  All Staff

  All Beds1

  Staff per 100 beds

  All specified trusts of which

  2,099

  4,207

  49.9

  Addenbrookes NHS Trust

  855

  1280

  66.8

  Ipswich Hospital NHS Trust

  307

  769

  39.9

  James Paget Healthcare NHS Trust

  210

  551

  38.1

  Norfolk and Norwich Healthcare NHS Trust

  519

  928

  55.9

  West Suffolk Hospitals NHS Trust

  208

  679

  30.6

  Notes:

  1 Average daily number of total available beds in 2001–02

  Source:

  Department of Health medical and dental workforce census and Department of Health form KH03

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects the NHS trusts in Worcestershire to(a) bring their annual expenditure of income into balance and (b) eradicate their cumulated deficits; and if he will make a statement. [104986]

  Mr. Lammy
  There are two National Health Service trusts within Worcestershire—Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust and Worcestershire Mental Health Partnership NHS Trust.

  Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust is predicting a £7.6 million deficit for 2002–03 and has no other previous brought forward deficit. A financial strategy is currently being formulated which will explore a number of options to achieve financial balance.

  Worcestershire Mental Health Partnership NHS Trust has no 2002–03 deficits and no brought forward deficit to address.

  Nursing Vacancies
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nursing vacancies there were in each(a) Suffolk, (b) Norfolk, (c) Essex and (d) Cambridgeshire NHS trust in each year since 1999. [104812]

  Mr. Lammy
  The information requested has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nursing vacancies there were in each Essex NHS trust in(a) 1997 and (b) 2002. [103121]
  401W
  Mr. Lammy
  The first Department of Health vacancy survey was conducted in 1999. Information requested for March 2002 is shown in the table.

  Department of Health Vacancies Survey, March 2002 Vacancies in NHS Trusts in the specified Health Authority areas, by Trust, qualified nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff

  3 month vacancy member

  England (excluding HA staff)

  8,394

  North Essex HA

  190

  Tendring PCT

  0

  Epping Forest PCT

  8

  Harlow PCT

  6

  Maldon and South Chelmsford PCT

  14

  Colchester PCT

  0

  Uttlesford PCT

  11

  Essex Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  13

  Essex Rivers Healthcare NHS Trust

  34

  New Possibilities NHS Trust

  0

  Mid Essex Hospital Services NHS Trust

  19

  Princess Alexandra Hospital NHS Trust

  70

  North Essex Mental Health Partnership NHS Trust

  15

  South Essex HA

  48

  Southend On Sea PCT

  0

  Billericay Brentwood and Wickford PCT

  0

  Thurrock PCT

  2

  Basildon PCT

  1

  Southend Health Care NHS Trust

  23

  Basildon and Thurrock General Hospitals NHS Trust

  13

  South Essex Mental Health and Community Care NHS Trust

  9

  Three month vacancy notes:

  1. Three month vacancy information is as at 31 March 2002.

  2. Three month vacancies are vacancies which Trusts are actively trying to fill, which had lasted for three months or more (whole-time equivalents)

  General notes:

  1. Vacancy numbers are rounded to the nearest whole number.

  2. Due to rounding, totals may not equal the sum of component parts.

  3. HA figures are based on Trusts, and do not necessarily reflect the geographical provision of health care.

  Sources:

  Department of Health Vacancies Survey, March 2002

  Primary Care Trusts
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to her answer of 4 March 2003,Official Report, column 1004W, on Primary Care Trusts, what the equivalent figure is for the Kennett and North Wiltshire Primary Care Trust; and what her definition is of per weighted head of population. [102691]

  Ms Blears
  Weighted head of population is defined as the primary care trust's population adjusted for age, additional need and market forces factors.

  There is no equivalent figure for the Kennett and North Wiltshire PCT as it only became operational on 1 April 2002.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the effect of Government targets on primary care trusts; and if he will make a statement. [104233]

  Mr. Hutton
  Primary care trusts are responsible for improving the health of their local population. Planning is now undertaken at a local level with primary care 402W
  trusts leading and agreeing how targets will be met within the three year planning framework. The national health service is being asked to concentrate its planning activity against the priorities in the Priorities and Planning Framework 2003–06. This has resulted in the majority of current planning requirements being replaced by a single three year local delivery plan. There will be routine monitoring of national standards to ensure they continue to be met. Inspection programmes for both health and social care are well established which generate independent performance ratings. These are aligned to the priorities and planning framework and based on the primary care trust's performance against a number of key targets and a wider set of balanced scorecard indicators.

  In September 2001 primary care trusts' performance was assessed for the first time against a range of suitable indicators but they were not given an overall star rating.

  In December 2002 proposed key targets and performance indicators for primary care trusts for inclusion within 2002–03 performance ratings were announced. This year will be the first time that full performance ratings have been given to primary care trusts. The final indicator lists for primary care trusts will be announced shortly.

  The intention is to announce the 2003–04 key targets and performance indicators for all NHS organisations as soon as possible so they know for the start of the performance year in question the basis of the future rating.

  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the income per capita of population is for primary care trusts in(a) Suffolk, (b) Norfolk, (c) Essex and (d) Cambridgeshire. [104813]

  Mr. Lammy
  Primary care trust revenue allocations per unweighted head of population in 2002–03 in Suffolk, Norfolk, Essex and Cambridgeshire are shown in the table.

  Primary care trust

  2002–03 allocation per unweighted head(£)

  Suffolk

  Central Suffolk

  677

  Ipswich

  774

  Suffolk Coastal

  748

  Suffolk West

  664

  Waveney

  823

  Norfolk

  Boadland

  722

  Great Yarmouth

  822

  North Norfolk

  833

  Norwich

  800

  Southern Norfolk

  707

  West Norfolk

  779

  Essex

  Basildon

  786

  Billericay, Brentwood and Wickford

  685

  Castle Point and Rochford

  708

  Chelmsford

  742

  Colchester

  664

  Epping Forest

  765

  Harlow

  877

  Maldon and South Chelmsford

  679

  403W

  Primary care trust

  2002–03 allocation per unweighted head(£)

  Southend on Sea

  835

  Tendring

  886

  Thurrock

  764

  Uttlesford

  661

  Witham, Braintree and Halstead Care Trust

  683

  Cambridgeshire

  Cambridge City

  680

  East Cambridgeshire and Fenland

  763

  Huntingdonshire

  647

  North Peterborough

  756

  South Cambridgeshire

  615

  South Peterborough

  690

  Schizophrenia
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what distinction there is between the use of the words 'would' and 'should' within the National Institute for Clinical Excellence guidelines for schizophrenia when describing what patients can expect from services; and if he will make a statement. [102685]

  Mr. Hutton
  The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidance and technology appraisals are prepared by independent expert members of its advisory committees and guideline development groups who are drawn from the national health service, patients and carers, and the academic world. Although these committees and groups seek the views of organisations representing health care professionals, patients and carers, manufacturers and government, their advice is independent of any vested interests.

  The use of the words 'would' and 'should' in NICE guidance and appraisals should be interpreted within the individual context they are used.

  Scotland
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many times he has visited Scotland on official duties each year since 2000; and what meetings were held on each occasion. [103606]

  Mr. Lammy
  My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Health, had the opportunity to visit Scotland on three occasions during 2000. He addressed the Social Services 2000 Conference and the NHS Confederation Annual Conference and attended a Joint Ministerial Committee meeting.

  He has not had the opportunity to visit since, but should a request to do so be received in the Department, he would give it his full consideration.

  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health 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. [103659]

  Mr. Lammy
  Departmental 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 the United 404W
  Kingdom Departments, in respect of elections to the Scottish Parliament and National Assembly for Wales, published by the Cabinet Office on 10 March.

  There re no current plans in my official diary, or those of my ministerial colleagues, to undertake a visit to Scotland during April.

  Seroxat
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what advice he has received from the Medicines Control Agency about the possible link between the use of the drug Seroxat and suicide; [104566]

  (2) what representations he has received on the withdrawal of the antidepressant Seroxat; [104567]

  (3) how many coroners have written to him expressing concerns about the drug Seroxat; and how many have called for urgent inquiries. [104565]

  Ms Blears
  Since it was authorised in 1990 the safety of paroxetine (Seroxat) has been closely monitored by the Medicines Control Agency (MCA) and the Government's independent expert advisory committee, Committee on Safety of Medicines (CSM). The CSM has considered the question of suicidal behaviour in association with Seroxat on a number of ccasions and carefully assessed any new data. The CSM has advised that there is insufficient evidence to confirm a causal relationship between Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors (SSRIs) and suicidal behaviour.

  The CSM has advised that it is general clinical experience that patients taking any antidepressant may develop an increase in suicidal behaviour in the first few weeks of treatment. Product information for prescribes and patients for all SSRIs has been amended to include warnings that suicidal behaviour may increase in the early stages of treatment as with any antidepressant. In September 2000, an article was published in the drug safety bulletin, Current Problems in Pharmacovigilance, which is distributed to all doctors and pharmacists.

  An expert working group on the safety of SSRIs has been set up by the CSM to review the current available evidence relating to the safety of SSRIs, including paroxetine, particularly in relation to suicidal behaviour and withdrawal reactions. The expert working group will report its findings to CSM in due course.

  Since 1997, the MCA has received a range of representations, including parliamentary questions, letters from hon. and right hon. Members, patients and health care professionals expressing concerns about the safety of paroxetine.(Seroxat), none of which have been from coroners.

  The MCA and the CSM receive reports of suspected adverse drug reactions to medicinal products via the yellow card scheme. Since marketing authorisation was granted in 1990, the MCA and CSM have received 8,702 such reports for paroxetine (Seroxat). One of these reports has been received from a coroner. In addition the MCA has written to the coroner for Brecon to obtain further details of a recently publicised case.

  Smallpox
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what categories of(a) health service employees, (b) civil servants, (c) Ministers, (d) servicemen and women and (e) other public service personnel (i) have been and (ii) are intended to be vaccinated against smallpox. [90612]

  Mr. Hutton
  The written ministerial statement of 2 December 2002,Official Report, column 63WS, set out our intention to vaccinate around 350 health care staff across the United Kingdom. This programme has commenced. Those vaccinated will form regional smallpox response groups around the UK. They will consist of infectious disease physicians and paediatricians, public health physicians, microbiologists/ virologists, acute care and communicable disease control nurses and occupational health staff.

  Service personnel to be vaccinated against smallpox will include those nuclear, biological and chemical specialists and specialist medical personnel who would form the spearhead of our armed forces' defensive response, including vaccination teams, in the event of a confirmed, suspected or threatened release of smallpox. Vaccination of these service personnel has commenced. Where immunisation is not routine, it is not our practice to go into precise details of counter-biological warfare immunisation programmes for the armed forces as this information could be of use to an aggressor.

  Currently, there is no evidence of a specific threat of the deliberate release of smallpox as a biological agent. There is no plan to vaccinate civil servants, Ministers or other public service personnel.

  As set out in the "Interim Guidelines for Smallpox Response and management in the Post Eradication Era", available on the Department's website www.doh.gov.uk/epcuicbr/biol/smallpoxplan.htm, if the threat level increases, we shall step up vaccination of more emergency, laboratory and other essential personnel. This includes all those likely to be directly involved in the assessment, management and investigation of smallpox cases as well as emergency and other key essential staff, including police and fire service personnel. Officials are consulting with other Government Departments about which other key essential workers should be vaccinated at different threat levels.

  Speech Therapists
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many speech therapists there are in(a) mainstream schools and (b) special schools in (i) Suffolk, (ii) Essex, (iii) Norfolk and (iv) Cambridgeshire. [104823]

  Mr. Lammy
  The number of speech therapists in mainstream schools and special schools in Suffolk, Essex, Norfolk and Cambridgeshire is not collected centrally.

  Under the special educational needs category of the standards fund, operated by the Department for Education and Skills, grant support is currently available to local education 'authorities to enhance therapy services in conjunction with the National Health Service and the voluntary sector.

  Usual Residency
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the definition of usual residency for those who have been placed by one social services department in the area of another department; and what funding implications there are if the former decides(a) to reduce and (b) to remove funding. [100539]

  Jacqui Smith
  There is no definition of "ordinarily resident" in the National Assistance Act 1948 and it should be given its ordinary and natural meaning subject to any interpretation by the courts. The concept of ordinary residence involves questions of fact and degree. In determining ordinary residence, factors such as time, intention and continuity—each of which may be given different weight according to the context—have to be taken into account. Local Authority Circular LAC(93)7 on "Ordinar Residence" gives full details.

  Generally, if a council places an individual in a care home in the area of another council under section 21 of the National Assistance Act 1948, the first council has continuing responsibility to fund and care manage the individual's stay in residential care. This is because the individual is regarded as remaining ordinarily resident in the "placing" authority's area, by virtue of section 24(5) of the 1948 Act.

  Residents who are placed in care homes by councils are financially supported when their income and assets are not sufficient to cover the cost of care home fees. The amounts that supported residents should contribute to these fees are governed by the National Assistance (Assessment of Resources) Regulations 1992. Once the resident's contribution has been determined, the council should make its contribution sufficient to meet the costs of care as set out in the resident's care plan and contract between the council and care home. If the care home's fees are higher than the council would normally expect to pay, third parties such as relatives may make up the difference.

  Whether a supported resident is placed by a council in its own area, or the area of another council, the placing council would be acting outside its statutory duties if it attempted to reduce its contribution to care costs in situations where supported residents' income and assets and assessed needs remain unchanged. When the resident's financial situation or needs change, a council may legitimately reduce or remove its funding. For example, a supported resident who acquires extra income and assets during his stay in residential care may lose entitlement to council funding. A council may reduce its funding when, following a re-assessment of needs, it agrees with a resident that some aspect of care within the care home may be reduced. In such circumstances, the resident should continue to pay their assessed contribution and the council makes up the difference with regard to the lower care home fee.

  Waiting Times
  Mr. Ruffiey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of patients waited over four hours in accident and emergency departments in each Suffolk hospital in each of the last four years. [104821]
  407W
  Mr. Lammy
  Information on the total time patients spend in accident and emergency from arrival to admission, transfer or discharge has been collected by the Department of Health since July2002. This

  Total time spent in major Accident and Emergency Departments, NHS Trusts in England, 2002–03 October to December (Q3)

  Year

  Quarter

  STHA

  OrgID

  Name

  Total attendances at major A and E

  Percentage of patients who spent less than 4 hrs in A and E

  2002–03

  3

  England

  2,882,500

  78

  2002–03

  3

  Q01

  RGQ

  Ipswich Hospital NHS Trust

  13,357

  80

  2002–03

  3

  Q01

  RGR

  West Suffolk Hospitals NHS Trust

  8,945

  81

  Source:

  Department of Health dataset QMAE—published 12 March 2003

  Total time spent in major Accident and Emergency departments, NHS Trusts in England, 2002–03 July to September (02)

  Year

  Quarter

  Dataset

  STHA

  OrgID

  Name

  Total attendances at major Accident and Emergency

  Percentage of patients who spent less than 4 hrs in Accident and Emergency

  2002–03

  2

  QMAE

  England

  3,095,650

  77

  2002–03

  2

  QMAE

  Q01

  RGQ

  Ipswich Hospital NHS Trust

  14,083

  81

  2002–03

  2

  QMAE

  Q01

  RGR

  West Suffolk Hospitals NHS Trust

  10,246

  83

  Source:

  Department of Health dataset QMAE

  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average waiting time for an out-patient appointment is in(a) Suffolk West, (b) Suffolk Coastal, (c) Waveney, (d) Ipswich and (e) Central Suffolk primary care trusts. [104824]

  Mr. Lammy
  Average waiting times for out-patient attendance by primary care trust are not held centrally.

  Star Rating System
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy that the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection should be able
  408W
  information is now published quarterly. Figures for West Suffolk and Ipswich Hospitals are shown in the tables.

  to alter the targets on which the star rating system is based. [102208]

  Mr. Hutton
  As the independent regulator of national health service performance, the Commission for Health Improvement (CHI) are responsible for publication of NHS performance ratings. Ministers will continue to select key targets and the priority areas to be covered. CHI are responsible for leading the work to develop new indicators for use in the star rating system.

  The Government's intention is that the new Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection which will be established next year subject to parliamentary approval, will continue in this role.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council (BFI Report)
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Malcolm Wicks)
  On behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, I should like to announce the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate (BFI) inspection report on Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council was published today and copies of the report have been placed in the Library.

  In its response to the Housing Green Paper of November 2000, the Department for Work and Pensions developed a performance framework for housing benefits. The Performance Standards' allows local authorities to make a comprehensive self-assessment of whether they deliver benefit effectively and securely. They are standards the Department for Work and Pensions aspires to and expects local authorities to achieve in time.

  The BFI inspected the council against the Performance Standards for housing benefits. The report finds that the council is not fully at Standard for any of the seven Performance Standards—strategic management, customer services, processing of claims, working with landlords, internal security, counter-fraud, and overpayments. But Members, Chief Officers and staff are fully committed to delivering a high quality and secure service.

  The report concludes that the work of the council's Benefit Fraud team, the verification of claims before payment is made and a rigorous management-checking regime provide a secure gateway to the benefits system. The well-publicised prosecutions secured by the Benefit Fraud team are also a deterrent to potential fraudsters.

  The BFI considers that the council should incorporate the work of the benefit service in its corporate plans and improve the reporting links from the benefit service through to senior management and Members. The work carried out in respect of customer services is commendable and is moving in the right direction.

  Counter-fraud performance was strong and would be very close to Standard if written procedures and a fraud business plan were in place.

  The administration of overpayments needs improvement and the council should use its management information to prioritise its outstanding debt.
  18WS
  In 2001–02, Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council administered approximately £55.1 million in housing benefits, approximately 19 per cent. of its total gross revenue expenditure.

  The report makes recommendations to help the council address the remaining weaknesses and to further improve the administration of Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit, as well as counter-fraud activities.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is now considering the report and will be asking the council for its proposals in response to the findings and recommendations of the BFI.

  Income-related Benefits 2000–01
  The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Andrew Smith)
  Today I have published the latest estimates of the take-up of income related benefits. Estimates are presented for Income Support, Minimum Income Guarantee, Housing Benefit, Council Tax Benefit and Jobseeker's Allowance (Income Based) for 2000–01. Copies of the publication have been placed in the Library.

  The take-up estimates are presented in two ways, by expenditure and caseload. Expenditure is the actual amount of benefit claimed as a proportion of the total of claimed and unclaimed benefit. Caseload is the total number of people claiming as a proportion of the total number estimated to be eligible to claim. Estimates of take-up are derived from the Family Resources Survey and the MVP's own administrative data on benefit receipt.

  These new figures give us a much better idea on the crucial question of how many pensioners are getting the help they're entitled to. They confirm that our policies are working to get more money out to the pensioners who need it most.

  The new take-up figures indicate that among the poorest pensioners—who would have been entitled to the MIG even without the Government's decision to make it more generous—the take up rate has increased significantly, by 3 to 4 percentage points.

  The overall picture also contains good news. Take-up is now being measured more precisely—the range of possible values for the take-up rate has been narrowed thanks to the use of external research.

  Last year's take-up figures (calculated for 1999–2000) showed a possible range of 64 to 78 per cent. (the midpoint of this range is 71 per cent.) of pensioners claiming their MIG entitlement; this year's figures (calculated for 1999–2000) show a range of 68 to 76 per cent. (the midpoint of this range is 72 per cent.).

  If we look at the percentage of entitlement claimed then the figures are better—as those poorer pensioners with the largest amount of entitlement are more likely to claim. Last year's take up figures showed a possible range of 74 to 86 per cent. (the mid-point of this range is 80 per cent.) of entitlement being claimed; but this year's figures show a range from 78 to 86 per cent. (the midpoint of this range is 82 per cent.).

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Forensic Science Agency
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Desmond Browne)
  I am pleased to announce FSNI's 2002–03 key targets and the publication of its Corporate Plan 2002–05 and Annual Business Plan 2002–03. The following key targets were set for Forensic Science Northern Ireland in 2002–03:

  QUALITY OF SERVICE

  To turnaround 85 per cent. of reports in which a file is required to be submitted to the DPP within the notified time scale.

  QUALITY OF SCIENCE

  To maintain a quality management system that is externally validated through the United Kingdom Accreditation Service.

  FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE

  To continue to recover from customers the full cash cost of the services to them.

  RESULTS

  By 31 March 2003, to initiate a scoping project in advance of the establishment of a trading fund.

  Achievement against these key targets will be recorded in the Agency's Annual Report for 2002–03, which will be published in July.

  FSNI has published a summary of its Corporate plan 2002–05 and Annual Business Plan 2002–03, which explain its business and organisation, describe its key targets for 2002–03 and set out the assumptions about workloads and resources which support its planned activities. Copies of the summary plans have been placed in the Libraries of both House of Parliament. Copies will be available to the public from FSNI or on the FSNI website.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Fishing Industry
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Elliot Morley)
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has asked the Strategy Unit to look at the medium to long term issues facing UK marine fishing and propose strategic options.

  At a meeting with representatives of the UK fishing industry on 28 January the Prime Minister agreed on the need for a project setting out options for the next five to 10 years. The Strategy Unit will carry out this project leading to a final report, which will analyse the current situation facing the fishing industry and map out options for the future.

  The Unit's work will be steered by a group, which I shall chair, consisting of Ministers and senior officials from the fisheries departments: the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Scottish
  20WS
  Executive, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Office as well as Scotland Office, Wales Office, No. 10 and other key Government Departments.

  Sustainable management of UK fisheries will be successful only if we harness the expertise of the industry, scientists and the NGO community. The project will proactively consult all stakeholders in order to reach a shared vision for a sustainable future that optimises the value we get from the marine fisheries resources available to us.

  The Strategy Unit work will aim to be completed by autumn this year.

  A document setting out the scope of the study is available on the Strategy Unit website http://www.strategy.gov.uk/.

CABINET OFFICE

  Public Appointments
  The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr. Douglas Alexander)
  I am pleased to announce that today a new public appointments vacancies website has been launched at www.publicappts-vacs.gov.uk/. This has been developed through the joint partnership working of the Cabinet Office and the Department for Work and Pensions, and will be hosted alongside the Government's jobs and learning website at http://www.worktrain.gov.uk/

  The new website provides, for the first time, a single source of information about public appointments vacancies at national, regional and local levels across England and the UK. People can search the site by area of interest, Government Department and location to identify the vacancies that are available. They can then access further information about each vacancy, including how to apply.

  The Public Appointments Unit's own website is also being re-launched today at www.publicappointments.gov.uk/. This provides general information about public appointments, how to get involved, the process and the range of public bodies. For people who do not have access to the Internet, the Unit is producing a bi-annual newsletter that will include details of all the vacancies.

  As the majority of today's public appointments vacancies are publicised, in accordance with the Commissioner for Public Appointments' Code of Practice, the public appointments register maintained by the PAU can no longer be considered the most effective way to meet the needs of people who wish to become involved in public life. I have therefore decided to close the register.

  I believe that the changes we are making will provide greater access to information about public appointments. They also support the Government's wider objectives on diversity, putting citizens first and extending the range of services on-line.

TREASURY

  Finance Bill Measures
  The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo)
  Legislation will be introduced in the Finance Bill 2003 to take effect from today that will counter avoidance used by individuals attempting to exploit the relevant discounted securities (RDS) rules to create artificial income tax losses and to remove the potential for tax to distort investment decisions between investment in RDS and normal interest bearing securities. The measures will apply to transfers and redemptions of such securities on and after the date of this announcement.

  Legislation will be introduced in the Finance Bill 2003 to take effect from 6 April to provide an income tax exemption for foster carers with gross receipts below a threshold. Carers with receipts above the exemption threshold will be able to choose between computing their profits in the normal way for self-employed persons or treating the amount by which
  22WS
  their gross receipts exceed the threshold as their taxable profit.

  A number of Treasury Orders are being made today that set out how the current figures for various tax thresholds and limits would change for 2003–04 if indexed in line with the retail price index for various tax thresholds and limits. There is a formal legislative requirement each year to make such a statement before the start of the tax year on April 6 regardless of the actual changes that are made; the actual levels of these amounts will be announced by the Chancellor on Budget day in the usual way.

  The Orders made today are:
  The Income tax (Indexation) Order 2003 (SI 840), for the starting rate and basic rate limits.
  The Inheritance Tax (Indexation) Order 2003 (SI 841), for the inheritance tax threshold.
  The Capital Gains Tax (Annual Exempt Amount) Order 2003 (SI 842), for the capital gains tax annual exempt amount.
  The Retirement Benefit Schemes (Indexation of Earnings Cap) Order 2003 (SI 843), for the earnings cap for pensions schemes.

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The PRINCIPAL DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Manchester.

Courts Bill [H.L.]
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The PRINCIPAL DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Grenfell) in the Chair.]
Clause 87 [Fees]:
Lord Hunt of Wirral Lord Hunt of Wirral moved Amendment No. 132A:
Page 41, line 30, at end insert—
"but should only seek to recover the recurrent running costs of the courts"
The noble Lord said: We now resume the debate which finished on the previous occasion with the success of Amendment No. 132 on civil court fees. In many ways, as the Minister is aware, we on the Opposition Benches are seeking to assist the Government to resist a Treasury-imposed directive, which would lead to virtually all the costs of civil courts being raised through the level of court fees.
Not that I am ever allowed to disclose any private discussion, but I am aware that there is considerable unrest at all levels of civil justice about this policy. In particular, on the last occasion that the Committee debated the Courts Bill, I quoted the Civil Justice Council, chaired by the Master of the Rolls, which had called on the Government to abandon the policy of raising virtually the full cost of civil courts through fees.
However, as the Minister will be aware, since that date and since the passing of the amendment, the Government have decided to unveil court fee increases. I must not show too many of my grey hairs, but I can recall the court fee being £10 for the writ. I remember it rising to £50 and then to £100. I see from the Law Society Gazette of 20th March that, as from 3rd April, if anyone wishes to commence proceedings in the High Court, the proposed increases will mean that the fee will be £500. The Government intend that the court fee for a claim of more than £100,000 within the High Court jurisdiction—say, by someone with a disability who has been injured in an accident—will now be £700. That will be the cost of simply starting the process. One hopes that under the reforms of the Lord Chief Justice, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, there will be the
914
normal pre-action protocols. But if the proposals go through, the cost of issuing the writ will now be £700, and if the claim happens to be above £150,000, it will be £800.
I ask the Government to reconsider. There is no doubt that, as the Civil Justice Council points out, this will lead to a denial of access to justice. I hope that that will no longer be the case following the passing of the amendment. In these amendments—in particular, Amendment No. 132A but also in Amendments Nos. 132B and 132C—we give the Government a menu of options. Indeed, we are from the Opposition and we are here to help the Government. They can choose any one of these three amendments.
The first—Amendment No. 132A—would exclude the recovery of costs other than recurrent running costs. It is a very sensible amendment proposed by a number of outside bodies. Amendment No. 132B would seek to exclude from this new power for the Lord Chancellor to set fees the recovery of judicial salaries and the cost of accommodation. We are aware that problems have been raised by the Royal Courts of Justice, and those have to be dealt with. I hope that the Government will be able to engage in the widest possible consultation and a proper and open debate about the issue of the Royal Courts of Justice and about whether a level of 100 per cent recovery is appropriate and defensible. If it is not, what should the percentage of recovery be, and is it a percentage that will change over time?
The final amendment—Amendment No. 132C— would lay down that:
"The Lord Chancellor may not under this section seek to recover judicial salaries".
I hope that this will be the most acceptable of the amendments. The provision of judges is a social function. It should not be borne only by those who choose to commence proceedings and are required to pay court fees.
I hope that the Government will consider having a meeting with the Civil Justice Council. I understand that there has been no meeting on this matter, but the Minister will be aware that the council issued a very clear report on it seeking a reversal of the policy. The Civil Justice Council, chaired by the Master of the Rolls, is an important body on which sit leaders of civil justice in all its forms. I believe that they deserve at least a meeting to debate and discuss this policy. In the mean time, I beg to move.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: We on these Benches support the amendments for the reasons very cogently put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral. The Minister may recall that at our last Committee meeting I raised the question of whether the fees would be set at a level such that those who could pay would be subsidising those who could not. Following that, she wrote to me on that topic. As I understand it, the Government are saying that that is not the principle upon which the fees will be apportioned. I should be

915
grateful if the noble Baroness could repeat that assurance this morning in open court, as it were, before the Members of the Committee.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I intend to deal with all three amendments in responding to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. The effect of these amendments, none of which are consequential on each other, would make it a statutory requirement that the Lord Chancellor should have regard when prescribing fees to the need: first, to recover only the recurring running costs of the courts, which is Amendment No. 132A; secondly, to exclude judicial salaries and accommodation costs, which is Amendment No. 132B; and, thirdly, as in Amendment No. 132C, to exclude judicial salaries alone. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for his attempt to assist the Government in this regard, but I shall decline his invitation.
A statutory provision that excludes judicial salaries and accommodation costs from recurrent running costs would be an undesirable fetter on the Lord Chancellor's powers in exercising his ministerial responsibility to set fees; it would understate the true cost of the service; and it would require a significant proportion of business-related cases being subsidised by the taxpayer.
Subject to subsidies to protect access to justice, the Government's policy is to recover through fees the cost of civil court services, which includes judicial salaries and accommodation costs. That approach is based on the general principle that it is reasonable to expect that those parties who can pay should meet the cost of that part of the civil justice system they are using in order to resolve their dispute. The policy of recovering most of the costs of the courts through fees ensures the best targeting of scarce public resources. These are public expenditure decisions for the Government.
First I shall deal with specific points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. The Committee will remember that accommodation costs were first included in costs recovery in 1982. In 1992 the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, the then Lord Chancellor— whom I see is sitting in his place—agreed it was anomalous that judicial salaries should not be included. The introduction of accruals accounting across government has brought in capital charges for property which reflect the true cost of services. This principle and approach is now in its 11th year, so it has been established for some time.
The civil courts are funded appropriately. The Government showed their commitment to ensuring that citizens can access and enforce their legal rights or have their obligations determined by an independent tribunal by enshrining the European Convention on Human Rights in the domestic Human Rights Act.
Last year—2001–02—the Government funded civil and criminal legal aid in the sum of £1,717 million. The total cost of running the criminal and civil courts was approximately £1.1 billion. In fairness to the taxpayer, there is no reason why court users who can pay should not pay for the cost of the civil courts service which
916
they are using. We are not talking of those who cannot pay, or, as the noble Lord suggested, the disabled, who may very well have the advantage of legal aid. The noble Lord will know that legally-aided applicants do not pay fees; they are paid by the Legal Aid Fund.
I am happy to repeat what I said in my letter to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. We do not recover "full" cost as the policy of protecting access to justice also applies. The Government funds those receiving exemptions and remissions and the family proceedings subsidy and not other fee-paying litigants. The Government's policy is normally to recover the full cost of government services but Ministers can agree exceptions, as for the civil courts. Recovering the full or partial cost of services ensures the best targeting of scarce resources. So the noble Lord is absolutely right to say that that is the Government's position. I am very happy to reiterate that for the purposes of the debate.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, touched on the recent fee increase. The overall increase is under 12 per cent. It is the first increase since April 2000. Some fees have remained unchanged since 1999. Over the three-year to four-year period the annual increase is between 3 per cent to 4 per cent. Without increases a £30 million budget shortfall is projected for 2003–04.
These are important and difficult issues. We think that the Government have struck the proper balance in assisting those who cannot pay and in cushioning them, as I described when last we were in Committee. But those who have the means—and noble Lords will remember we touched on the work in the commercial Court where litigants have those means—should pay and pay at a proper rate. I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
11.15 a.m.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: There are number of gaps in the response of the noble Baroness. First, her argument is that the provision would be an undesirable fetter. However, she has not yet given the Committee the benefit of her view, or that of the Government, on the passing of the last amendment which preserved the principle of access to justice. We seek to build on that principle.
The Minister's point about those who can afford to pay does not answer the point raised from our Benches and those of the Liberal Democrats. We are particularly concerned about people who are just above the threshold. Although she may say that it does not apply to legally aided applicants, she will be aware that the Government have virtually abolished civil legal aid. Most applicants must now enter a complicated mechanism called a conditional fee agreement on a no win, no fee basis. Those agreements were introduced without proper research, and the courts must now deal with the consequences.
My final point is that we are dealing with the law of diminishing returns. As fewer and fewer people pay court fees, the court fees rise. Although the noble Baroness seeks to persuade us that an increase of around 12 per cent is small, I do not believe that it is, particularly given some of the specific fees. There is a

917
problem now that fees are being set too high. With the deficit, there is underfunding. The Master of the Rolls recently pointed out that the IT system underpinning the civil justice reforms has not yet been implemented. The Minister should reconsider. She has not responded to my invitation to meet the Civil Justice Council. I hope that she will consider it.
In the mean time, I wish to press Amendment No. 132C, which would exclude judicial salaries, and to test the opinion of the Committee. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 132A.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 132B not moved.]
Lord Hunt of Wirral Lord Hunt of Wirral moved Amendment No. 132C:
Page 42, line 10, at end insert—
"( ) The Lord Chancellor may not under this section seek to recover judicial salaries."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move.
11.22 a.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 132C) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 90; Not-Contents, 87.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Howarth of Breckland, B.

Alderdice, L.

Howe, E.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Arran, E.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

Ashdown of Norton-sub-

Howell of Guildford, L.

Hamdon, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Avebury, L.

Jopling, L.

Baker of Dorking, L.

Laird, L.

Blatch, B.

Lang of Monkton, L.

Bowness, L.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Brooke of Suiton Mandeville, L.

Luke, L.

Buscombe, B.

Lyell, L.

Byford, B.

McNally, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Maddock, B.

Carey of Clifton, L.

Marlesford, L,

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Marsh, L.

Cockfield, L.

Methuen, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

Michie of Gallanach, B.

Crickhowell, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Dahrendorf, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Denham, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Dholakia, L.

Moynihan, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Noakes, B.

Donaldson of Lymington, L.

Northover, B.

Dundee, E.

Norton of Louth, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Palmer, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Falkland, V.

Peel, E.

Finlay of Llandaff, B.

Perry of Walton, L.

Flather, B.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Freeman, L.

Rawlings, B.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Redesdale, L.

Geddes, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Goodhart, L.

Russell-Johnston, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

918

Sandwich, E.

Tordoff, L.

Selsdon, L.

Vivian, L. [Teller]

Sharman, L.

Waddington, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Wakeham, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Weatherill, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Wilcox, B.

Strange, B.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Healey, L.

Amos, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Andrews, B.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Bach, L.

Hoyle, L.

Barnett, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Chancellor)

Bhatia, L.

Jones, L.

Blackstone, B.

Judd, L.

Blood, B.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Lipsey, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Brookman, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Burlison, L.

[Teller]

Campbell-Savours, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Carter, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Christopher, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Morgan, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Morris of Manchester. L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Nicol, B.

Craig of Radley, L.

Orme, L.

Crawley, B.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

David, B.

Pendry, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Dixon, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Dubs, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Sewel, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Sheldon, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Sheppard of Liverpool, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Simon, V.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Gale, B.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Gavron, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Golding, B.

Temple-Morris, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Varley, L.

Grabiner, L.

Whitaker, B.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Williams of Elvel, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L (Lord

Harrison, L.

Privy Seal)

Haskel, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
Clause 87, as amended, agreed to.
11.31 a.m.
Clause 88 [Award of costs against third parties]:
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 133:
Page 42, line 17, after "of" insert "all or any part of the"
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 133, I shall, with the leave of the Committee, speak also to Amendment No. 136. My noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford will speak to Amendment No. 138, which is also in the group.
Amendments Nos. 133 and 136 are probing amendments designed to clarify some of the terms of Clause 88. The clause inserts a new Section 19B of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, introducing, for the first time, provision for the award of costs against third parties in criminal proceedings. A third party costs order is defined as,
"an order as to the payment of costs incurred by a party to criminal proceedings by a person who is not a party to those proceedings".
I assume that a third party costs order can apply to part of the costs incurred by a party to the proceedings and not simply to the whole of the costs, and I have tabled an amendment that would clarify that. Although I have little doubt that that is what subsection (2) of the new section means, I would like it clarified.
Amendment No. 136 is designed to deal with a significant omission from new Section 19B. The new section says nothing about the nature of the proceedings by which a costs order may be made against a third party. It is obvious that justice requires that a third party to criminal proceedings—in other words, somebody who is outside the proceedings and is not a party himself—cannot be ordered to pay the costs of those proceedings, unless there has been a hearing at which he is entitled to be present and make the case as to why a third party costs order should not be imposed.
There is no provision in the new section that requires the regulations to be made by the Lord Chancellor to include any provision either for notifying the third party or, more importantly, giving the third party a right to a hearing at which objections can be made to an order being made against him for payment of costs. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: This is an important group of amendments, and I want not only to respond to the words of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, but to speak to Amendments Nos. 134 and 135 and support the points that the noble Lord just made.
The intention to introduce a new power for the magistrates' courts and Crown Courts was backed up by a statement made by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that the power should be deployed against the media, as he described it. The proposal is of real concern to the Newspaper Society, particularly to the 1,300 regional and local newspapers—daily and weekly titles, paid-for and free—published by its members throughout the United Kingdom. The Committee will know that, as has been pointed out, such newspapers cover the day-to-day work of the criminal courts. I know that the concern that is being expressed is shared by the Society of Editors.
The principle, which everyone supports, is that justice must not only be done but be seen to be done. That requires that justice be administered in public, so that the process and the results are open to public scrutiny. It is important to aid public understanding of the way in which the criminal justice system operates.
920
Often, it is left to the local and regional media to ensure that people are aware of how the criminal law operates.
As they stand, the provisions—namely, the wide-ranging and, to some extent, uncertain powers to make substantial costs orders against the media—will be a disincentive to the reporting of proceedings. Editors, newspapers and the media will face the risk of the award of costs of legal defence and the cost of premiums for insurance against wrongful attempts to impose such penalties. For smaller papers, comparatively small sums could exert a chilling effect on the reporting of court proceedings.
Amendments Nos. 134 and 135 would identify what "serious misconduct" is. As the Bill stands, that need not be contempt in any form, a breach of a court order or a reporting restriction or any other breach of criminal or civil law. It is wrong to introduce new controls over reporting in that way. At the moment, if there has been a mistake, the matter is dealt with under existing law, backed by powerful sanctions but with procedural and substantive legal safeguards for freedom of expression.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, I am concerned that there will be a risk that orders for prohibitive costs will be made arbitrarily against third parties—in particular, newspapers—for conduct or publication that is not even unlawful. That could have a chilling effect on reporting and publication that would be detrimental to open justice and public scrutiny and to public understanding of the criminal justice system. I hope that the Minister will reconsider.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I speak to Amendment No. 138 which, in my opinion, is one of the most important amendments in the Bill. If the Government want to do anything about cost and delay, they must tackle the scandalous situation which has arisen in the past two or three years in respect of the failure of the Prison Service and private security firms to deliver prisoners to court in time, and sometimes at all.
My recent experience covers the Wales and Chester circuit, the northern circuit, the Midlands circuit and the Central Criminal Court in London. Each circuit has the same problem. In the past, we attended court one hour before the hearing. If it was a 10.30 a.m. sitting, we would be there at 9.30 a.m. in order to see the client. Now, it is a complete waste of time to do that. I cannot recall a case recently which has started at the specific allocated time.
The various problems are these. First, there is an unwillingness between the Prison Service and private security firms to co-operate. Secondly, the private security firms, in particular, do not have enough personnel. Consequently, they traverse the countryside—outside London—carrying the prisoners to various courts, and are immune to any criticism made of them. Thirdly, on arrival at the court building, a period of time has to elapse while they arrange themselves and the practice has now developed—I understand as a result of insurance requirements—that no prisoner is taken to a conference

921
room unless handcuffed to a member of prison staff. That is the position within the secure area of the court to which prisoners are brought. All that takes time.
Another problem is that the interview rooms are not properly manned. It happens all the time in Birmingham where there are 12 or 13 interview rooms but only five are manned at any one time. The result is that queues of lawyers, counsel and solicitors stand outside hammering on the door, trying to use the intercom to talk to Prison Service personnel, to people who are completely indifferent to the problems that the lawyers are facing and to the problems that the court upstairs is facing. It results in total frustration.
I referred to Birmingham and Wolverhampton. I remember one day recently when 28 prisoners were brought in custody to the court. They all arrived late. Only three interview rooms existed and the queue of lawyers stretched from the lobby before the entrance to the secure area right across the main hall of the court. Everyone was standing around wasting time and wasting public money.
The judges have no means of doing anything about the situation. They have no coercive powers whatever. Some shrug their shoulders; others do what they can. I know of one judge, for example, who, whenever there is a delay in his court, writes a letter and keeps a copy. In a short period of time, he has acquired a thick file which he intends to send to the Lord Chancellor's Department when a particular private security firm is seeking to renew its contract. That is the only weapon that there is—namely, the contract.
The amendment proposes that the judge is given the power to make an inquiry at the time to establish whether he is being lied to as regards where the prisoner has been taken—that has happened in the past —and to establish the reasons for the delay. Subsequently, the judge could order costs against the Prison Service or the private security firm or wherever the fault may lie. That would instantly improve the situation.
At the moment, this country is spending millions of pounds in paying lawyers for hanging about unable to do their jobs. It is paying millions of pounds for wasted court time. It is an amazing sight to see a High Court judge sitting in his own court for a quarter of an hour because there is no person available to man the dock and therefore no prisoners can be brought in. That happened recently to me in an important Crown Court in the Midlands.
That issue must be tackled. It must be dealt with. The contract system simply is not working. I hope that I shall hear something from the Government which will address this particular problem. It is a scandal.
11.45 a m
Lord Goodhart: Before the Minister replies, the issue of the press, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, is the subject of the single amendment in the next group. I did not speak to it as I asked for it to be
922
degrouped because it is sufficiently important to require its own group. Perhaps the Minister will bear that in mind when replying.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: I speak to Amendments Nos. 134 and 135 which are perhaps related to Amendment No. 137A. I cannot see how the proposal would work if "wilful" were substituted for "serious". The number of cases in which the press "wilfully" misconducts itself can be counted on the fingers of one hand, if they exist at all. The press lack wilfulness because it is simply negligent. There is a combination of the reporter who misunderstands and the sub-editor who does not understand either, and so forth, which leads to serious misconduct and everyone throws their hands in the air and says, "Well, I'm terribly sorry. It shouldn't have happened and we shall try to ensure that it doesn't happen again".
The question of costs only arises in the Bill if there is not only misconduct, but serious misconduct. Therefore, I cannot understand what is wrong with that. Amendment No. 138 clearly deserves maximum support and I hope that the Minister will be able to say that this is something which will be tackled and will be tackled energetically. She obviously has instructions not only from the Lord Chancellor but also from the Treasury and this is wasting public money. Therefore, one might expect the Government to endorse it enthusiastically.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, made comments in relation to the chilling effect on local and regional newspapers. I believe that he described the arbitrary way in which costs may be awarded. That procedure will be applied by the courts exercising their judgment judicially. It would be fair to say that the courts have never in the past exercised that duty in an arbitrary way. Therefore, implicit in these provisions in the Bill is that they will continue to behave in the same proportionate way as they have historically.
Before I turn to the particular amendments, there is already an acknowledgement that there is a difference between regional and national newspapers. In contempt cases, the courts have accepted that the fact that a newspaper is regional and not national is a mitigating factor in deciding what the penalty should be. We believe that the same would apply to the new cost provision. I wanted to say that before turning to the amendments.
Amendment No. 133, tabled in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Goodhart, Lord Thomas of Gresford and Lord Kingsland, proposes that the court may order the third party to pay,
"all or any part of the",
relevant costs—in other words, to decide the proportion of costs that the third party should pay.
The intention in this clause is to shift the burden of costs to those who cause them to be incurred or wasted. We also intend that where costs are to be paid, it will be for the courts to decide, after considering all the relevant circumstances, whether it is appropriate

923
for the third party to pay all or only a proportion of the relevant costs. We believe that approach is proportionate and reasonable. I know that this is a probing amendment, so I wanted to say that clearly.
The new section that the clause adds will form part of a group of sections on costs in the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985. We believe that, as far as possible, the wording of the new clause should be consistent with that in other sections. Spelling out,
"all or any part of the costs",
would create a contrast between the new section and the existing Section 19(1) of the 1985 Act, which provides that,
"The Lord Chancellor may by regulations make provision empowering [the court] in any case where the court is satisfied that one party to criminal proceedings has incurred costs as a result of an unnecessary or improper act or omission by, or on behalf of, another party to the proceedings, to make an order as to the payment of those costs".
Including "all or any part" in one section but not another could form the basis of an argument that the section that did not include that phrase did not permit an order to be made as to part of the costs only.
In addition, the amendment is unnecessary. Our wording already allows the court to make an order for part or all of the costs. I hope that satisfies the noble Lord. I see him indicating that that is so.
Amendments Nos. 134 and 135, to which the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, spoke, would define the meaning of the impropriety that may cause costs to be wasted or incurred. I concur with the comments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, about that. Amendment No. 134 would refer only to "misconduct", rather than "serious misconduct". Amendment No. 135 would define the impropriety as "serious and wilful misconduct". We chose the term "serious misconduct" because we do not want to include all misconduct. We want to catch those whose improprieties are considered serious or grave, such as the juror who prefers to go to the races rather than attending court, or a newspaper that publishes a prejudicial article that causes a criminal trial to be adjourned or abandoned. There is no need to remind the Committee that the Sunday Mirror published an article that caused the first trial of Woodgate and others—more popularly known as the Leeds footballers case—to be abandoned, at considerable cost to the taxpayer.
We do not want to catch a juror who is late for court through his own fault, but only by quarter of an hour. His lateness is clearly misconduct of a sort, but it may not be considered serious and the resulting wasted costs may be inconsiderable. We believe that "serious" is necessary and removing it would widen the scope of the legislation beyond that which was intended.
We view the addition of "and wilful" also as limiting and unnecessary. An impropriety may be serious, but at the same time it may not be wilful. For example, to publish a newspaper article reckless of the potential impact on a trial should be capable of being caught by the clause, even though it may not have been done wilfully, in the sense that there was no wilful intent to disrupt the administration of justice. It is reasonable to
924
believe that a professional journalist or editor would understand the high degree of care that needs to be taken with articles about those involved in or related to current criminal proceedings. However, the same could not necessarily be said about the average man in the street who is not subject to any professional obligation and may be unaware that certain actions could have a detrimental effect on any proceedings. The court will be able to take account of these different considerations in determining whether, in the particular context, an impropriety should be treated as serious misconduct. "Wilful" could unduly restrict the court in cases of reckless acts or omissions where a third party costs order would be appropriate.
Under Amendment No. 136, when the court is considering making a costs order, the third party must be notified and given the opportunity of making representations before any such order is made. Of course we accept that the third party must have a right to a hearing, but we propose to provide for that in regulations and not in the Bill. On the notification of and representation for third parties, the Government intend to follow the provisions in existing regulations.
Lord Goodhart: My point was not that those issues should be included on the face of the Bill, but that the face of the Bill should spell them out as among the specific things that regulations should be required to provide for.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I understand what the noble Lord has in mind, but we still say that it would not be necessary. I am happy to say that we intend to include those issues in regulations. They will be similar to provisions in existing regulations that have been made relating to cases under Part 2 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985. The noble Lord will know that Regulations 3 and 3B of the Costs in Criminal Cases (General) Regulations 1986 provide that parties to proceedings who have acted improperly, and legal or other representatives who have acted negligently, may make representations to the court before any costs order is made against them. In those cases, it has been sufficient for the issue of representations to be dealt with in regulations and not in the Act. We propose the same here. I hope that the noble Lord will in due course be content with that.
Amendment No. 137 would limit the requirements to be satisfied before the court can consider a costs order by limiting the definition of serious misconduct to an "intentional or reckless act". It would limit the act to one that made a material contribution to the mischief and it would limit the mischief to delaying or causing the abandonment of a trial.
I have already said that we believe that it should be for the courts, after considering all the facts of each case, to determine which improprieties, including omissions as well as acts, constitute serious misconduct. Clause 88 allows the courts to do that.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, spoke to Amendment No. 138. He rightly raised an issue that causes much frustration to the courts and contributes to the waste of court time and taxpayers' money. He

925
gave us some graphic examples of the nature and extent of the problem and the level of frustration that it has caused to all those who have been subject to it.
However, we believe that the amendment, although absolutely pertinent, is unnecessary. Clause 88 already allows the court to deal with errant deliverers of prisoners. If costs are wasted because of late delivery, the court can look at the circumstances that caused the lateness. If it was the result of serious misconduct, the appropriate action can be taken—the court can make a third party costs order. Putting such detail on the face of the Bill can be unhelpful. It can encourage people to argue that the scope of the legislation has been unnecessarily limited, which will allow for other actions of serious misconduct to escape. I thank the noble Lord for raising this important issue, but we believe that the clause already enables the court to catch the situation that he described. The court will be able to assess whether there was a serious matter of misconduct with which it would be proper to deal. Now that the court has this sanction—these teeth— with which to bite such miscreants, we certainly hope that that will have a salutary effect and will cause people to behave in a more appropriate manner.
Has the noble Lord degrouped Amendment No. 143, because I believe that it was spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral?
Lord Goodhart: It was Amendment No. 137A.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I am grateful to the noble Lord.
I turn finally to Amendment No. 143. The amendment proposes that any regulations made under proposed new Section 19B, which deals with the award of costs against third parties in criminal proceedings, should be made by way of the affirmative resolution procedure. When preparing the provision, we took the view that none of the usual reasons for having the affirmative resolution process applied in this case.
In its report on the Bill, the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform raised no objection. Noble Lords will know of the importance we have attached to the committee's report. I may say that that applies where the committee has made no recommendation as well as where it has.
Clause 88 inserts a new Section 19B in the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 which is similar to other provisions on costs contained in Sections 19 and 19A. Indeed, Section 19 is cast as conferring a regulation-making power. Neither of those powers, nor the general regulation-making power in Part II of the 1985 Act, is subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. We see no reason why the regulations made under new Section 19B should require the affirmative resolution procedure when the existing provisions they will mirror have been subject to the negative resolution procedure.
We are satisfied that the regulations made under new Section 19B should be subject to the negative resolution procedure because the provisions which would be contained in those regulations are concerned
926
with the detail of how the court's power to make third party costs orders will operate in practice: in other words, they will be primarily about procedural matters. For this reason, we do not believe that the affirmative resolution procedure is appropriate and I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Noon.
Lord Goodhart: I am entirely satisfied with the Minister's response on Amendment No. 133. As regards Amendment No. 136, while I would have preferred to see something in the Bill that specifically required regulations to be made about hearings, I accept the Government's assurance that they will be included, if only because any attempt to make a costs order without a hearing against a third party would be a breach of the Human Rights Act 1998.
Perhaps I may ask my noble friend to comment briefly on his position on Amendment No. 138.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I am delighted with the response made by the noble Baroness to Amendment No. 138 and I am pleased that the Government intend to cover this scandalous situation as I have described it. The words of William Blake come to mind:
"Bring me my bow of burning gold",
but I do not think that there are sufficient "arrows of desire" in the current phrasing. I should like to make the point very specific because the clause relates to making regulations. Given that, provision should be made in regulations dealing with the Prison Service and the private security firms.
I shall come back to this matter at a later stage, but for the moment I shall not pursue it.
Lord Goodhart: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave. withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 134 to 137 not moved.]
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 137A:
Page 42, line 24, at end insert—
"( ) In deciding whether there has been serious misconduct, the court must have particular regard to the importance of the Convention right (as defined in the Human Rights Act 1998 (c. 42)) of freedom of expression."
The noble Lord said: The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, spoke on the subject of this amendment during the previous debate. The Newspaper Society, as the representative of the provincial press, has spoken to both the noble Lord and myself on this matter.
The society objects to the press being subject to third party costs orders at all on the grounds that the existing penalties for any breach of reporting restrictions under the rules covering contempt of court are entirely adequate. I have to say that I felt unable to go as far as that, but press coverage of the criminal courts, particularly in local newspapers, as the noble Baroness said, is a matter of importance. There is a real

927
risk, as was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that the possibility of a third party costs order may act as a deterrent to the full and proper reporting of court cases.
When the court decides whether serious misconduct has taken place, it should take into account the important role of the press. Amendment No. 137A is therefore specifically targeted on the press, unlike the earlier amendments, Amendments Nos. 134 and 135, which are of general application and would apply to everyone.
Mistakes made by the press, even if they are mistakes that have serious consequences in terms of costs, should not necessarily be regarded as matters of serious misconduct. Of course the deliberate publication of matters known to be likely to lead to a mistrial is an entirely different matter, but this amendment calls upon the court to have particular regard to the importance of the right of freedom of expression. In doing so, the amendment is based on a similar clause that was added to the Human Rights Bill during the course of its passage through Parliament in 1998.
We believe that, for the same reasons it was felt justified to include the clause in the Human Rights Bill, a clause of this kind would be justified for inclusion in the Courts Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: I agree.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I wish I could respond simply by saying that I disagree.
While I understand why the noble Lord seeks to press the amendment, we say that it is inappropriate for the following reason. We object because of the use of the word "particular". The noble Lord has stressed that he wishes the court to have particular regard to the importance of the convention right to freedom of expression when deciding whether to order costs against a third party, but we say clearly that it is our belief that the court, when reaching its decision, should have regard to the totality of the Human Rights Act 1998. No one part of that legislation should have any lesser or greater importance than another. It is the balance struck in the Act that is so important.
As the noble Lord knows, the criminal courts are in any event required to act in a way that is compatible with Article 10 covering freedom of expression, and that will apply when they are considering whether to use the power conferred by this clause. However, we do not think it appropriate for the criminal courts in this context to be required to have particular regard to that article. Section 12 is concerned primarily with the balance between the freedom of expression of rights and the right to respect for private life. We are concerned here solely with apportioning the costs incurred or wasted as a result of serious misconduct by a third party. It is not appropriate to give special weight to freedom of expression in the costs context.
But we believe that the courts have demonstrated, through the way in which they have applied the law in this area, that they will be proportionate, reasonable
928
and proper in the discharge of their duty. There is nothing that the courts have done to date that has caused me to fear that when looking at this legislation they will not properly take into consideration the necessary balance between these issues and discharge their duty with the usual honour and integrity which we expect of our judges.
Lord Goodhart: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her reply, which was much as I expected. This is a point of some importance. We shall look carefully at what she has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 138 not moved.]
Clause 88 agreed to.
Clauses 89 to 91 agreed to.
Schedule 5 agreed to.
Clause 92 [Periodical payments]:
Lord Hunt of Wirral Lord Hunt of Wirral moved Amendment No. 138A:
Page 44, line 24, leave out "pecuniary"
The noble Lord said: We now move to consider Clauses 92 and 93 headed "Damages", which provide for periodical payments to be ordered by the court. This gives us an opportunity to review the position of structured settlements. The amendment asks a question about the extent to which periodical payments will be dealing with future loss, whether pecuniary or not.
It is some time since the first UK structured settlement involving periodical payments with model documentation was put in place. In July 1989, the first structured settlement attracted considerable publicity. In the following year more cases were settled on that basis. Since then the flow of cases has increased. In June 1991 a UK Law Commission inquiry was appointed to look at structured settlements which reported in 1994. It concluded the report Structured Settlements and Interim and Provisional Damages in the following terms:
"Structured settlements are a useful alternative form of arranging an award of damages which should remain available to allow plaintiffs [now claimants] a choice as to how to plan their future".
In May 1995, legislation based on the commission's recommendations was enacted. We have seen the development since then. I refer particularly to the Damages Act 1996, which allowed for structured settlements to be made by consent.
In a case before our Judicial Committee in 1998, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Steyn, made the following comments:
"The present power to order periodic payments is a dead letter. The solution is relatively straightforward. The court ought to be given the power of its own motion to make an award for periodic payments rather than a lump sum in appropriate cases. Such power is perfectly consistent with the principle of full compensation for pecuniary loss. Except perhaps for"—
I greatly regret that he added these words—
"the distaste of personal injury lawyers for change to a familiar system, I can think of no substantial argument to the contrary. But the judges cannot make the change. Only Parliament can solve the problem".
That explains why we are here today discussing Clause 92 in particular.
We have had extensive consultation. I pay tribute to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. In March 2000 he published a consultation paper entitled Damages: the Discount Rate and Alternatives to Lump Sum Payments. He concluded that further discussion was necessary. In March last year he published a further consultation paper entitled Damages for Future Loss: Giving the Courts the Power to Order Periodical Payments for Future Loss and Care Costs in Personal Injury Cases. The post-consultation report was published in November last year. I applaud the speed with which the Government have responded in putting forward Clause 92 as far as it allows for periodical payments.
The issue has been looked at the by the Clinical Disputes Forum, which published a paper on the subject in August 2000 entitled Lump Sum Damages and Periodical Payments. The working party of the Master of the Rolls published a report last August on structured settlements.
I support what is clearly a more appropriate way of compensating claimants because it will ensure that they have the money to which they are entitled and for as long as it is needed without the anxiety of the award running out if they live longer than expected. But a number of reports have concluded that there must be an element of finality. We shall come to specific amendments dealing with the proposals on variation in a moment.
The extensive consultation that has taken place has disclosed that periodical payments are to be welcomed provided that they introduce a degree of finality. There are views in favour of periodical payments from a range of organisations such as the National Health Service Litigation Authority, the Medical Defence Union, the Medical Protection Society, the Association of British Insurers, the International Underwriting Association and by claimants' organisations. Generally, these are to be welcomed. But all of them are unanimous in their view that they have serious concern about a proposal for those payments to be varied at some unspecified stage in the future.
The variation clauses could cause much more litigation, endless uncertainty, constant scrutiny for claimants and financial instability for those who seek to compensate. I hope that the Minister will accept that there could be a fatal flaw in the system. If periodical payments are introduced with a suspicion that at some stage in the future they will be changed or varied, then I do not believe that the general welcome for periodical payments will continue.
12.15 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. If there is a fundamental change of circumstances, it is impossible not to vary the situation. Obviously, the noble Lord is right in that
930
there should be no repeated surveillance of such a situation. Would the noble Lord like to comment on that?
Lord Hunt of Wirral: The noble Lord is right in that provisions presently exist for what are called provisional damages. Where there is a suspicion that at some stage there will be a serious deterioration in the claimant's condition, then it is perfectly possible for the damages to be put on hold, so to speak, under the system of provisional damages. That could be incorporated under the existing legislation in a structured settlement.
The noble Lord has given me an opportunity to emphasise the point. There may be a suspicion that there will be no finality. The Master of the Rolls' working party demonstrated the attraction of finality introduced by lump sum payments. But, as I read the proposals, there is presently nothing on the face of the Bill to meet the point that the move to the alternative system of periodical payments might produce continuing uncertainty. There is a genuine worry on the part of those who face claims—particularly in the National Health Service but also, generally speaking, insurers and re-insurers and those acting on behalf of claimants—that periodical payments in the form of structured settlements will not succeed because there is no finality and it is impossible for a file ever to be closed.
The Minister may seek to reassure us on that point. I very much hope that she will, as she now seeks to explain exactly what, in form of damages, the periodical payments will cover. I hope that she will not mind my having widened the debate to indicate the general concern that exists over what could be the fatal flaw of variability. I beg to move.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I thank the noble Lord for his generous compliments in relation to the way in which this work has been undertaken, and I return them. The work on periodical payments has been successful only, as a number of Members of the Committee have been kind enough to indicate, because of the work done by all those who have participated in this area, including the noble Lord. So this is a joint venture to that extent.
I do not mind at all the fact that the noble Lord has broadened the issue slightly. It may be helpful, therefore, if I set out in broad terms how we view periodical payments, because there has been some confusion. I hope that when we come to deal with the basis on which these could be reviewed I shall be able to make sufficiently clear and helpful comments to reassure the noble Lord that his anxieties as regards periodical payments and their take-up and application are not well founded.
These proposals aim to promote the widespread use of periodical payments as a means of paying compensation for future financial loss and care costs in personal injury cases. At Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, all

931
welcomed the powers to order periodical payments. I was pleased, as I have said, that the noble Lord was able to reiterate that today.
At present, a court can order periodical payments only where both parties give their consent. Otherwise, it will order a lump sum. We believe that the existing system of compensation for future losses by way of lump sums is unsatisfactory. It is based on predictions about the future life expectancy of a claimant which are inevitably uncertain and almost always lead to over-compensation or under-compensation. That results in an injustice either to the claimant or to the defendant. If claimants are under-compensated because they live longer than expected, they may need to fall back on the state, causing an additional burden on the taxpayer. If claimants are over-compensated, they receive a windfall, the cost of which is ultimately borne by the taxpayer or through insurance premiums.
In contrast, periodical payments will help to ensure that people receive the compensation to which they are entitled for as long as it is needed. This will give greater security to claimants, who will be able to plan for the future without the anxiety or the awards running out if they live longer than expected. Periodical payments also transfer investment responsibility from claimants to defendants, who are better able to bear it.
We believe that periodical payments can also be valuable in assisting the rehabilitation process. Claimants will receive regular payments which are more accurately assessed to meet their on-going needs rather than face the difficulties of managing a substantial one-off lump sum. That will enable claimants to return to a normal life by allowing them to manage their everyday affairs with a regular stream of income and help them to look to the future and focus on the possibility of rehabilitation. In addition, the absence of the need for complex and often adversarial discussions about life expectancy should lead to the quicker resolution of cases and encourage early and effective rehabilitation.
Periodical payments will provide benefits to defendants by allowing awards to be managed more cost-effectively. They will be cash-flow savings for the NHS and defendants' insurers will have the greater choice over how payments are funded. We do not wish, by way of review, to jeopardise any of that security. The Government believe that the benefit of periodical payments will accrue from the greater use of these payments. A power for the courts to order periodical payments is needed to realise those benefits.
Under the current system, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has indicated, where the consent of those parties to a structured settlement is required, this option remains little used, and lump sums remain the norm—often to the disadvantage of claimants, defendants and the taxpayer.
We recognise that periodical payments will not always be the most appropriate method of payment, and that lump sums will continue to be preferable in some circumstances. Our proposals will not prevent the court making a lump sum order where it considers
932
that to be the best option for the claimant, and it is our intention that the Civil Procedure Rules, supported by practice directions, will provide guidance to assist the court in making an order that best meets the needs of the claimant.
Of course I understand the import of this amendment. But it would change the definition of the type of damages for which the court will be able to impose periodical payments from,
"damages for future pecuniary loss in respect of personal injury",
to damages for "future loss" in respect of personal injuries. As we have indicated in our consultation paper, it is our intention that the power to impose periodical payments should be available in respect of future loss of earnings capacity, future care costs and similar expenses. The use of the term "future pecuniary loss" is intended to cover those areas.
The term is used elsewhere, in the Damages Act 1996 and in other legislation relating to damages, and is issued here for reasons of consistency. The new power will not apply to damages for past loss or to damages for non-pecuniary loss such as pain and suffering. It will apply to "future pecuniary" loss. I hope that we shall be able to ensure that the meaning of the term is explained in the Explanatory Notes to the Bill on that basis. On the basis of my remarks, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment. I hope that the clarity of that statement has satisfied him.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: I am grateful to the Minister, not only for responding to the amendment, which was essentially probing, but also for giving a general outline of the way in which the Government are approaching the whole question of structured settlements. We shall need time to reflect on the Minister's response, and we shall, of course, return to the subject of variation in a later group of amendments.
My only additional point is that we must bear in mind the needs of people with disability which has been incurred as the result of an accident or trauma. There is a feeling on the part of some of those with disability that they have not been involved at the centre of this whole process relating to periodical payments. There is a real concern that periodical payments be some form of inhibitor as regards the emphasis on rehabilitation and getting people back to work.
Stephen Duckworth, who is a leading campaigner on disability matters, has made me aware that we need to consult people with disability in order to ensure that periodical payments will encourage them to become more independent and more amenable to rehabilitation interventions. There is the possibility—we shall return to the issue on variation—that the constant question mark over the level of payment may have a detrimental effect on the rehabilitation process. We need to focus on that aspect which the noble Baroness will have very much in mind. However, to give the necessary width to the debate, I mention it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
12.30 p.m.
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 139:
Page 44, line 28, at end insert—
"( ) Periodical payments shall be increased or decreased in accordance with the Retail Price Index."
The noble Lord said: I did not participate in the debate on the previous amendment but I strongly agree with the principle of periodical payments, moving from the existing structured settlement regime, which requires the consent of both parties if it can be done only by an out of court settlement subject to approval by the court, to a situation where the court has power to order periodical payments. While this is a step forward it will be essential to ensure that the real value of periodical payments is maintained. That is the purpose of the amendment.
Even at the Government's target figure of 2.5 per cent inflation, periodical payments with a fixed annual amount would steadily lose their real value over time. Ignoring the effect of compounding, a 2.5 per cent increase over a period of 10 years per annum would lead to a decline in real value of the periodical payment over those 10 years by 20 per cent. The figure is 20 per cent not 25 per cent: that is a matter for the mathematicians. If one takes into account the compounding of the interest—the 2.5 per cent per annum is measured not on what happened 10 years ago but with the previous year's figure—the problem becomes even more acute. The consequences would be not only serious but disastrous if inflation rates were over 20 per cent per annum as in the 1970s or early 1990s.
It is now practicable to ensure that the real value is maintained because the cost of an order for periodical payments can be funded through index-linked government securities. It is not practicable to link periodical payments to earnings. That is unfortunate. Because of the increase in real earnings, a person rendered unfit for work 40 years ago and in receipt of periodical payments fixed even in real terms at the 1963 figures would have a standard of living well below that of a healthy contemporary even if those periodical payments had been index linked. That seems to me an unavoidable problem. There is no realistic way in which an earnings-linked annuity could be funded. However, I believe that linkage to the retail prices index is not only practicable but plainly desirable and essential. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: It is an important amendment. It touches on the way in which periodical payments will be dealt with. I considered carefully this aspect when reading paragraph 35 of the Master of the Rolls' working party's report on structured settlements. Close matching regulations oblige, for instance, life offices to hold assets to match their liabilities. Close matching is a key issue when one considers the way in which any annuity payment will increase in value. That close matching was found in the Insurance Companies Act 1982 but is now regulated by the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 with the detail to be found in the FSA Interim Prudential Source Book Pr Insurers, Volume 3 Guidance Notes, Section 4.4, linked contracts, paragraphs 2.1 to 2.15.
934
There is no point in setting up a system for structured settlements when no available products will conform to the close matching regulations That is fundamental if we are to proceed with a general move towards the structured settlements which so many people would like to see.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. It is important that the real value of periodical payments can be preserved over the whole period for which they are payable. The indexation of payments is already a matter for the court's discretion and the Bill does not affect that. At present it is common practice to link payments to the retail prices index. However, it would not be appropriate to prescribe this as a blanket index to which all payments must be linked. In some cases it may be appropriate to link different heads of damage to different indices. The court currently has that flexibility.
We believe that it is important to retain the current flexibility and for indexation to be left to the discretion of the court which can have proper regard to the individual circumstances of each case. I hope that that reassures noble Lords. We think that this ability of the court will address their concerns.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: Perhaps I may respond. Where the liability is to make index payments under art RPI structure, there is an available close-matching asset in index-linked government stocks. There is a general wish to see those made more widely available. However, if we were to move to another index—I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart—there will be no availability of any close-matching product which would enable the defendant, the defendant's insurer, or reinsurer, to make the necessary provision.
Lord Goodhart: I am not sure how the court's discretion now arises. It would arise only by virtue of the requirement that a court approve a structured settlement and that it will not do so unless the settlement makes some provision for indexation of the payments due under that settlement.
We have here a different situation. The court is making the order, not merely approving a settlement agreed between the parties. It is plainly desirable, therefore, that the court should be required to take steps to preserve the real value of the periodical payments. I should like to see a provision on the face of the Bill—perhaps not as absolute as my amendment—which states that the court shall be required to provide for the payments to be indexed unless it sees reason for them either not to be indexed or to be linked to some other index.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: We should bear in mind how the courts currently approach the issue. When matters come before the court, all parties will have to direct their minds to the nature of the order that the court might make. The noble Lord will be familiar with the process. The court will make enquiries as to what the consequences are for various

935
suggestions that will be urged on it by various parties. That is the nature of the discussion that will be under review. It is part and parcel of the way in which courts have historically approached these issues that they wish to be assured that, if liability is established, the damages that flow from that, both general and specific, together with pecuniary loss, properly compensate the individual applicant for the injury suffered at the date of the incident and, thereafter, for the damages that flow therefrom. We are relying on the practical day-to-day way in which the court has dealt with that process.
Lord Goodhart: I still believe that it would be desirable and important to place something of this kind in the Bill, although perhaps not in these words. I shall consider some alternative possible wording. From my reading of proposed new Section 2(1)(a) and 2(1)(b) of the Damages Act 1996, it is not made expressly clear that the court even has the power to award periodical payments that are index-linked rather than fixed. I am strongly minded to bring back the issue on Report. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 139ZA:
Page 44, line 28, at end insert—
"( ) In considering whether to order periodical payments under subsection (1), the court shall take into account the views of the claimant."
The noble Lord said: This amendment is entirely different in nature from the previous one. It arises from correspondence with the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers. The association pressed for an amendment that would provide that an order for periodical payments should need specifically the consent of the claimant or a McKenzie friend, when the claimant was represented by a McKenzie friend.
I saw problems with requiring consent in all cases, particularly in the case of a young person who was legally capable of taking a decision for himself but might take an unwise one. The prospect of a large lump sum may be tempting to a claimant who would be better off in the long run with a periodical payment. The claimant might also come under pressure from members of his or her family who expected to profit in some way from the lump sum.
Having said that, the court should undoubtedly have regard to the wishes of the claimant and should be required to find out what they are. I accept that in practice a court that acted reasonably would almost certainly do that. However, the requirement should be in the Bill. I do not suppose that the court would ignore the claimant's wishes, even without a statutory obligation, but if the requirement were in the Bill the court would have to find out the claimant's wishes. It would also mean that if the court did not act in accordance with those wishes, it would have to give
936
reasons for overriding them. It is desirable that it should do so. Therefore, there should be an obligation to have regard to the claimant's wishes. I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I have a great deal of sympathy with the amendment, but there are difficulties with it, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said.
Normally, periodical payments should be a matter for the claimant, but that is not always possible, as the noble Lord said. However, the claimant's plans for the future should be taken into account. The Minister said that guidance would be available to the court, which is important, and I invite her to say something more about the availability of such guidance at this stage. That would be enormously helpful to the House in considering the Bill.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. I should not like a one-sided system to be set up, although I am aware of the views of the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers.
The association made it clear, as the noble Lord has just made clear, that we must have the guidance in place before we go further down this route. The association wrote:
"This lack of clear direction could have a negative impact on victims and we would strongly urge that guidance is in place prior to the courts using the powers".
My main point, however, is one that I mentioned before, which was made by Stephen Duckworth of Disability Matters and several other leading people, who speak in support of the need for rehabilitation. The International Underwriting Association and Association of British Insurers study on rehabilitation and the initiatives taken by periodicals such as Post magazine, urging forward the code on rehabilitation, make it clear that periodical payments must be in the interests of the person receiving compensation. The interests demand that there should be, when appropriate, an early and prompt return to work and/or return to normal life, when that is possible.
Will the Government have some more joined-up thinking about the need for rehabilitation at a much earlier stage, especially when the defendant is a Government department or the National Health Service, in some form or other, or the Medical Defence Union or Medical Protection Society? There is an urgent need to deal with the problem early in the interests of the claimant. Will the Minister comment on the need to ensure that the people who have suffered are at the centre of the discussion?
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: I apologise for the fact that I have not been present at previous deliberations on the Bill, but I have been unable to attend. I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 139A and 140A, which are in my name.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Allenby of Megiddo): We have not reached that group.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: Oh, I am sorry.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I empathise with many of the comments made by Members of the Committee.

937
I shall reassure my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis about our approach, and try to respond to the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, after dealing specifically with the amendment.
We agree with the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, that the views of the claimant in relation to periodical payments is the important issue. The Bill already provides for the rules of court to set out criteria that the court must take into account when considering whether to order periodical payments. As the noble Lord rightly said, it would be impractical and perhaps inappropriate to attempt to list in primary legislation all the factors that the court will need to consider. As we all know, this is a developing area of law and it is essential that there is flexibility to adjust the criteria in the light of experience. I respectfully suggest that that is best achieved through secondary legislation. We intend that the rules will assist the judiciary and parties in identifying factors that may be relevant in deciding whether periodical payments or a lump sum is appropriate. I reiterate that there will still be cases where periodical payments are not appropriate and do not meet the needs of the parties, particularly the claimant, and where the court will not so order.
We fully accept that the claimant's wishes are an important factor. I reassure the Committee that those wishes will undoubtedly be one of the factors that the court is required to consider. However, we do not believe that it would be appropriate to single out that factor in primary legislation as the amendment proposes. The court must be allowed to take into account all the individual circumstances of the case and weigh all the relevant factors against one another in making the order that it considers best meets the needs of the claimant. The weight to be given to the claimant's wishes, for example, might depend on the reasons for them and the quality of the advice on which they are based. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, mentioned issues to do with pressure from family and whether they think a lump sum might be more advantageous to them. Those are all important issues for the court to weigh.
Does the claimant, for example, want a lump sum to spend on a holiday or to start a business? How strong is his or her business case? Has he or she been properly advised? I am sure that the court will be minded to take into account all those issues. Of course the defendant's wishes run through all of that. However, I think that it would be wrong to suggest, by placing it on the face of the Bill, that the claimant's wishes should outweigh all other factors. I therefore invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, made an important point about rehabilitation. We, too, see rehabilitation as a very important issue. We hope that, by the introduction of periodical payments, it will be easier to settle cases earlier. We know from research that the earlier these issues are settled, the easier it is for the injured person to be rehabilitated. We hope that that is something that will inure to the benefit of the claimant. We have already said that the proposals offer advantages for the defendant. Rehabilitation, however, is a critical issue. I reassure the noble Lord that the importance of the rehabilitation
938
issue—how we address it and how we encourage individuals to take advantage of the opportunities for rehabilitation—is very much on the agenda and part of the conversations that we are having with various government departments. I assure him that it is not an issue that this department or other departments will fail to address. We are addressing it with great energy.
Lord Goodhart: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her helpful reply and her assurance that there will be guidance in regulations on the factors that have to be taken into account by the court in reaching its conclusion. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Before calling Amendment No. 139ZAA, I have to inform the Committee that if this amendment were to be agreed. I would not be able to call Amendments Nos. 1.39ZB and 139ZC.
Lord Hunt of Wirral Lord Hunt of Wirral moved Amendment No. 139ZAA:
Page 44, leave out lines 34 to 40.
The noble Lord said: The amendment would leave out Section 2 of the Damages Act 1996 so far as subsection (4) is concerned. Amendment No. 139A, which is within the group, would leave out lines 4 and 5 on page 45. That provision concerns,
"enabling a party to apply for a variation of provision included under paragraph (a) or (b).
Amendment No. 139B, which is also in this group, would leave out "(a) or", in line 5, so that one could apply only under paragraph (b). Amendment No. 147ZA would leave out the words "whether or not" from line 18 and insert "if". Amendment No. 140ZB would, at the end, insert "or". Amendment No. 140A, which is in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, is also in the group I think that that covers all the amendments in the group. I thought that I should read them out so that everyone knows exactly where we are in the latest selection.
Amendment No. 139ZAA is really a probing amendment. I have to confess to the Minister that I really do not understand subsection (4), and I look forward to her explanation. On Amendment No. 139A, however, it should be possible to vary the way in which payments are made. We are dealing here with the mechanics of payment, not with variation—to which we shall return as a big subject for debate. There would be no concern if, for example, the claimant wanted quarterly payments rather than monthly ones. That should be allowed. The intention is clearly for the courts to control such variation. Again, I am giving the Minister the opportunity of responding on the point.
Amendment No. 139B offers for consideration whether the words "whether or not" should be replaced by "if". If the court does not specify the method of payment, I am not sure that the person who is obliged to make the payment should be fixed with a method and then be in breach of the order if he varies it as long as the payments are still made and secure. I hope that that

939
explains the reasoning behind the amendment. It may be advantageous if I now leave it to the Minister to explain. I beg to move.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: I apologise to the Committee for my earlier untimely intervention. Amendments Nos. 139A and 140A are in my name. However, I should prefer to speak to them in full later. The points have been more than adequately addressed by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: In order to assist the Committee, I think that it might be helpful if the noble Baroness spoke to the amendments now as they are in the group we are considering.
1.00 p.m.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: I thank the Minister for that guidance. All of my amendments relate to the proposals to introduce settlement reviews in clinical negligence cases. My concerns are on four levels: for patients themselves; about the complaints procedures which patients encounter in the NHS; for the healthcare professionals; and for the NHS itself.
When a clinical error has occurred, patients understandably and rightly feel deeply wronged. Redress is sought to cover expenses incurred in future care but also—and often much more powerfully—in an attempt to obtain justice for the tragedy that has happened. Of course no money can compensate for the phenomenal emotional and physical trauma that somebody experiences when an error has occurred.
After an error, the complaints procedure comes into play. Patients repeatedly report a block in the process. They feel that there is a brick wall when they desperately need information and an apology—but an apology is slow to come as healthcare professionals and trust management may fear that to apologise would be to admit liability. The new NHS complaints procedures have improved enormously in recent times and the open and speedy way in which issues are dealt with is long overdue.
Sometimes the trust or defence union will settle rapidly out of court to achieve closure for all concerned rather than fight a case, to avoid lengthy court procedures and the stress involved. However, if it is feared that such a settlement might be deemed an admission of guilt that can later be revisited to increase a settlement, the trend towards rapid resolution for closure will be reversed and trusts will try to avoid anything that might be construed as an admission of guilt through fear of later review.
The NHS apparently has a huge and rising bill for negligence payouts. In 2001–2002, the bill for all known and anticipated claims was £5.25 billion—a staggering increase of £850 million in the last year alone. Only five years ago, the total provision for clinical negligence was much lower, at £2.3 billion. National Audit Office accounts show that the NHS paid out £446 million to settle clinical negligence claims last year, which is £31 million more than the
940
previous year. The introduction of settlement reviews can only increase that trend, unless the NHS reverses its current policy of rapid settlement.
I am grateful to the Lord Chancellor's office for corresponding with me earlier this year. Its letter outlines the intention of the Bill, which actually matches what currently happens. The medical defence unions currently fund long-term payments through buying an annuity. I understand that in practice, an annuity can be bought only from the National Farmers Union Mutual and that there is no choice in the market. The defence unions are not in a position to self fund. Their subscriptions are drawn principally from employees of the NHS, so review and variation would inevitably impact indirectly on NHS costs.
I now return to the people at the heart of this—patients and the healthcare profession. Make no mistake, when a doctor makes an error, it is devastating for that doctor. I have seen many professional colleagues feel destroyed by a complaint—even one with no grounds. I have seen colleagues haunted for life by an error. Of course the patient is more than haunted. He or she has to live day in, day out, with the outcome of an error or, worse, negligence. Patients are owed a duty of continuing care, which includes the duty to help them to rehabilitate and resume life as much as possible. The Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, have stressed the importance of rehabilitation, so I shall refer briefly to evidence from rehabilitation programmes.
From 17 well-conducted studies in the literature on the impact of litigation on the rehabilitation process, there is consistent and powerful evidence that ongoing litigation and, independently to it, unemployment have an adverse effect on recovery. For patients to achieve closure on episodes seem crucial to their future quality of life. I am not saying that settlements should not occur. I certainly welcome the implication of the introduction of periodical settlements—but leaving settlements open to review may mean that patients cannot complete the grieving process that will and must occur. They cannot have closure.
The NHS might come to fear that admission of fault may leave the way open to future, unquantifiable review claims—making the early stages worse for patients. The NHS cannot afford the open-ended nature of such reviews. Most of all, the victims—the patients— will be unable to rehabilitate because any long-term improvement may work against a future claim review. Patients will be encouraged to be locked into to an acute psychological state and never achieve closure in their lifetime. It is well documented that the individual's psychological state has a huge impact on physical recovery. I beg to move.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I will take up the invitation to explain how the clauses work because I understand that they may have caused difficulties. The points that the noble Baroness makes so powerfully are important and I will respond to them fully when we reach the next group of amendments. I reassure her that a lot of work is continuing. The Chief Medical Officer, to name just one authority, is working hard on

941
reviewing all aspects of clinical negligence, including the complaints procedure. We are hopeful that that work will chart a way through for us.
The proposed amendments would affect the way in which the security of periodical payments is protected. They would have unfortunate practical consequences for the ongoing security of periodical payments awards, so the Government are not able to accept them. None of the amendments is consequential on any other—except Amendment No. 140A, which is consequential on Amendment No. 139A.
It may be helpful if I explain the purpose of the provisions relating to security. New Section 2(3) requires the court to be satisfied before it makes a periodical payments order that the continuity of payments is reasonably secure. New Section 4 of the Damages Act 1996, inserted by Clause 93, ensures that the continuity of periodical payments is fully protected by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme, where the payments are self-funded by an insurer or funded by an annuity. Section 2(4)(b) provides that in those situations, the continuity of the payments is reasonably secure for the purposes of new Section 2(3). Similarly, Section 6 of the Damages Act 1996 and new Section 2(4)(a) guarantee the security of self-funded payments by public sector bodies made under a ministerial guarantee.
In making a periodical payments order, it is not intended that the court should specify how payments are to be funded in terms of the particular type of investment to be used, provided it is satisfied that the payment method is reasonably secure. That matter will be for the defendant or the insurer. It is right that, provided payments are reasonably secure, defendants and insurers should be able to choose the funding arrangements that suit them best.
However, in order to be satisfied of that, it is likely that in most cases the court will specify that payments must only be funded in ways provided for under new Section 2(4)—that is, those ways that attract statutory protection. Alternatively, the court may be asked to agree another method of funding that does not attract statutory guarantees. Therefore, new Section 2(5) enables a court order to include provision about how the payments are to be made and to require the person who is to make the payments to take specified action to secure their continuity. The government amendments that I shall move after the debate on these amendments will, I hope, clarify the section further.
It may sometimes be necessary or desirable for the insurer or defendant to change the method of funding the payments. This will not affect the amount of payments. To ensure that the protection afforded by the original court order is not lost as a result of any subsequent change in funding, new Section 2(7) provides that an alteration in the method of funding shall be treated as a breach of the order unless the new method falls within the protected categories of funding, or the court declares it is satisfied that the continuity of payment under the new method is reasonably secure.
The second possibility would arise in two situations: first, where the defendant wished to change from a protected method of payment to one that was not
942
protected; secondly, where the defendant wished to change from one non-protected method of payment to another. New Section 2(5)(c) enables the court to allow a party to bring the matter back before the court in such situations so that it can consider the proposed new method of funding and approve it if appropriate. The amendments moved by the Opposition would harm the way these interlinking provisions operate.
Amendment No. 139ZAA seeks to remove new Section 2(4), which sets out the methods of payment that the court may consider to be reasonably secure for the purposes of new Section 2(3). As I have explained, the section is designed to enable the court to identify which payments attract statutory protection and therefore which it may automatically consider to be secure.
The amendment would require the court to declare itself satisfied by the security of the individual method of funding in every case, even where a method protected by statute was to be used. As a consequence, defendants and insurers would have to present to the court details of the specific investment or method of payment with which they intended to meet the order. This would reduce the flexibility for defendants and insurers to fund payments in the most cost-effective way, would increase court time and costs unnecessarily and might delay payment.
While I am aware of some concerns about the availability of insurance products to meet court ordered periodical payments, we do not consider it to be a significant issue. Defendants will be able to inform the court if the terms of an order would cause particular difficulties. However, as annuities are already used to provide structured settlements, we would be disappointed if the insurance industry did not seize the opportunity to meet an increased need for periodical payments. We should also not forget that not all periodical payments will be funded by insurance products; for example, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, said, the National Health Service might fund payments directly as they arise, rather than purchasing an annuity from a life insurer.
As I have explained, the provisions in new Section 2(5) are intended to cover all the different situations where the court may need to include provision about the method of payment, and one element would not function properly in the absence of the others. Amendment No. 139A, which seeks to delete new Section 2(5)(c), would have the effect of preventing any application to change the method of payment being made. Amendment No. 140A is consequential and deletes the reference to new Section 2(5)(c) in new Section 2B(1). This reference is included in new Section 2B(1) in order to clarify that the Lord Chancellor's order-making power on variation of periodical payments does not extend to provisions relating to the parties' ability to apply for variation of the method by which the payments are funded.
I am going through the arguments slowly, because when practitioners and others come to look at the provisions I hope that my explanation will assist them to see how they interlink. Amendment No. 139B

943
would restrict the circumstances in which an application to change the method of payment could be made. These amendments would prevent the provisions from functioning effectively to protect the ongoing security of payments. If I may respectfully say so, that would not be in the interests of either claimants or defendants.
The same is partly true for Amendment No. 140ZA, because it reduces the circumstances in which it would be necessary to obtain the court's approval to a change in the method of payment. The effect of substituting "if" for "whether or not" in new Section 2(7) would be to limit the orders covered by the provision. In those orders not covered it would then be possible for the defendant, without the court's approval, to change to a method of payment that attracted no statutory protection. That would create a potential loophole and might mean that certain claimants were not adequately protected.
Amendment No. 140ZB is a drafting point relating to the list of instances in new Section 2(7) in which an alteration of the method by which periodical payments are funded will not be treated as a breach of the order. The word "or" is implicit at the end of paragraph (a) and does not need to be inserted. The drafting here reflects the approach used elsewhere in the Bill; for example in Clause 30(1), Clause 36(4), Clause 49(3) and Clause 57(2).
I have dealt with the matter exhaustively but I hope that it is now clear.
1.15 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: It is indeed clear. Speaking on behalf of practitioners, I am sure that all those involved in implementing these provisions will print out the Minister's words and place them close to their hearts. I am grateful to her for her explanation. As she has indicated, these provisions deal with variation in the method of payment. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, on her important points on variability. When we come to page 46 of the Bill and the amendments grouped with Amendment No. 140ZC, we will be returning to those points. I shall defer further comment from these Benches until then. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 139ZB:
Page 44, line 35, leave out "it is protected by"
The noble Baroness said: These amendments clarify the methods of payment to which I have just referred that are reasonably secure for the purposes of new Section 2(3), which requires the court to be satisfied before it makes a periodical payments order that the continuity of payments under the order is reasonably secure.
As I have explained, new Section 4 of the Damages Act 1996, inserted by Clause 93, ensures that the continuity of periodical payments is fully protected by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme where the payments are self-funded by an insurer or funded by an annuity. Section 6 of the Damages Act guarantees the security of self-funded payments by public sector bodies made under a ministerial guarantee. But Section 6 is not designed to guarantee payments made by government departments and is not suited to the National Health Service, which will be funding a substantial number of periodical payment orders, as it would appear to require an individual guarantee in each case. That did not matter when periodical payments had to be made by agreement. It would be clear to the claimant that the defendant department was good for the money, so the absence of a formal guarantee would be no bar to a settlement.
In future, however, a court ordering periodical payments will need to be satisfied as to their future security. That requirement will apply when periodical payments orders are made against government departments and health service bodies, in particular the National Health Service Litigation Authority. At present, such payments are usually self-funded, and we wish to ensure that that can remain the case under the new system. Self-funding the payments as they arise represents the best value for the public money concerned. Therefore Amendments Nos. 139ZB, 139ZC, 139ZD, 139ZE, 139ZF and 140ZBA will ensure that the continuity of payments made by government and health service bodies is reasonably secure for the purposes of new Section 2(3).
Amendments Nos. 140ZBB and 140ZBC enable the Lord Chancellor to specify in an order the bodies that will constitute "government and health service bodies" for the purposes of new Section 2(4) and (7) which deal with alterations to the method of payment. The amendment is framed in that way to provide clarity as to the bodies which are protected and to provide flexibility, for example, to alter the designated bodies should they change in name or status. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendments Nos. 139ZC to 139ZF:
Page 44, line 36, at beginning insert "it is protected by"
Page 44, leave out line 37.
Page 44, line 38, at beginning insert "it is protected by"
Page 44, line 40, at end insert ", or

(c) the source of payment is a government or health service body."

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 139ZG:
Page 45, line I, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert—

"(a) requiring the party responsible for the payments to use a method (selected or to be selected by him) under which the continuity of payment is reasonably secure by virtue of subsection (4);

945

(b) about how the payments are to be made, if not by a method under which the continuity of payment is reasonably secure by virtue of subsection (4);

(ba) requiring the party responsible for the payments to take specified action to secure continuity of payment, where continuity is not reasonably secure by virtue of subsection (4);"

The noble Baroness said: As I explained in speaking to previous amendments, the Government wish to give defendants and their insurers as much flexibility as possible in funding court-ordered periodical payments provided always that the claimant's interest in the ongoing security of the payments is protected. To ensure that the Bill achieves that, Amendments Nos. 139ZG and 1390 clarify the provisions relating to the method of funding payments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 139A and 139B not moved.]
Baroness Scotland of Asthal Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 139C:
Page 45, line 5, leave out "or (b)" and insert ", (b) or (ba)"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 140:
Page 45, line 10, after "arrangement" insert "shall not vest in his trustee in the event of his bankruptcy and"
The noble Lord said: This probing amendment is intended to discover the proposed effect of a bankruptcy order on a right to periodical payments. I believe that the position should be similar to that of occupational and personal pensions. The position in that regard broadly is, first, that the underlying right to a future pension payment does not vest in the trustee in bankruptcy and therefore cannot be sold to pay debts; secondly, that the pensioner can retain part of the current payments—the guaranteed minimum payment in the case of a contracted-out occupational pension—but the balance of the current payment goes to a trustee in bankruptcy; and, thirdly, that after the pensioner has been discharged from bankruptcy, he or she gets the subsequent pension payments in full. That seems to be a good model for periodical payments for damages.
It would be distasteful in the extreme if someone's rights to substantial periodical payments for severe personal injury could be bought and sold. However, it is not clear that new Section 2(6) of the Damages Act 1996 achieves that. It provides for restrictions on the assignment or charge of the right to periodical payments, which I welcome. But what about bankruptcy? It is not mentioned in that provision. The fact is that the property vests in a trustee in bankruptcy by operation of law, not by assignment or charge. Subsection (6) does not appear to cover the case of bankruptcy. Have the Government formed a view about the effect that a claimant's bankruptcy should have on an order for periodical payments? Do the rights in fact vest in the trustee in bankruptcy? If so, can he dispose of them? What happens about periodical payments becoming payable during a period of insolvency? Do they vest in the trustee in bankruptcy? If so, should all or part of them remain
946
payable to the claimant? For example, should the claimant continue to be entitled to receive payments that would be equal to what he might otherwise receive in means-tested benefits?
This important issue needs more consideration than it appears to have received to date. I beg to move.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I say straightaway how grateful I am to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, for raising the issue of the insolvency treatment of periodical payments, which I agree is in need of clarification. He spoke on this issue at Second Reading. In my subsequent letter to him and other noble Lords, I set out my understanding of the current law. I have since been informed that the situation is more complicated than was suggested by the initial advice that we were given. We therefore welcome this opportunity to consider the matter.
This is a complex area of the law, and one which has not yet been tested by the courts. At present, the treatment of periodical payments in bankruptcy will depend on whether they are to be considered to be in the nature of "property" or "income" for the purposes of the Insolvency Act 1986. The law is unclear. If they are considered to be property, they would vest in the trustee, but any "personal" element, including care costs, would be held on constructive trust for the bankrupt. Those anxieties were highlighted by the noble Lord. If they are considered to be income, Section 310 of the Insolvency Act 1986 provides that income received after the date of bankruptcy may he claimed for the bankrupt's estate by way of an income payments order. New Section 2A(2) of the Bill ensures that income payments orders can be put in place where necessary.
We believe that periodical payments that relate to loss of earnings should be treated in the same way as the earnings of a bankrupt who is working. It is not fair to treat payments made to replace earned income differently from earned income itself. However, we recognise that different considerations should apply where a claimant is receiving periodical payments specifically to meet the cost of care needs and believe that it should not be possible for those to be claimed for the bankrupt's estate. Under current law, if periodical payments are treated as "income", it is unlikely that the court would make an income payments order in respect of care costs because the provisions of the 1986 Act specify that the court shall not make an order the effect of which would be to reduce the bankrupt's income below that necessary to meet his or her reasonable domestic needs.
If periodical payments are treated as property, care costs will be considered as personal and held on constructive trust for the complainant. We believe that the bankruptcy treatment of periodical payments should strike a balance which recognises that care costs should be protected but does not otherwise give those in receipt of payments preferential treatment over other bankrupts. We are in discussion with the Insolvency Service over an amendment to achieve that balance and to clarify the treatment of periodical payments. Therefore, my thanks to the noble Lord are

947
very genuine, and I am sure that many claimants will thank him, too. I hope that the noble Lord feels able to withdraw his amendment in anticipation of the amendments that we shall bring forward on Report.
Lord Goodhart: Of course, in those circumstances, I shall withdraw the amendment. I am glad that the Government have now taken this matter on board and are dealing with it. I shall look forward with a good deal of interest to seeing the Government's amendments on this in due course. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: This may be a convenient moment for the Committee to adjourn until after the consideration of Commons reasons on the Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc.) Bill. Therefore, I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 1.31 to 3 p.m.]

Hereditary Peers' By-election
The Clerk of the Parliaments: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I am now able to announce the result of the by-election to elect a hereditary Peer in accordance with Standing Order 10.
Four hundred and twenty-three Lords completed valid ballot papers. A paper setting out the complete results is being made available in the Printed Paper Office and the Library. That paper gives the number of votes cast for each candidate.
The successful candidate was Viscount Ullswater.

Zimbabwe
3.1 p.m.
Lord Blaker: My Lords, on behalf of the House, I should like to congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, on his success. I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether it is their policy that the suspension of Zimbabwe from the councils of the Commonwealth should be continued.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Amos): My Lords, yes.
Lord Blaker: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that conditions in Zimbabwe have got worse in
948
almost every respect since the suspension began just over a year ago, not least the horrendous political violence being perpetrated at the present time against the opposition? Does she recall that last Friday Mr Mugabe said that he could be,
"a black Hitler tenfold in crushing his opponents"?
If anything like the present situation in Zimbabwe persists until December when the review takes place, will it not be a travesty and very damaging to the cohesion of the Commonwealth if the suspension is not continued or strengthened? If that is the view of Her Majesty's Government, will they make it clear to the whole of the Commonwealth?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, is right: the situation in Zimbabwe has got worse. We are awaiting publication of the review report from the Commonwealth secretariat. Noble Lords will be aware that there was a successful stay-away organised by the MDC, at which there was an 80 per cent success rate over two days. Since that successful stay-away, more than 600 people have been arrested and about 250 people have required hospital treatment in Harare alone. That is an appalling situation. The United Kingdom Government are working with our EU partners on a statement condemning the action which has been taken. The United States and others have already condemned it. I agree with the noble Lord that the credibility of the Commonwealth is at stake, and will be at stake in December when the Commonwealth discusses these issues again.
Lord St John of Bletso: My Lords, will the Minister tell the House what measures Her Majesty's Government are taking to encourage the efforts of Archbishop Ndungane, the Archbishop of Cape Town, who is doing sterling work to bring about some type of solution in Zimbabwe? Is the Minister aware of the offer of Morgan Tsvangirai, following the two-day stay-away last week, that he is now prepared to re-engage in discussions with ZANU-PF in the hope of forming a government of national unity?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I am aware of the efforts of the Archbishop of Cape Town. Indeed, he came and spoke to officials in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office as part of a programme of discussion with key stakeholders. He has made two visits to Zimbabwe. As a result of his second visit, when he spoke to a range of NGOs and others, he is reflecting on next steps. I understand that yesterday President Mbeki, speaking to Parliament in South Africa, made it clear that he would be prepared to talk to the Archbishop as well.
With respect to the offer made by Morgan Tsvangirai, that statement was again welcomed yesterday by President Mbeki. Indeed, President Mbeki made it clear that South Africa would be willing to host any such talks if it would help to revive the initiative.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, given that the suspension of Zimbabwe will now continue until the CHOGM in

949
December, will the Government encourage the troika to develop concrete yardsticks which can be applied by the heads of state in deciding whether to re-admit Zimbabwe? Will they ensure that one of those yardsticks is full compliance with the procedures in the Inter-Parliamentary Union, including co-operation in its investigation of the illegal arrest and torture of many opposition MPs, including—and in particular— Mr Job Sikhala?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I take the point made by the noble Lord. Lord Avebury, with respect to the needs for benchmarks. However, the troika set benchmarks at their meeting last year at Marlborough House. One of those benchmarks is being used in terms of the review that has been undertaken, which is yet to be published.
The suspension from the councils continues on the basis of the Marlborough House statement. So it would be quite difficult to re-open that issue. But we could, with the Commonwealth, look at ways to ensure that further human rights violations are monitored and put to Commonwealth heads in December.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, what action, if any, have we taken to bring a resolution of censure to the United Nations on this issue? Secondly, are we not able to give assurances to people who have been tortured and who may be able to escape from the country to South Africa or to a neighbouring country, that they will be received here without further preliminaries?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, with respect to the noble Baroness's first question about censure, we have, through the European Union, put a resolution to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. The noble Baroness will recall that we had a similar resolution last year, which was not even put to the vote, given the blocking action by African countries. This resolution has yet to be taken at the commission, but there is an EU resolution which is being supported by other countries.
With respect to the noble Baroness's second point, she will be aware that anyone from Zimbabwe seeking asylum in the United Kingdom can claim asylum either on arrival in the United Kingdom or from a third country.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, now that we are hearing about the increased atrocities and mayhem being created in Zimbabwe, will the noble Baroness undertake to encourage her colleagues to maintain exclusion of this monstrous regime not merely from the Commonwealth but from all other international organisations where we have influence?
Further to the observation of my noble friend Lady Park, could we bring forward speedily a resolution to the United Nations and show the same vigour as the US Administration have already shown? Should we not be ahead of it, rather than following behind?
950
Finally, could we not now draw up a list of those who have committed, or who are alleged to have committed, crimes against humanity in Zimbabwe—a list of potential war criminals, as it were—just to show that we are determined to act and are not prepared to let Zimbabwe go on for ever, rotting in the way that it is now doing?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Howell, will be aware that the EU sanctions have continued. There was a sanctions rollover, so the travel ban, assets freeze and moratorium on the sales of arms continue.
On the noble Lord's second point about pursuing a resolution and pursuing it with vigour as the United States has done, I am not entirely sure to what the noble Lord refers. The United States has only just announced its list in terms of an asset freeze. With respect to a resolution, the United States supports the EU resolution, which is going to the UN Commission on Human Rights. The noble Lord will be aware that there have been discussions about the possibility of bringing the issue to the UN Security Council, but the view of many members of the Security Council is that Zimbabwe does not pose a challenge to international peace and security and that this remains a domestic issue. That is something we shall need to overcome. We are in constant discussion and dialogue—not only in the UN but with other partners—on this matter.
With respect to the noble Lord's final point about a list of those who are alleged to have committed human rights abuses, a number of organisations are amassing information with respect to human rights abuses in Zimbabwe. Putting individual names against those abuses is quite difficult, but I assure the House that it is a matter that is being looked at.

Human Rights
3.10 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have any plans to establish a human rights commission.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the Government received on 19th March the report and recommendations of the Joint Committee on Human Rights about the matter. We are giving careful attention to those and will give our response in due course.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, the Government have already done a great deal to advance a human rights culture. But does my noble friend agree that there is a decisive need for a central independent body—for example, a human rights commission—to oversee an educational programme, particularly in schools but also elsewhere, if the full purposes of the Human Rights Act 1998 are to be achieved?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, there is much force in what the noble Lord says. We have,

951
therefore, expressed an intention to consider carefully the Joint Committee's report, which makes just such a recommendation. I can tell noble Lords that it repays very careful reading, and the Government intend to do just that.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the committee to which the Minister refers. Is she aware that it is now more than five years since the Government expressed two cautionary reservations about a human rights commission, both of which have been met by the Joint Committee? The first was that they needed advice about how it might work; the second was that there should be a sufficiently high degree of consensus among the existing human rights organisations.
Is the Minister also aware that this is one of the most important pieces of unfinished business of the Cook-Maclennan constitutional agreement between our two parties? Can she assure us that it will not be kicked into the long grass for another five years?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am aware of the first two points. But it is only fair for me to remind the House—I am sure that the noble Lord does not need to be reminded—that the Joint Committee, quite properly, took two years to consider the matter. We do not complain about a moment of that time because we think that it will repay careful reading. As the noble Lord says, we must respect the report by examining precisely how the committee proposes to bring about the changes and by considering what is the Government's proper response to those carefully crafted recommendations. I assure noble Lords that the matter will be given anxious consideration across the Government.
Lord Renton: My Lords, having supported the Human Rights Act 1998 without any hesitation at that time, I remind the noble Baroness that, in the past year or so, it has been found to be unenforceable to some extent; therefore, if a human rights commission is set up, it would have much more limited powers than those envisaged under the Human Rights Act.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, with the greatest respect, I cannot agree with the noble Lord's comment. The Human Rights Act has not been shown to be unenforceable; it has been demonstrated to be an extremely well crafted Act, about which we should all jointly express great pride.
Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the Joint Committee that drew up the report. When my noble friend considers the report, will she bear in mind, and communicate to her colleagues in
952
the Government that, above all, our recommendations affect very positively the performance of the public services?.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we will bear that in mind. I do not hesitate to repeat that there is much in the report that deserves careful consideration and much that many would welcome.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, do the Government consider that there already exist in this country organisations that possess the powers and functions to promote and maintain human rights? If not, will the first task of any commission be to obtain general agreement on defining what constitute human rights?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, all those issues are important. I do not know whether the noble Lord has yet had the full benefit of looking at the report, but many of those matters are explored in it. The noble Lord will know that the committee took evidence from very many people. I hope that the report will do just what it is doing today—exciting much debate and discussion—so that we can all have an appropriate level of pride about what comes out of it when the Government conclude their deliberations.

The Monarchy
3.16 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will recommend the establishment of a Select Committee to consider the future of the Monarchy.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, no.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, is my noble and learned friend aware of the decreasing support for the monarchy, caused largely because people are against an unelected head of state? For that and other reasons, is it not time for a wide-ranging examination of the status of the monarchy, which could be undertaken by a Select Committee?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I do not believe that there is decreasing support for the monarchy. Recent history—the Jubilee year—demonstrates that. So, when my noble friend Lord Dormand asks me again for my answer, it is "No".
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, notwithstanding the views of those who share the opinion of the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, is the noble and learned Lord aware that most people in this country

953
will be immensely encouraged by what the Leader of the House has said? On behalf of Her Majesty's loyal Opposition we concur entirely.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, yes.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House agree with me that one does not have to be a republican to believe that it would be in the interests of the monarchy for a review to be held now in the light of its role in modern circumstances, particularly with regard to the exercise of the Royal prerogative?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am aware of the current political—and perhaps legal—debate about the Royal prerogative. I know that views on the matter are strongly held, not always by republicans, as the noble Lord says. But this is a specific Question, with which I think I have dealt to the general satisfaction of noble Lords.
Lord Blaker: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord suggest to his noble friend Lord Dormand that he might get together with me to make a survey of the states around the world that have elected heads of state—there are perhaps 150—to see whether he wishes to reconsider his views?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, yes.
Lord Carter: My Lords, we have heard the views of the Official Opposition. Is my noble and learned friend aware of the views of the Liberal Democrats?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, they do not normally have any.
Lord Roper: My Lords, I thought that the Government had noticed that we have them at least in the Division Lobby from time to time. But we appreciate the Lord Privy Seal's reply to the Question.

Children at Protest Meetings
3.18 p.m.
Lord Hardy of Wath Lord Hardy of Wath asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action will be taken as a result of the attendance of children of school age at recent protest meetings if persons with professional responsibility for the children are implicated in encouraging such attendance.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, questions about the professional conduct of any member of a school's workforce are for head teachers, governors and local authorities to resolve. Serious cases of teacher professional misconduct can be referred to the General Teaching Council.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. As a former schoolmaster, I
954
agree with the professional associations, which feel that children should not take part in demonstrations and protests in school time. There is parental concern because of the question of legal responsibilities. Where children are away from school, with the encouragement or assistance of adults—whether they be on the school staff or not—the relevant school governors should take the matter seriously. Will my noble friend invite school governing bodies to consider the matter carefully?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I recognise that, as a former member of the profession, my noble friend intends to do his utmost to uphold its prestige and reputation. There is no need for us to remind governing bodies of their responsibilities; they are able to discharge them. In the one or two cases in which the issue has arisen, the governing bodies have acted in exemplary fashion.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, for the benefit of parents who meet their legal obligation by seeing that their children attend school, can the Minister say who is in loco parentis for children who, having taken time out of the school day to protest, are injured?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, when the pupil is registered at the school, the responsibility lies with the school for the duration of the school day. That is why schools recognise that children who leave the premises must do so under supervision and can be at risk. We are all conscious of the fact that, at times, things go wrong on school trips and visits. However, it is highly unlikely that pupils would be supervised on a demonstration, and, as far as the school is concerned, any student who has left the school during school time has broken the agreement with the school to attend.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, on these Benches, we agree very much with the Answer that the Minister gave. However, although we should discourage children from leaving school during school time to demonstrate, we should encourage them to demonstrate. Is that not a good way of encouraging them to take an interest in politics?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, that would depend on the subject about which the students were demonstrating. I can think of subjects that might cause consternation to all of us.
We all recognise that we live in a democratic society and that young people are part of that democratic society, although, if they are under voting age, they have limited rights. Like the noble Baroness, we want young people to have an understanding of the issues facing society, and we are keen to promote citizenship. From time to time, that is bound to give rise to interesting and involved debates about current issues.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord did not answer my question. I asked who was in loco parentis in such a situation.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I thought that I had made the situation clear. If the pupil has registered

955
for attendance at the school, the school takes responsibility. If the students then take themselves off away from the school without permission, the school has an obligation to do something about it. In the first instance, it would notify parents, who would need to know about that unauthorised absence.
There is no doubt that, when a child under school leaving age registers at a school, that child is under the auspices of the school authorities.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, will my noble friend consider the fact that, in some cases, children from primary schools were involved in the demonstrations? Will he express the hope that the Liberal Party would not wish to see those children involved in demonstrations?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I imagine that anybody who wants to be a Liberal has to start fairly young and, I hope, give up fairly young as well. My noble friend will recognise that my reference to the citizenship education that is part of the school curriculum did not apply to junior schoolchildren, only to those in secondary education.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, if young people had the power to vote at the age of 16, they might not feel it necessary to protest on the streets?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, that is an interesting point, although the noble Baroness may have noticed that a fair number of adults have been protesting on the streets as well. They are of voting age, so the one does not exclude the other.
Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords, has my noble friend heard of cases of school registers being marked with "W" for war or "D" for demonstration, instead of "A" for absence? Does he condone such things being done in the name of school governors and schoolmasters? Whatever the age of the pupils, they are absent, and their absence should not be condoned in such a way.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, as I indicated, it is for the headmaster, in the first instance, and the school governing body to make a judgment about such things. The department is concerned with overall attendance figures and the performance of local education authorities in improving attendance and reducing truancy.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, what use will be made of the photographs, including photographs of children, that were taken at recent demonstrations?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, as far as the schools are concerned, it is a matter of truancy. The schools will have the information that they need about whether a student has been in attendance. Schools
956
keep a register, and the teachers are responsible for the attendance of children at the school during school hours. The issue of photographs does not come into it.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, does the Minister agree that lessons in citizenship might cover the point that it is not good citizenship for young creatures way below voting age to kick the police and spit at them? That is not a good beginning to their life as a citizen. I hope that that will be expressly mentioned, when schools tackle the question.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, we would deplore such behaviour by young people in any circumstances. Although the Question has arisen because of anxieties about the unauthorised absence of children from school, most reports about the demonstrations have indicated a relatively low number of incidents of the kind to which the noble Baroness referred. In our debate yesterday, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, gave due testimony of the good relationships that obtained on the demonstration that occurred outside the House.
Lord Elton: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the concern is not so much about the truancy of children but about the possible condoning or assisting of that absence by staff? As an ex-teacher, I join the noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath, in saying that allowing it to happen is unprofessional conduct.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I agree with that. Strong views are held about such issues, and teachers will play their part as citizens of a democratic society. However, the noble Lord is right: when they are in their position in school, they are professionals, and bias of any sort would be a negation of educational values.

European Parliament (Representation) Bill
3.28 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 3 [Recommendations by Electoral Commission as to the distribution of United Kingdom MEPs]:
Baroness Rawlings Baroness Rawlings moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 3, line 4, leave out "or anticipated change"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment is designed to set out an important principle; namely, that a power as important as that affecting the franchise for the European Parliament should not be exercised by order, unless and until legislation to effect such a change has been agreed in the European Community. The clause allows the Lord Chancellor—while negotiations continue on the final numbers for each country and before any agreement is reached on the matter, still less any change in Community law—to order the expenditure of public money to investigate a range of possible outcomes as regards changes to our existing electoral arrangements.
In general, it is best to proceed on the basis of what the law is, not what it might be. I should therefore be grateful to the Minister if she could advise the House of the circumstances in which this power might be used by the Government.
I am prepared to accept that there may be many exceptional circumstances. There is the firm background of the Nice treaty. There is the impending accession of a large number of countries and the approaching date of elections to the European Parliament. Against that background, it is reasonable to explore changes in the franchise arrangements as envisaged under the Bill. But that could be treated as a special case. Exceptional circumstances do not justify permanent powers.
Is the view of the Minister that there might be a change in the law at some time in the future a justifiable pretext for taking a permanent power to incur spending on an investigation of possible electoral futures? I am not sure that it is. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will give some indication of where and when this power will he used and will explain the safeguards that there will he on the use of such an open-ended power. I beg to move.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, this amendment will limit the circumstances under which the Lord Chancellor can take action to instruct the Electoral Commission to commence its redistribution work. I am grateful for the way in which the noble Baroness has put it; namely, that this is a probing amendment. The effect of the amendment would prevent the Lord Chancellor from asking the Electoral Commission to work on an expected number of MEPs.
Although we expect to be reasonably certain of the final numbers of MEPs for the 2004 elections by September 2003—by which time it is expected that all the accession states will have held their referendums—it is likely that the final figure will not be certain and fixed by Community law until it is too late for the Electoral Commission to finish its work and for the necessary implementation to take place. Clearly, that will simply limit flexibility and possibly prevent the work being completed in time. There can be no objection to beginning work early when a change is anticipated so that we can be quick off the mark when the final decision is made.
Furthermore, the Electoral Commission will be able to make recommendations, which would suit different possible numbers, to enable a review where the final position is uncertain. But it is only the recommendation which matches the final number fixed under Community law which can be reflected in the order.
Allowing work to commence on the expected number is simply prudent planning. I hope that that is an explanation with which the noble Baroness will feel able to be content.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I am grateful, as ever, to the Minister for her courtesy in her reply and for all
958
the briefing that she sent me. I thank her for such a detailed reply. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 2 to 4 not moved.]
Baroness Rawlings Baroness Rawlings moved Amendment No 5:
Page 3, line 17, at end insert—
"( ) After the first issuing of a notice by the Lord Chancellor under subsection (1) after the coming into force of this Act, no further notice may be issued until the Lord Chancellor has invited the Electoral Commission to carry out a full review of the method of election of MEPs, including specifically the issue of whether it is the most effective means of allowing electors to choose the individual candidate or candidates of their choice from among all those standing for election, and the report of the Commission has been laid before both Houses of Parliament."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I do not pretend that the wording is perfect. But the point behind it is extremely important. It follows on from the spirit of an amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, in Grand Committee—an amendment with which this side of the House had a great deal of sympathy, but which was swatted away by the Minister as not relevant to the present Bill.
With respect, the issue is entirely germane to the present Bill which is about the representation of the United Kingdom in the European Parliament. Those of us who believe profoundly in the importance of the European Parliament, as I do, are deeply concerned by the degree of cynicism and alienation that surrounded the methods of election used in the last European elections. I do not believe that it is in the long-term interests of true representative democracy or the standing of the European Parliament to perpetuate that system of election.
The closed list system, used cynically, deprives the electorate of what this amendment asks that they should have; namely, an effective means of choosing an MEP of their own choice from among candidates set before them. Surely that right is the very essence of representative democracy.
As is well known, we on this side are not in general terms enthusiasts of PR systems. But the fact is that it is possible to have a PR system which allows electors to choose an individual MEP. Sadly, the Government chose a system in 1999 which deliberately deprived the electorate of that right. Instead, they placed the selection of MEPs in the hands of the central apparat of the various political parties through the notorious closed list system.
To its great credit this House, on six occasions, stood against that undemocratic system. Indeed, it never agreed to the imposition of closed lists. They were imposed by use of the Parliament Acts. No less an authority than the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington, has added his voice to those who argue that an Act such as this. passed by only one House of Parliament, is of questionable legality. But that is not the issue before us today.
However, I question whether this discredited and anti-democratic system can be allowed to continue indefinitely without question, as the Minister appeared to imply in Grand Committee. There is no one outside the ranks of the Government and their most robotic supporters outside Parliament who thinks that it should.
Amendment No. 5 is not a device to interfere with or to hold up progress towards treaty implementation or towards the next European elections. Doubtless, that change will be levelled, but it would be wrong. Nor is it a frivolous amendment. It addresses an issue of major concern. It simply states that at a certain point in the future after the first order issued under this Act, but before any subsequent order, the Electoral Commission should be required to conduct an investigation into the nature and application of the closed list system and into whether it properly allows the public to choose their MEPs.
It also asks that the report of the Commission should be debated in both Houses of Parliament. That is not an unreasonable proposition or an unreasonable expectation to have of the Government. Indeed, I believe that there would be agreement with this objective on all Benches of this House. I do not think that this House which fought so hard and for so long against closed lists should give up that fight.
I hope that the Government will listen and that the Minister will give an undertaking that there will be a full review of the validity of the closed list system. If not, I shall be tempted to return to the matter at Third Reading. Indeed, given any encouragement from noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches, I might be tempted to test the opinion of the House. I beg to move.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, indeed, that was a challenge. I am pleased to welcome the conversion of the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, to those who support a more democratic system of election than either the closed list or first-past-the-post systems. The Liberal Democrats were strongly opposed to the closed list system, which is probably the worst system invented for elections in multi-member constituencies. We have always taken the view that the single transferable vote system (STV) was clearly the best in these circumstances. Failing that, an open list system, which would enable voters to regulate the order in which members came on that list, was very much preferable to the closed list system.
Therefore, I support the idea of the Electoral Commission looking at this issue, although, on this occasion with no advance warning, I would not necessarily press the noble Baroness to divide the House. Certainly, it is a proposal that we should welcome and which we might well look at favourably.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am in full agreement with all that my noble friend Lord Goodhart has said. Quite often we discuss the decline of interest in politics, but at Question Time this afternoon we discussed an
960
increasing interest in politics. I think the common factor here is that interest in politics no longer can be translated automatically into support for a party.
A great many noble Lords in this Chamber feel very passionately about one or more political causes which have supporters in all three parties. Often those people wish to cast their votes, just as much as anyone else would wish to do so. But they cannot do so by voting for a party; they can do so only by voting for individuals who happen to have an attachment to that cause for which they stand.
That is something for which elections by a closed list system makes absolutely no allowance. Only if you can vote for the candidate because of the causes for which that candidate stands can you express your opinion. So getting away from the closed list is something which might do a good deal to revitalise interest in elections. Furthermore, it would lead to the point where, instead of having representation of the parties, we would have representation of the people. After all, that is what it is all about.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, this debate has echoed the vigour with which the matter was pursued when it was debated in 1999. It was right for the noble Baroness to remind noble Lords that on six occasions it was sent back to another place. But we know that, ultimately, it became the law of our country through the democratic processes we have all accepted and adopted. The will of the people, as expressed through those democratic processes, was therefore heard and upheld.
All I can say is that these are hotly contested issues about which people feel passionately. However, if I may speak frankly, the place for such discussion and debate is not as part of proceedings on this Bill. We have held only one election under the Act. By all accounts it was a successful election and marked just the beginning of the road. Of course in years to come further deep discussions may take place over whether that voting system is the one we want to adopt in the long term, but it is not for today and it is not for this Bill.
The amendment attempts to question the current voting system. Whatever the arguments, they go way beyond anything that could be done here. The effect of the amendment would be to engage the Electoral Commission in a long and complex review of a system which Parliament put in place only five years ago. As noble Lords will no doubt recall, that was a difficult and trenchant examination.
The Electoral Commission has a tight job to do in time for the elections in 2004. We think it appropriate for the commission to concentrate on that task. It would not be right to impose a requirement for a review of the system before going any further.
I know how tempting it is for the noble Baroness to say that she may seek to press the matter, but on this occasion I invite her to resist.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. I shall not detain the House today. We

961
have tried to persuade the Government that this is an important matter. Perhaps it can be addressed on another occasion. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 5, line 34, at end insert —
"( ) The name of the combined region shall be the name of the existing electoral region followed by the words "and Gibraltar.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a short and largely self-explanatory amendment which has been tabled in response to a letter from a person registered as a voter in Gibraltar. The names of the electoral regions are listed in subsection (3) of new Section 1 of the European Parliamentary Elections Act 2002. If the Electoral Commission were to so recommend, the Lord Chancellor could then decide that Gibraltar could be added to, say, the North East region for the purposes of the election, the North East being the region with the smallest number of voters per seat. That could take place, but it would not mean that Gibraltar would become a part of the north-east of England, because plainly it is not.
In order to explain what is the constituency, it would be more rational to say that the constituency is the constituency of the North East region of England and Gibraltar. I beg to move.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, Clause 9 provides the basic building block for the enfranchisement of Gibraltar—the creation of a combined electoral region consisting of Gibraltar and one of the existing regions of England and Wales. Clause 10 goes on to enable the Lord Chancellor to make an order to create that region following a recommendation from the Electoral Commission. The amendment would provide that the name of the combined region should include "Gibraltar". We believe that such an amendment is both unnecessary and disproportionate for achieving our shared aim of enabling Gibraltarians to vote. Of course I note the enthusiasm with which the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, alighted on the North East to be the chosen area, but that is something which the commission will have to consider with a great deal of care.
The creation of the combined region and the requirement under Clause 14 for there to be a register in the Gibraltar area of the region of those eligible to vote in the European parliamentary elections will ensure the franchise of the people of Gibraltar. Eligibility to vote will be defined in the same way as in the United Kingdom; that is, by reference to residence in that part of the electoral region. Furthermore, Clause 15(1) of the Bill states clearly that, among other criteria, a person is entitled to be registered in the Gibraltar register if, on the relevant date, he is resident in Gibraltar.
Adding Gibraltar to the title of the region raises an interesting issue because the average electorate in an electoral region for European Parliament elections is 3.7 million people. While it may seem preferable for
962
reasons of transparency to have the name of Gibraltar in the title of the electoral region, that could equally be seen by those living in other parts of the region to be disproportionate, given the size of the electorate in Gibraltar relative to some of the other geographical areas that may be included in the combined region.
Perhaps I may give an example. The Isle of Wight has an electorate of some 104,000 people, while Gibraltar has around 20,000 voters. But the Isle of Wight does not have its name in the title of the region and I would have some sympathy with its voters if Gibraltar were to become part of the same region—the South East region—its name included in the title and thus a disproportionate amount of attention from candidates and the media attached just to the concerns of the Gibraltar part of the region. While all the electors in the combined regions will need to be aware of the component parts of the region, that can be achieved more than adequately through the normal publicity and documentation that is provided during an election campaign, without the attendant dangers of deflecting the political debate unfairly away from the needs of the region as a whole.
During the debate on a similar amendment in another place, my honourable friend the Parliamentary Secretary acknowledged that literature distributed in Gibraltar would need to be clear on this matter. We shall be considering how best that can be achieved when the detailed implementation of the provisions contained in the Bill begins.
We should not forget that while it is our firm intention that the people of Gibraltar should be enabled to vote in the European parliamentary elections, those elections and the electoral system are for the whole of the United Kingdom. We must be seen to be enabling free and fair elections to take place on the same basis throughout all the geographical territories covered by the system. We believe that the way in which Part 2 of the Bill has been formulated achieves that for all concerned and that therefore the amendment is not appropriate.
Perhaps I may remind noble Lords that, in relation to the regions, it has become the practice to set out in a table in legislation which areas are included in each combined region. Thus the names of the various areas will be made clear in the table. As it does for all other regions, we think that that will suffice.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, we on these Benches have always been in favour of the small battalions and in this context Gibraltar is certainly a small, but worthy one. The difference between Gibraltar and the Isle of Wight is that the latter is part of the south-east region whereas Gibraltar is not part of any of the regions to which it might become attached for the purposes of this Bill. However, I have made the point and I do not intend to take it any further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 17 [Regulations relating to sections 14 to 16]:
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 9, line 34, leave out "includes anything" and insert "is provision"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 8 and 9. These amendments are intended to pick up comments made by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. In its eleventh report the committee doubted whether secondary legislation was appropriate for establishing the right to vote, the right to register a vote as a voter or the right to serve as an MEP in Gibraltar.
The report pointed out that the corresponding disqualifications in the United Kingdom were mostly dealt with by primary legislation although in some cases it was brought in by secondary legislation referring to primary legislation in another Act of Parliament. The report pointed out that the disqualification under what are now Clauses 17(1)(d) and (g) and Clause 21(1) are not limited to making provision corresponding to provision in the United Kingdom.
The Government delivered a full reply to that, but the committee was not persuaded and repeated the comments I have already mentioned in its twelfth report. The effect of these amendments is not to require primary legislation, but to do the next best thing, which is to limit the powers under Clause 17(1)(d) and (g) and Clause 21(1) to the making of provision corresponding to that in the United Kingdom. That means that it will not require primary legislation, but that disqualification must be limited to grounds for disqualification established by primary legislation in the United Kingdom. That seems to be more appropriate than the apparently much wider powers which the Bill now gives to the Government to legislate by regulation. I beg to move.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I believe that when we debated this issue in Grand Committee the noble Lord said that he was minded to consider the matter further and possibly return to it at Report stage. He has kept his promise.
The noble Lord has made clear the purpose of these amendments is to try to restrict the enabling powers in Clauses 17 and 21 of the Bill. Amendment No. 7 seeks to restrict the powers in Clause 17(1) to provisions which correspond to those which are made in regulations under Section 53 of the Representation of the People Act 1983. Such a restriction is neither necessary nor practical given the context within which we are working.
Clause 17 enables the Lord Chancellor to make regulations supplementary to Clauses 14 to 16 of the Bill, which relate to the provision of a Gibraltar register for European parliamentary elections, the franchise and the entitlement to be on the register. These regulations will set out the details for these
964
matters and that detail will as far as possible be the same as that in the equivalent UK provision, adapted where necessary to reflect the position in Gibraltar.
For the benefit of the House I should also explain that the matters to which I have referred are dealt with in UK law by both primary and secondary legislation. However, much of that legislation applies only indirectly in the case of the European Parliament elections because the franchise for European parliamentary elections is derived principally from the United Kingdom parliamentary franchise. As a result there is a large amount of primary and secondary legislation which is applicable to the UK franchise and which is not set out in the European Parliamentary Elections Act 2002 or the regulations under that Act.
It has been necessary to provide for the establishment of a separate franchise for Gibraltar as clearly there is not a UK parliamentary register to rely on. So all the primary and subordinate legislation will need to be dealt with specifically under the Bill and adapted where necessary to suit Gibraltar's circumstances. We will of course need to consult with the Government of Gibraltar to be sure that we get it right. This provides some idea of the enormous task that this would present if we were to try to establish on the face of the Bill precisely all the issues dealt with under Clause 17 and then to replicate the UK provisions with appropriate adaptations for Gibraltar.
Our aim is to have all the necessary legislation in place by as early a date as possible and no later than the autumn, so that all those involved in preparing for June 2004 elections have plenty of time beforehand to make the necessary preparations. This would not be possible if more substantive amounts of detail were to be included on the face of the Bill.
The overall approach of this legislation is to treat the Gibraltar electorate in the same manner as voters in an existing UK constituency. Enfranchisement, therefore, is based on UK electoral law and the Bill will enable replication of the relevant UK rules for Gibraltar as far as possible. Similar groups of people will be enfranchised and covered by similar rules to those already in place in the UK.
Perhaps I may give one example. Clauses 15 and 16 of the Bill enfranchise Commonwealth citizens who qualify by satisfying the relevant immigration provisions and also residency requirements. Clause 17 gives the Lord Chancellor the power to make regulations concerning residency requirements and the definition of qualifying Commonwealth citizens. For maximum consistency across the combined region these regulations will effectively match the UK requirement and ensure that all voters in Gibraltar are treated in a fair and equal manner to the remaining voters in the combined region.
I hope that that clarifies the situation for the noble Lord. It is entirely in line with the commitments we have made, including our public notification to the European Council in February 2002. There may be those who are concerned about the powers being too wide, but the implied limitations within the Bill itself ensure that that cannot be the case.

965
It remains our view, therefore, that all these matters are suitable to be dealt with under secondary legislation and indeed that it would be impractical to attempt to do otherwise. To restrict the powers in Clause 17(1) only to matters addressed by the regulations under Section 53 of the Representation of the People Act 1983, which are largely matters of detail and procedure, would mean that all other provisions that need to be made under Clause 17(1) would need to be made on the face of the Bill. I cannot believe that that is the noble Lord's intention.
I take Amendment No. 8 as intending to confirm that the matters addressed by subsection (3) are not challenged. However, I respectfully say that it is not right to refer to those provisions as being without prejudice to the generality of subsection (2), as subsection (3) includes a number of matters which are clearly distinct.
As to Clause 21, it enables the Lord Chancellor to extend the classes of those disqualified by Section 10 of the European Parliamentary Elections Act 2002 from being an MEP to include also persons having a connection with Gibraltar. The intention is to do this by both extending existing UK provisions so that they apply to Gibraltarians in similar circumstances, and also to include similar, but distinct, classes of people in Gibraltar to UK classes where UK classes cannot easily be applied to Gibraltarians.
Amendment No. 9 would restrict the power in Clause 21 so as to disqualify from being an MEP only classes of persons who are disqualified from being a member of the House of Assembly of Gibraltar. As with Amendments Nos. 7 and 8, Amendment No. 9 would restrict the power too far.
I hope that those explanations will satisfy the noble Lord that we have responded in a proportionate manner and will reassure him and the House that the powers in Clause 17 relate to matters which are suitable for delegation and which are limited in their scope by the very nature of the Bill.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the full explanation that she has given. Indeed, it goes somewhat beyond the explanation given in the letter from the Lord Chancellor to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee to which I referred.
I accept that there would perhaps be excessive rigidity in amendments on the lines that I have proposed, and that the Government's intentions are indeed proportionate to the purposes which it will be necessary to achieve in order to introduce Gibraltar into the European elections system. Therefore, in the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 8 not moved.]
Clause 21 [Disqualification from office of MEP]:
[Amendment No. 9 not moved.]

Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc.) Bill
4.3 p.m.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments and reasons be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments and reasons be now considered. —(Baroness Andrews.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MOTIONS AND AMENDMENTS MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS AMENDMENTS AND REASONS
[The page and line references are to HL Bill 20 as first printed for the Lords.]

LORDS AMENDMENT
2 Clause 1, page 1, line 10, after "person" insert "other than a person receiving mental health services"
The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason:
2A Because it is important for the Bill to be able to apply to all NHS hospital patients and it is discriminatory to exclude patients receiving mental health services.
Baroness Andrews Baroness Andrews rose to move, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 2 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 2A, but do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 2B to 2E in lieu thereof.
2B Page 6, line 23, leave out from "regulations" to end of line 24 and insert "or an order under this Part is exercisable by the appropriate Minister by statutory instrument"
2C Page 6, line 29, leave out from beginning to "to" in line 31 and insert—
"(2A) Regulations under section 1 which—

(a)prescribe care for the purposes of the definition of "qualifying hospital patient"; and

(b)are made by the Secretary of State (or by the Secretary of State and the Assembly acting jointly), may not prescribe a description of care which is, or includes, mental health care unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.

(2B) A statutory instrument which —

(a)contains regulations or an order under this Part, other than regulations which fall to be approved in draft by virtue of subsection (2A); and

(b)is made by the Secretary of State (or by the Secretary of State and the Assembly acting jointly), is subject"

2D Page 6, line 40, at end insert—
"mental health care" means any health services relating to mental health which are of a description prescribed by order;"
2E Page 7, line 34, leave out subsection (5)
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 2 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 2A, but do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 2B to 2E in lieu thereof.
Some people have argued that mental health patients must be excluded because it is simply not possible to carry out an assessment and arrange a care plan within the minimum interval provided for patients receiving acute care. The Government do not dispute that; indeed,

967
we accept that it may well be the case. If it did seem appropriate to extend reimbursement to the mental health sector in the future, we would want to consider whether the level of reimbursement or the minimum interval should be altered to reflect any additional difficulties. The Bill already allows us to do that. So, as happens in Sweden, we could allow a longer period of time.
However, despite having allowed for different time-scales, I understand that noble Lords are still concerned about this. For that reason the Government have tabled amendments to require any regulations which bring patients receiving mental health care within the definition of "qualifying hospital patient" to be subject to the affirmative procedure.
Because the amendments have been added at this late stage, the drafting is rather tortuous. Perhaps I may explain the effect of the amendments, why they are necessary and how they relate to each other.
Although we originally thought that achieving this would mean an amendment to Clause 1, we were advised by parliamentary counsel that, because the substance of the issue is more to do with the affirmative procedure, the amendment is more properly located in Clause 8. Therefore, in Clause 8 we have added a requirement that regulations which prescribe mental health care must be subject to the affirmative procedure. That has meant that we also need to define "mental health care", and to do this it is necessary to add an order-making power to deal with the problem of definition in the most straightforward way. That order will prescribe mental health care as care which is received by a patient who is under a consultant psychiatrist. Two further consequential amendments have been added to Clause 9 and Clause 11.
The implications of these changes are that the existing set of regulations prescribing care, which are currently out for consultation, will have to be slightly amended to exclude this type of care, as defined in the order, as being outwith the definition of acute care. Then, as and when it is considered appropriate, we will lay before the House regulations bringing patients receiving mental health care within the scope of the definition of "qualifying hospital patient". If the Government decide in the future that bringing such patients within the provisions of the Bill would be an effective way of tackling the delays as regards community care services suffered by people with mental illness—a point addressed several times during our debates—Parliament will then be able to debate, and disagree to, any such regulations.
I agree with what the honourable Member for Chelmsford West said in another place; namely, that this group could be included in the future but should not be included at the moment. That is the right approach. I hope that noble Lords will be able to accept the Commons amendments.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 2 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 2A, but do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 2B to 2E in lieu thereof —(Baroness Andrews.)
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the amendments in such a clear and understandable way. The drafting makes perfect sense. I do not think that it is the first time today that I and my noble friend Lady Barker will use the word "flexible". The Government have demonstrated their flexibility on this point.
This is a difficult subject. We on these Benches still have our objections to the Bill, but the noble Baroness is coming forward with a number of different inducements to take nasty medicine. That is how we are treating the Government's approach to these amendments.
Our thanks are due also to the noble Earl, Lord Howe. Intorducing the affirmative process is an elegant solution. It was, as I recall, the noble Earl's suggestion and I am grateful to the Government for taking it up.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I join the noble Lord in thanking the Government for what I see as a very significant concession. I thank the noble Lord for what he has said as regards the small part that I have played in bringing it about.
Thanks are more properly due to the noble Baroness and her colleagues in the department. They have recognised that extending the scope of the Bill to patients in receipt of mental health services is a matter of considerable concern, particularly among those in the voluntary sector. This mechanism will provide a safeguard to ensure that, if any such extension does occur, Parliament has an automatic opportunity to examine it in close detail.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
5 Clause 2, page 2, line 5, after "hospital" insert "after 1st April 2004"
The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason:
5A Because it is necessary for the Bill to come into force before 1st April 2004.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 5 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 5A. I shall speak also to Amendment No. 47.
Noble Lords have argued throughout our debates on the Bill that it should not be introduced until April 2004. I understand concerns that we should not set up an unworkable scheme without regard to the consequences. I believe I can address those concerns and am pleased to do so. We have thought long and hard and want to be both fair and equitable, meeting the concerns articulated by noble Lords.

969
Something upon which we in this Chamber are all agreed is that patients—they are mainly older patients—should be supported in leaving hospital when they are medically ready and that when current arrangements let them down, as occurs all too often, we have to act to put that right. Our problem with a further six months' delay beyond October this year is the very real risk that the benefits of the concentrated efforts already made by health and social partners will be lost. We know that much good work has already been done. Instead of local authorities and trusts across the country continuing to work together we are afraid that there could be additional delay.
I wish today to assure noble Lords that although the Government still intend to commence the provisions which implement the process—that is, the giving of the notices and the assessment—in October, they will not commence the provisions dealing with charging until 1st January 2004.
In addition, noble Lords will remember the commitment announced by the Secretary of State in November to transfer an extra £100 million to councils. budgets for each full year of the scheme's operation. I can confirm now that councils will proportionately receive £50 million for 2003–04. This will be paid as soon as practicable so that councils can invest these extra resources in expanding older people's services as fast as possible so that they can be well prepared for implementation in January. There will then be £100 million in 2004–05 and again in 2005–06.
We have delivered, therefore, a period of grace. It means that the NHS and local authorities will have a three-month period over the winter to prepare for full implementation during which the charging operates only in shadow form and no charges for delays will change hands. I believe that this will bring health and social care partners together and, crucially, allows for proper planning without the loss of momentum. Part 2 of the Bill will come into effect on Royal Assent.
I turn to the sunset clause, Amendment No. 47. We are still convinced that it is not an appropriate use of a so-called sunset clause. While delayed discharges are a serious matter for the patients and families, they can hardly be called a matter of national emergency. Neither is there any inherent reason for the Bill to come to an end in five years' time other than the Opposition seeking to limit its effect.
It is an important point. Are we really saying that noble Lords should be able to put a time limit on a Bill which the elected Government have brought forward? Constitutionally, I believe that that sets an extremely unfortunate precedent. In a previous debate, the argument was made elegantly by the noble Earl that it would be no bad thing if all Bills had a sunset clause. In certain cases, such as national emergency or where civil liberties are affected, that may be appropriate. But in the case of the majority of Bills there are already procedures for repeal or amendment. We have dealt with that. To require Parliament to revisit legislation without a very good reason for doing so places a fetter on Parliament's ability to legislate and to do so in this Bill would set an unfortunate precedent.
970
We recognise that policies and Acts have a natural lifespan. However, in this Bill our goal is to encourage a reduction in delays through joint working and our expectation is that that will be achieved in the way we have set out with the additional funding In the unlikely event that in some areas the Bill does not work as well as we believe that it will, we have reliable and well-established procedures and monitoring systems which will give us an early indication of what is going wrong.
On those grounds, I hope that noble Lords are able to accept our changes and to reject the amendment.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 5 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 5A—(Baroness Andrews.)
Earl Howe Earl Howe rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that this House do not insist on its Amendment No. 5 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 5A:
5B Leave out "not".
The noble Earl said: My Lords, perhaps I may address the two issues in reverse order by taking first the issue of the sunset clause. That may seem perverse but the noble Baroness may understand shortly why I do so.
I listened carefully to what she said. In essence, she has taken many of the same lines of argument against the amendment as were used by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, during our debate last week. I do not accept the arguments which attempt to portray sunset clauses as somehow anti-constitutional and as fettering the will of Parliament. If Parliament decides that an Act must be subject to a mandatory review in both Houses after a certain period of its operation, then Parliament is entitled to make that decision, no matter what the subject of the legislation. I take some comfort from the fact that it was not only Conservatives and Liberal Democrats who joined me in pressing that opinion through the Lobbies last week: there was also a heal thy number of very distinguished Cross-Bench Peers. I was heartened by and grateful for the support of all noble Lords who voted for the amendment. Nevertheless, in deciding what to do with the amendment today, I feel that I must take account of the considerable number of concessions made by the Government during the Bill's entire passage. They are not insignificant concessions. I do not propose today, therefore, to press the sunset amendment. I believe that we have had a useful debate on the subject. Another place has considered the issue and rejected it and there the matter should lie.
I turn, therefore, to the issue of the sunrise clause. I thank the noble Baroness for her extremely constructive and helpful speech. The amendment we are debating is, as she will know, one to which we attach very great importance. We do so not through a desire to make life difficult but because of the intense anxiety that exists in local government, the voluntary sector and the NHS itself about the speed with which the legislation was to be introduced. I shall not rehearse the arguments at length; that has been done

971
enough already. But in essence they boil down to two concerns: the need for local authorities to put in place the necessary human resources to enable them to deliver what is required of them on the ground, especially home care services; and the need to deal with issues emerging from the ombudsman's report and the Coughlan judgment to ensure that there are properly understood and consistent procedures in place throughout the health service to deal with decision-making about NHS-funded continuing care.
Twelve months, I believe, was the minimum period necessary to allow for those matters to be expedited in order for the Bill to stand a chance of achieving its aims even on a restricted definition. This very day I received a letter from the Local Government Association which urges this House to continue supporting the inclusion of my amendment within the Bill. I do not believe that the noble Baroness should be under any illusion about the strength of feeling "out there" about this matter. However, this is the second occasion on which the House has had to decide this issue. Another place has rejected the amendment that was carried here last month.
There is, I think, a natural limit to the parliamentary process in that sense. Today the Government have made a considerable effort to be conciliatory. That has to be recognised; I do recognise it. In an ideal world, I would have wished for a deferral of the financial penalties until April 2004. However, from debates in this House and from my private discussions with the Minister, I do not believe that that is an end result which the Government would ever concede. If I have understood the Minister correctly today, she has very considerably expanded the concession made in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. She said that the Bill will come into operation on 1st October 2003 but that the operation of the financial incentives and penalties will not commence until 1st January 2004. At the same time, funding of £50 million will be made available to local authorities as if the scheme had been fully operational for a full six months of the next financial year. If that is a correct understanding of the Government's offer, it represents a considerable step in our direction, and it would not be a productive use of parliamentary time to call a further Division on the issue.
Will the Minister tell us how the sum of £50 million is to be distributed among local authorities? Will she also allow me to press her on the amount of money itself? She will know that there is real worry in local government about the shortage of resources in social services. Will she undertake to leave the door open on the possibility of increasing the amount of money available during the coming financial year? The LGA has estimated that, if £50 million is distributed from October or perhaps even sooner, as much as £35 million will be swallowed up in fines between January and April 2004. That would leave little for investment into building up capacity, which everyone agrees is the single most important task for local authorities in the coming months.
The compromise offered by the Government, although not everything that we could have wished for, is a significant step forward. I thank the Minister for that. I do not propose to ask the House to express a collective view on the issue a second time. I beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 5 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 5A, leave out "not"—.(Earl Howe.)
Baroness Barker: I add my support to the noble Earl, Lord Howe. I realise that the Government have moved a very long way and that the blunt instrument that the Bill was a few weeks ago has been considerably sharpened.
I wish to question the Minister on timing. The issues of money and time are closely interrelated. We argued consistently about time being a precious commodity for local authorities. We have not focused much in our debates on the fact that, as well as new services being put in place, much effort will have to be spent on reshaping and redefining existing services, such as day care. We have not discussed those services much. They are not always provided directly by the local authority, and it will take some time to ensure that they become part of the whole process of rehabilitation of older people.
When will the £50 million be announced? It would be a much more effective investment if it were implemented very soon, way ahead of the Bill coming into force. There is a real possibility that when the fine system starts in January, in the areas where the system does not work for some reason and when the single assessment process is introduced in 2004, local authorities may begin the financial year with a deficit that they could not have worked out. January to March is a short time for them to reorientate their budget. Playing with budgets at the back end of the year is not always easy.
I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that it would have been preferable to introduce the system in April 2004, but that is not going to happen. However, there will be time for local authorities and the NHS to do some tight planning and redefinition of services. I stress that the NHS is integral to the process. I hope that the department teams responsible for the change will work closely with local authorities and the NHS during those six months to give them a steer to help them implement these measures successfully.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: I associate myself with the comments of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Barker. I do not want to repeat the arguments put so clearly by both of them, but I wish to add one comment. I declare an interest as a member of the boards of the John Grooms charity for disabled people, which means that I understand the issue of providers, and of the National Care Standards Commission, which means that I understand the issue of regulation. I wish to comment on how the process will affect providers, and the way in which they consider the issues across the board.

973
I have nothing to say about the sunset clause. I welcome the additional time, but it is a great pity that it had to be brought about by pressure from the opposition Front Benches, with additional pressure from the Cross Benches. I could not be present due to other commitments, but I associate myself entirely with the comments made by other Cross Benchers.
Will the Minister discuss with her department the complications that the measure will cause on the ground for those who are providing and regulating such decision-making? In her introduction, she said that extending for a further three months might delay the impetus of partnership between health authorities and local government. I challenge that comment because local government and health authorities are struggling and working hard together to provide services. The difficulty is one of change management, as the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, pointed out. That takes time. There are also issues of resources. One has to have resources in the right place at the right time.
Only today, I heard that fees for registration and inspection in the sector will be increased by 20 per cent. Although that has been planned for the future, it gives rise to an issue of timing in change management; it is an additional issue that make providers feel that they are not valued. It also causes stress. It will not help if people are wavering over whether to close their establishments. It will become extraordinarily difficult for inspectors to make decisions when they go into homes.
I give that example as an illustration of how complex the issues are on the ground when people are trying to deliver services. In my experience, having worked many years in local government and the voluntary sector, most people want to provide the best service for the individual old lady who is facing them in the old people's home on that day. Only this morning, I heard on the radio about a home that was going to close because the local authority was unable or unwilling to provide fees for the residents.
I welcome the changes. But will the Minister discuss these matters further with her department? There is certainly not time enough to have in place what we need to have in place, but the move is valued by many Members of the Committee.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: I do not want to repeat all the arguments that have been made, as they have been most eloquent. I take a slightly different line with regard to these amendments, and the enormous changes that have been made to the Bill since it was first introduced to us.
I congratulate the Minister, but I also send congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, who is not in the Chamber today. He worked ceaselessly and tirelessly on the Bill, and the compromises that he could afford and that he negotiated have been carried on so well by the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, who has taken over his role.
I also congratulate both Opposition Front-Benchers, who have helped to ensure that the Bill is workable. I believe that, as originally drafted, the Bill
974
was completely unworkable. I have been involved in shadowing health authorities, a process which can work very well. Although I appreciate the widespread reservations which will remain until the Bill has been proven to work, I acknowledge those noble Lords for a job well done.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their generous response. I do so particularly on behalf of my noble friend Lord Hunt, who put tremendous effort into the Bill. He is very happy that we have been able to achieve a workable outcome. Noble Lords in the Chamber have taken the Bill apart and to heart in different ways and I am grateful to them.
I shall try to answer some of the questions, the first of which was on money. I say to the noble Earl that the final decision on allocation will be made shortly. The matter has been considered, but it has not been decided because of the question of a starting date. We will let noble Lords know as soon as possible As for when the £50 million grant will be available, that will have to be debated in Parliament under Section 88B of the Local Government Finance Act 1988, but we will pay it to councils as soon as practicable after that.
I hope that that goes some way towards meeting the issues raised by the noble Baronesses. Lady Finlay, Lady Howarth and Lady Barker. We need to create capacity, allow time and provide resources as soon as possible so that people can see exactly what they have to do. The extra funding will help them to be better prepared. The access grant provides for additional funding for home care, intermediate care and community care, and the first tranche will come into effect in April 2003. So resources will be available almost immediately. All I can say is that we shall be monitoring what is happening to the £50 million. I can say no more on that as it is a matter for the Secretary of State.
The noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, referred to the changes. We are conscious that we are expecting a lot from social services and that many other events are occurring in their world which require careful management. However, we embarked on this legislation in the knowledge that people were being inappropriately placed in hospital and left to become worse rather than better. The spirit behind the Bill has been to provide a better future for those people. We are aware of the dedication and hard work of social services. We have every expectation that they will be able to meet the challenge. But we do not underestimate the challenge and we are aware of the other difficulties. I hope that our changes will signal that we are aware of what they need to do and that we support them.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 5B, as an amendment to the Motion, by leave withdrawn.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
6 Page 2, line 8, at end insert—
"and

(ii) has consulted with the patient (and in the case of a carer in relation to assessment under the Carers (Recognition and Services) Act 1995 (c. 12) and the Carers and Disabled Children Act 2000 (c. 16)) to ascertain their views and preferences, informed them of the reason for the notification, and obtained their informed consent or in the case where a patient lacks the mental capacity to give such consent, has recorded on the file what steps have been taken to ensure that the patient's best interests have been duly considered"

The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason:
6A Because it is unnecessary to require consent for the giving of notices containing no personal information and because Lords Amendment No. 9 makes more appropriate provision for consultation.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do not insist on their Amendment No. 6 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 6A.
At Report stage we agreed a government amendment that places a duty on the NHS to consult the patient, and where appropriate their carer, prior to issuing a notice to the local authority of the patient's likely need for community care services under Section 2. That reinforces the existing good practice, supported by statutory guidance for Section 47 assessments as well as the single assessment process and the recently published discharge workbook. It is a key principle that the patient should be kept informed and be consulted at all stages of the assessment process. This amendment puts the matter beyond doubt by placing that requirement on the face of primary legislation.
Our amendment goes further, however, and requires consent. I understand that where the patient clearly gives or withholds consent to the question of whether social services should be notified, that would appear to be straightforward. In a previous debate, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, stated that he thought that few people would not want at least to have advice from social services on what services they might need when leaving hospital. The problem with the word "consent", however, is that the matter is not always that clear cut.
There are cases where the patient may refuse, thinking that he wants nothing to do with social services. He may be unaware of what social services can do, or afraid because he has never had any contact with social services. He may be concerned about the implications for his family, his privacy and his future life. There may be other cases in which an older person does not feel able to give a clear answer but wants to wait for a family conference before agreeing or wants someone to explain what is involved. In such cases the lack of consent would stop the NHS contacting social services. It would even prevent the social worker based in the hospital visiting, causing several days' delay in discharge planning. If consent were eventually given, it could still substantially reduce the time that social services had to assess and plan. Our amendment—
976
which means that the NHS body must consult both the patient and their carer, if they have one, before issuing the notice—will mean that the patient knows that social services is involved.
As we said, in the majority of cases patients will be happy at least to have the options explained. For those who are concerned about what social services might do in their case, the social worker may be the very person to reassure the patient. However, that process must be given a chance. The NHS body must be able to start planning for discharge and needs to be able to notify social services. I reiterate again that all that is being given to the local authority with the Section 2 notice is the patient's name. So if the social worker arrives on the ward but the patient does not agree to social services involvement, they still have a right to refuse to co-operate or to accept the services on offer. That is why we believe that the government amendment was appropriate.
Guidance for the Bill will also clearly tell the NHS what steps that consultation should involve. We have made clear in guidance exactly what steps have to be taken. I can tell noble Lords that we would also be prepared to include in regulations that the Section 2 notice must briefly record the patient's or carer's views and the outcome of the consultation. We have therefore listened to the concerns, and we believe that that proposal will meet them. It will make clear to the NHS the importance of involving patients and families at that stage and of keeping them fully informed as to what happens next in the discharge process.
I hope that, with those reassurances, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 6 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 6A.—(Baroness Andrews.)
Baroness Barker Baroness Barker rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that this House do not insist on their Amendment No. 6 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 6A:
6B Leave out "not".
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that statement and for the helpful letter which the department sent last week to my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones. That letter set out many of the points that she has just made. I am glad that we have moved on from the position outlined in the draft regulations which seemed to give older people no say at all in the process. I believe that it is right to enable older people to have some influence in the process.
Always at the back of my mind was the fear that older people seeing the new system in operation as described at earlier stages would believe that if they went to hospital, nothing could be done to stop them going into an old people's home. That might seem an irrational fear to your Lordships but it is real to many older people. I am glad that it will be possible to explain to older people that such will not happen to them but that they or members of their family can be active participants.
I agree that many older people would like the opportunity of help from social services. Social workers can be of enormous help in explaining what is available. I hope that when the new system comes into force, there will still be room for flexibility and a human approach to older people in hospital—that we will not take away from nurses the ability to treat their patients holistically, which is part of good nursing. I am heartened by the Minister's comments. We have almost reached the point where I wanted us to be.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that this House do not insist on their Amendment No. 6 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 6A, leave out "not.—(Baroness Barker.)
Earl Howe: My Lords, while the concessions made are not all on the face of the Bill, we now have a more patient-centred measure than before, which is a thoroughly healthy development. I retain a small measure of disquiet about possible abuse of patient confidentiality—even under the tighter rules that the Minister outlined. I add my thanks for the comprehensive letter sent by the Minister's colleague, Jacqui Smith, a few days ago.
It is important never to lose sight of patient confidentiality. We can be cavalier about it. We can even be cavalier about it within the confines of the NHS—but outside the health service, it is important to remember that sensitivities must be observed as much as possible. That said, we have taken several major steps forward and I thank the Minister for her part in that process.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, I am grateful for the changes to the Bill, which is moving away from over-rigid enforcement of consent by patients—to whom the thought of signing something might seem threatening—in favour of consensus and assent.
I noted with interest the Minister's comment that the interview with the social worker would record the carer's views and the outcome of the consultation in the case notes. Can the Minister clarify whether that will be done in the clinical case notes from the patient's ward or in the case notes held by social services? That has some implications for who will audit the process and be responsible for making sure that consultations are routinely recorded—so that one can be sure that the process was one of negotiation.
As the noble Earl said, older people are often frightened about any breach of confidentiality—particularly in respect of financial issues. They are absolutely terrified of information about their assets leaking out and feel vulnerable to crime. When older people are ill, they may have a distorted perception of the world around them. Face-to-face contact with a social worker is important but we need to ensure that the audit processes are implemented, to ensure that the Bill's important provisions are continually enacted and that no shortcuts are taken—and so that if there are any local breaches, they can be acted upon quickly.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: My Lords, while recognising the need to respect patient confidentiality, a huge amount of aggregated data will be created that could tell us a lot about how services are being delivered. Is there any intention of collecting that data? I was recently involved in another review where it was clear that there was a huge lack of consistent information to underpin strategic planning. It would be useful if we could capture relevant data to provide good information for the future.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, makes an important point. Part of the task of the team working on implementation will be to work out how such information can be most effectively used—perhaps as part of the single assessment process, if appropriate.
Perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, that we are talking only about recording the fact that a consultation has taken place—so the clinical notes would not be relevant in that context. The Section 2 notice itself will provide the record.
Baroness Barker: My Lords, in view of the Minister's response, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 6B, as an amendment to the Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Motion agreed to

LORDS AMENDMENT
14 Clause 3, page 2, line 41, after "consulting" insert "the patient and having obtained the informed consent of the patient or, in the case where a patient lacks the mental capacity to give such consent to the proposed care plan, having recorded on the file what steps have been taken to ensure that the patient's best interests have been duly considered, and after consulting"
The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following Reason:
14A Because it is unnecessary to add additional requirements in relation to community care assessments under clause. 3(3) and it is undesirable to differentiate between assessments under clause 3(3) and other assessments carried out under section 47 of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 14 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 14A.
The amendments in this group raise the crucial issue of informing and involving patients and carers in the performance of a social services assessments and decisions as to which services are to be provided. Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 propose that local authorities should consult patients and carers during the assessment of community care needs and obtain their consent to the care plan. Amendment No. 16 would further require the local authority to inform patients of the costs.
The Bill makes no difference to a patient's rights with respect to consent. Patients have an existing right not to consent to receiving the services that social

979
services have assessed as being needed. Neither social services nor the NHS have the right to force services upon a patient who does not want to receive them.
Clause 3(11) makes it clear that the assessment and care planning process is part of the Section 47 assessment process and therefore one stage or part of the single assessment process. We do not want to undermine that connection or consistency. Singling out the assessment in the care planning process from all other Section 47 assessments and care planning would differentiate the process in the Bill from all others of assessment and care planning inside and outside the hospital—which would lead to confusion between agencies and lack of co-ordination.
I want to re-emphasise and reiterate our solution, given in a statement by my honourable friend the Minister in another place, for how we will tackle the concerns expressed in the amendments for all Section 47 assessments. Section 47(4) of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 contains a power for the Secretary of State to issue directions as to the manner in which assessments are carried out. We will therefore issue a direction under this power to make it clear that the local authority, having assessed the needs of the patient, should consult the patient before deciding which services to provide, gain agreement to the care plan where possible and provide information about the costs of that care plan to the patient.
This will be the first time that this direction-making power has been used in 12 years. Through this direction we will require all Section 47 assessment processes to reach this standard on consultation and agreement. Therefore the effect will be far greater than an amendment to the Bill. Since it will affect all Section 47 assessments it will bring consistency to the assessment process, including the single assessment process, and it will be equally legally binding on all Section 47 assessments.
The direction would cover all the points made in Amendment No. 16 apart from an absolute duty to gain consent to the care plan and the exact wording on mental incapacity. This is because the use of the word "consent" could mean that the council spend months trying to gain consent to a care plan from someone who was unreasonably withholding consent. Since the 1990 Act it has been practice that assessor and user should agree the care plan and we would propose that the directions should carry the wording,
"take all reasonable steps to reach agreement",
which gives the right balance of reasonableness to both parties; the patient and the council.
We would not use the wording in Amendment No. 16 on mental incapacity because the exact form may cut across forthcoming legislation on mental incapacity. But we would certainly make the general statement that the council must ensure that the patient's best interests have been duly considered where they lack mental capacity. This reflects councils' current legal duty. I hope that having strengthened the Bill and the process, with that assurance noble Lords will not press their amendments.
980
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 14 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 14A.—(Baroness Andrews.)
Baroness Barker Baroness Barker rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that this House do not insist on their Amendment No. 14 to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason No. 14A:
14B Leave out "not".
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving the amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 15B, 16B and 18B with which it is grouped. Throughout the Bill's passage we have fought tooth and nail for consent. The basis for our arguments has been in many ways the Bill's architecture, which we on this side of the House have found far too weighted in favour of the NHS and against patients. There has been a sort of pendulum process. We saw that the Bill was weighted one way, we tabled a number of amendments that took it in the opposite direction, and perhaps now the pendulum has begun to swing back.
What we have done and why we have done it have been open to misinterpretation. Throughout our discussions we were trying to reach the key word in the Minister's statement: agreement. I am glad that she has come forward with a proposal for directions that are about agreement. In our discussions we have been motivated by a wish to empower patients. I confess that during our discussions the Government were slightly unlucky in that they caught me at a time when a friend who was in hospital took a bath only to return to find someone else in her bed. That rather coloured my views of some of the speeches.
I also want to take issue with a remark made in another place on 19th March. The Minister said:
"Whether hon. Members in another place are the people in the real world is questionable, but we have listened to people who operate in the real world".—[Official Report. Commons, 19/3/03; col. 975.]
I have a piece of evidence that will prove that that is not true. As everyone knows, in "The Archers", Mrs Antrobus has just returned home from a period of intermediate care, and the whole of Ambridge and the rest of us are desperate to know whether Roy and Hayley are going to manage to enable her to stay at home. I am afraid that it does not get more real than "The Archers".
These amendments, particularly the one on assessment, are about enabling older people to go through a process that is time-linked, centred on their needs, and at the end allows them to say if the services provided for them were not right. Throughout our discussions we have talked a great deal about where and when assessments will happen. I have accepted what Ministers said: that acute hospitals full of MRSA are not places in which to make decisions about the

981
continuing needs and support of older citizens. "The Archers" had it absolutely right the other day: Mrs Antrobus was wondering whether she could manage.
I think it is true that the BBC is party to a political conspiracy. How it knew that in these two weeks in Parliament we would be focusing on Iraq and delayed discharge I do not know, but it is marvellous that it did. I am being flippant, but I am trying to hit at the heart of the Bill, which is about older people being in a process in which they are able to play a part rather than having things done to them for the convenience of others.
I take to heart what the Minister said about all reasonable steps. It was never our intention that family members could hole older people up in hospital so that they could never leave. We were talking about setting standards in reaching agreement with older people about their care packages. I listened to what the Minister said about mental incapacity. I am slightly disappointed and remain convinced that old people with Alzheimer's or dementia or who have had strokes may Find themselves disadvantaged by this process. We will look at the important mental incapacity legislation with extreme care. I welcome what the Minister said about consent and I shall welcome the contribution of other noble Lords.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, is the noble Baroness moving the amendment?
Baroness Barker: My Lords, yes I beg to move.
On Question, Whether the amendment shall be agreed to?
Baroness Barker: My Lords. no, the amendment is not moved.
[Amendment No. 14B not moved.]
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, in that case the Question is that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 14 to which the Commons have disagreed.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENTS
15 Page 2, line 41, after "body" insert "and the qualifying patient"
The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason:
15A Because it is unnecessary to add additional requirements in relation to community care assessments under clause 3(3) and it is undesirable to differentiate between assessments under clause 3(3) and other assessments carried out under section 47 of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990.
16 Page 2, line 42, at end insert—
"( ) Before making a decision under subsection (3), the responsible authority must—

(a) consult the patient and his carer, if he has one;

(b) inform them of the cost of the proposed care plans; and

(c) obtain the consent of the patient and any carer and, where informed consent is given, record that on the patient's file, or if a patient lacks the mental capacity to give such consent, record on the file what steps it has taken to ensure that the patient's best interests have been duly considered."

The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason:
16A Because it is unnecessary to add additional requirements in relation to community care assessments under clause 3(3) and it is undesirable let differentiate between assessments under clause 3(3) and other assessments carried out under section 47 of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990.
18 Page 3, line 8, after "consulting" insert "the carer and obtaining the informed consent of the carer to the proposed care plan and after consulting"
The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason:
18A Because it is unnecessary to add additional requirements in relation to carers' assessments under clause 3(4) and if is undesirable to differentiate between assessments under clause 3(4) and other assessments carried out under the Carers and Disabled Children Act 2000.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 15, 16 and 18 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons numbered 15A, 16A and 18A.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 15, 16 and 18 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons numbered 15A, 16A and 18A.—(Baroness Andrews.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
23 Page 3, line 37, at end insert—
"( ) The responsible NHS body must give the patient and his carer, if he has one—

(a) notice of the day on which it proposes to discharge the patient, and where informed consent is given, record that on the patient's file, or if a patient lacks the mental capacity to give such consent, record on the tile what steps it has taken to ensure that the patient's best interests have been duly considered, and

(b) information about their right to request a review if they disagree with the decision to discharge."

The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason:
23A Because the decision to discharge should not be subject to the consent of the patient and it is undesirable to discriminate on this issue between patients who are subject to the Bill and other hospital patients.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 23 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason 23A.
The amendment raises the important issue of the information received by the patient and carer about the date of discharge. It is extremely important that the NHS gives the patient and their carers all the information they need to make discharge as safe and co-ordinated as possible. We agree that the patient and the carer need information about the discharge date as much as social services. I submit that they need that information just as much for every discharge, regardless of whether it is a discharge conducted according to the processes of this Bill, or whether a routine discharge is involved, by which the patient goes back to the care of his or her family. I again refer to the revised Hospital Discharge Workbook, which makes it clear that every patient is to be provided with information and advice throughout the discharge process, not just about the date but about the care that

983
they will receive after discharge. As a further way of reinforcing that, I can confirm today that the regulations around the notice of the discharge date will require that the hospital confirms that that information has also been given to the patient.
Amendment No. 23 is seeking to go beyond that by placing an entirely new duty on the NHS to gain the patient's consent to discharge. As we said previously, that raises serious questions for the NHS as a whole and its general ability to function and to manage admissions and discharges on a rational basis. It would undoubtedly increase delayed discharges and the length of hospital stays.
If a patient had a right to consent to discharge, they would effectively have a legal right to remain in a hospital bed indefinitely. The decision that a patient is ready for discharge is one for the NHS body, but it needs to be taken in consultation with the patient/carer, social services and other health professionals by a suitably qualified member of hospital staff with responsibility for discharge. The guidance for the Bill will make it plain that the decision to discharge is one that must be taken in consultation with all relevant parties, including the patient/carer. That will be made clear in guidance. I would argue that even without that guidance, acting in that way is part and parcel of the NHS's general duty.
I cannot therefore accept that the patient must give informed consent to discharge. However, I understand the real concern that patients may leave hospital with an inadequate care package. The first step, which we have already debated, involves proper discussion between social services and the patient about the adequacy of care.
I know that noble Lords opposite are also concerned about older people who may be desperate to get home and therefore accept a care plan, which turns out, in practice, to be inadequate. We have responded to those concerns: the Section 7 guidance in the Bill will state that where the discharge plan is a care package in the person's own home, social services are to review the discharge care package, including that provided to the carer—if there is one—within a maximum of two weeks to check that the post-discharge care has been adequate and is working. The Section 7 guidance will include advice to monitor the arrangements in an even shorter time if there appears to be any concern that the post-discharge situation might be unstable. That means that any perverse effects that may arise can quickly be identified and addressed on an individual basis in a very short period of time.
There is much flexibility in that arrangement. Each patient's progress through the stages of assessment and care planning may differ and where there is an ongoing assessment, that will in itself be a review. The care plan can be updated as a result of that ongoing assessment. In those circumstances, the short-term review may not be needed or will become part of the longer-term review. A complex assessment could be carried out in interim care or it could be that the
984
discharge plan involved a period of intermediate care, which in itself includes a review. Either way, we are providing for all eventualities in terms of home care.
On the other hand, we want that good practice of review after a short time to extend to other points in the care pathway; for example, where the person goes home after a period of care, such as intermediate care. We will introduce that through cross-references between guidance on the Bill and guidance on the single assessment process. We will be consulting fully on all that—we realise that it is a new element in the process, which I am sure noble Lords will welcome.
On the NHS side, we will make it clear in directions that every patient should be assessed against local criteria for fully funded NHS continuing care before social services are contacted about providing community care services and that patients should be fully informed about those criteria and that they can request a review. That will be confirmed in the regulations governing the Section 2 notice. We have also made it clear that the directions about the conduct of continuing care reviews will mean that those reviews must be conducted within 14 days. We have symmetry between the period of reviewing. During this time, if the patient is in hospital, he can remain there. I hope that that relieves some of the serious reservations of noble Lords.
Moved, That the House do not insist on Amendment No. 23 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 23A. —(Baroness Andrews.)
[Amendment No. 23B not moved.]
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
24 Page 3, line 45, at end insert—
"( ) The Secretary of State shall specify to the bodies charged with inspection of health and social services that they should monitor, at regular intervals, the impact of this Act on patients and their carers."
The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason:
24A Because the inspection and monitoring system for health and social care services is adequate and the amendment is unnecessary.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 24, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 24A. I will also speak to Amendment No. 25.
Amendments Nos. 24 and 25 would impose a permanent statutory duty on inspection bodies to monitor the impact of the Bill on patients and carers and a permanent statutory duty on the Secretary of State to report on an annual basis to Parliament on the outcomes of patients affected by the Act.
Perhaps I could restate the steps that the Government have taken not only to monitor the effects of policies on the NHS and social care in real time so that action can be taken if there are perverse effects, but also to evaluate policies. In addition, I remind noble Lords about the proposals in the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards)

985
Bill to make the new inspectorates much more independent of government. In the light of that, the major problem that we have with the amendments is that it would be inappropriate, having just proposed that the Secretary of State would agree high level priorities only with the new inspectorates, immediately to start a detailed list of inspections that the inspectorates must perform. I hope that noble Lords accept that it would not be right to undermine their independence in that way.
Health and social care already involves a raft of ways of evaluating performance—performance indicators include delayed discharges, emergency readmissions, home care and people helped to live at home. We are also introducing indicators on the speed of service provision. Those indicators will quickly indicate if substantial problems arise, even if they are in only some local areas. The department is also carrying out work at the moment on improving the sensitivity of readmissions data, so that it more accurately reflects whether a patient is readmitted with the same problem as previously. We need to know that. Those mechanisms are robust.
The department's interest in reducing the unhappiness that delayed discharges cause will absolutely not stop when the Bill is implemented. In response to concerns about the impact of the Bill and incentives on behaviour in the NHS and social services and the effect on patients, we will commission an evaluation of the system and of its implementation during the first year of operation. We want to ensure that the system, and the incentives within it, are bringing about positive changes and identify any barriers to successful implementation. In addition, the implementation team, which is led and staffed by practitioners, will be encouraging local partnerships to have "dry-runs" of the system before commencement, which can also be evaluated by a wider reference group and fed back to the implementation team. We want to learn the lessons as early as possible. We will want to intensify that work from October until full implementation in January so that social services and the NHS feel supported when they introduce the new system of notifying each other and acting on those notices. At the same time, the implementation team can offer support to areas having particular difficulties—it will build on what has worked well elsewhere.
I return to the inspectorate. I know that noble Lords were concerned that there was a gap between the difference between collective quantitative information and quantitative information, so that we knew what was happening to the patient and the impact on him or her. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, was concerned about that.
The Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill proposes the establishment of two new health and social care inspectorates—the Commission for Health Audit and Inspection and the Commission for Social Care Inspection. One of their functions will be to validate performance statistics, but they will also monitor and report on the "whole system" with an emphasis on the experience of the
986
patient and user of the service. We believe that that is a major step forward and one which noble Lords will welcome. The new CHAI inspections will include foundation trusts.
Noble Lords may be interested to know that the current inspectorates and the Audit Commission are already planning a wide-ranging and co-ordinated study of older people's services across health and social care. Field work will begin later this year and it will consider the new structures and report in 2005.
Both the new inspectorates will report annually to Parliament on the provision of NHS and social care. Their independence from the department will mean that instructions from the department about the detail and frequency with which they need to inspect older people's services would not be possible as the relationship between inspectorates and department is currently envisaged.
On that issue, the Commons reasoned that it was neither necessary nor appropriate to impose a permanent specific statutory duty on the inspection bodies to monitor the effects of the Bill or on the Secretary of State to report every year to Parliament specifically on the effect of the Bill. Therefore, I hope that noble Lords will accept that it is preferable to maintain this independence and that the additional evaluation that I have introduced today and the existing very robust mechanisms that we already have in place will meet the reservations raised at previous stages of the Bill.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 24 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 24A. —(Baroness Andrews.)
Earl Howe Earl Howe rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 24 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 24A:
24B Leave out "not".
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 24B and shall speak also to Amendment No. 25B. The noble Baroness's remarks today have demonstrated very encouragingly the weight that the Government appear to attach to the concerns that we on these Benches voiced in Committee.
An amendment which requires the Government to monitor the effects of the Bill looks innocent and straightforward enough but, in the context of this Bill, I suggest that it is of the highest importance. Even the Minister will acknowledge that the Bill takes us into new territory. Throughout our debates I have emphasised the possibility—indeed, the probability—of unintended consequences arising from its provisions.
What do we mean by monitoring? The noble Baroness is right. It will not be enough to collect quantities of bald statistical data. It will be necessary to tell the human story. We need to monitor the patient experience—that is, the effect that the Bill has on real patients being discharged from real hospitals.
The role of CHI and its successor body will be critical in that regard. I was interested to hear the Minister say that new CHAI will be more independent. I can tell her that we shall be looking very carefully at that point as the Bill goes through the House.
CHI will need to gain a much better handle, for example, on the causal factors underlying emergency readmissions. At present, I understand that it is simply not possible to say from the statistics available how many patients are being readmitted to hospital on an emergency basis for a clinical condition for which they were previously being treated. That kind of information is essential if the Government are to have any hope of implementing the system of financial flows which they have announced.
There is a need for transparency with this measure if we are to be 100 per cent satisfied that patients are being treated fairly and that corners are not being cut. I should like to hear what other noble Lords have to say on the amendment, if anything. As it appears that there is not a mad rush to speak to it, I believe that it remains for me to say that I am grateful to the Minister for the welcome assurances that she has given.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, is the amendment not moved?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the amendment is not moved.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
25 Page 3, line 45, at end insert—
"( ) The Secretary of State shall report on an annual basis to Parliament on the outcomes of patients affected by this Act."
The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason:
25A Because the inspecting bodies for health and social care services will be able to make reports on the operation of the Bill.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 25 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 25A. —(Baroness Andrews.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
5.15 p.m.

LORDS AMENDMENT
26 After Clause 3, insert the following new clause—
"Duties of responsible NHS body following notice under section 2
(1) The duties under this section apply where notice of a patient's case under section 2 has been given.
(2) The responsible NHS body, and any other NHS body which is considering whether to provide services to the patient after discharge, must consult the responsible authority before deciding what services (if any) it will make available to him in order for it to be safe to discharge the patient.
(3) The responsible NHS body must give the responsible authority notice of the day on which it proposes to discharge the patient.
988
(4) The notice under subsection (3) remains in force until the end of the relevant day, unless it has previously been withdrawn.
(5) The responsible NHS body may withdraw the notice under subsection (3) at any time before the end of the relevant day by giving notice of withdrawal to the responsible authority.
(6) For the purposes of this Part "the relevant day", in relation to a qualifying hospital patient, is the later of—

(a) the day specified in the notice under subsection (3); and

(b) the last day of the prescribed minimum interval after the notice under section 2 is given.

(7) Regulations may prescribe a period as the minimum interval after a notice under section 2 is given; but that period must—

(a) begin with the day after that on which the notice under section 2 is given; and

(b) be a period of at least two days excluding Saturdays, Sundays and public holidays.

(8) If the notice under subsection (3) is withdrawn before the end of the relevant day—

(a) the duty under subsection (3) applies again; and

(b) when a fresh notice under subsection (3) is given, subsection (6) applies again for the purpose of identifying a new "relevant day".

(9) Regulations may provide for—

(a) the time at which notices under subsection (3) are to be given;

(b) the form and content of—

(i) notices under subsection (3); and

(ii) withdrawal notices under subsection (5);

and the manner in which such notices are to be given;

(c) circumstances in which notices under subsection (3) must be withdrawn; and

(d) determining the day on which a notice under subsection (3) or a notice of withdrawal under subsection (5) is given (including provision prescribing circumstances in which a notice under subsection (3) is to be treated for any specified purpose as having been given on a day other than that on which it was in fact given)."

The Commons agreed to this amendment with the following amendment:
26A Line 25. leave out "excluding Saturdays. Sundays and public holidays"
Baroness Andrews Baroness Andrews rose to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 26A to the Lords Amendment No. 26 and do propose the following further amendment to Lords Amendment No. 26:
26B Line 26, at end insert—
"(7A) Until 31st March 2005 the period of two days referred to in subsection (7) is exclusive of Sundays and public holidays in England and Wales."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, throughout the Bill, we have discussed the inclusion or exclusion of weekends and public holidays from the minimum interval—that is, the time within which social services must assess and arrange services for a patient. The argument has been made that social services departments cannot and should not be expected to perform these functions outside of the normal working week.
However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, pointed out in our previous debate on this subject, we should surely be looking forward to a time when ways of working have changed and health and social care

989
really do work together and support each other. She said that keeping people in hospital, for whatever reason, longer than is absolutely necessary is not acceptable in this day and age and that to put this requirement on the face of the Bill would not help patients.
An older person delayed in an acute hospital bed does not disappear or become any less vulnerable to the consequences of a delay simply because the weekend occurs and social services do not work at weekends. I believe that we should be moving towards a more flexible approach to working hours that means that the needs of individuals for community care services can be more effectively met. We believe that excluding Saturday, Sunday and public holidays from the face of the Bill would send entirely the wrong message about what is acceptable and what we expect in the future for our older people.
However, I know that many local authorities are not yet in the position where they would be able to provide services, for example, over the Easter bank holiday weekend. Although I believe that all local authorities should aspire to the practice of the best, which already provide assessment teams with extended hours and at weekends, I am prepared to give a commitment that we shall exclude Sundays and public holidays from the minimum compliance period in the first instance.
The amendment tabled by the Government would require the regulations to exclude Sundays and public holidays from the minimum period until 31st March 2005. That means that local authorities have nine months from now, without financial consequence, to prepare for Saturday working—something that most social services are already moving towards. But, because we accept that not all social services currently provide a seven-day service and could not move overnight to doing so, social services will have more time—until April 2005.—to plan for this. I also want to emphasise that April 2005 is the earliest date that seven-day working could be introduced.
The amendment gives only the date before which the regulations cannot be changed; it does not specify that the regulations will change on that date. Furthermore, we shall also state that any notice given by the NHS to the local authority in respect of a patient on a public holiday will be treated as if it were given on the following day. That means that there will be an extra day before the Section 2 notice informing the local authority of the patient's likely need for community care services and before the Section 5 notice informing it of the discharge date become effective.
I hope that noble Lords recognise that this represents a positive compromise. I hope they will accept that we do not want to give the message on the face of the Bill that it is acceptable for older people routinely to wait in hospital five or more days for an assessment or for services to be in place, which would be the case if the whole weekend were also excluded.
But I am happy to put on the face of the Bill that the regulations will exclude Sundays and public holidays until 2005 and will therefore give local authorities more time to adjust to new ways of working. I reflect
990
again on what the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, said about the need to recognise the pressure that local authorities are under. They will now have more time to carry out their duties from implementation. I hope that noble Lords will agree with the change. I hope that they will feel that they no longer need to insist on their amendment and will accept the government amendment in lieu. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 26A to Lords Amendment No. 26, and do propose Amendment No. 26B to Lords Amendment No. 26.—(Baroness Andrews.)
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, the Minister has rehearsed the arguments. We have had them at every stage of the Bill. This has been one of the most closely argued areas of the Bill. I do not propose to go into all the rebuttals. There is much that I disagree with in what the Minister said. I still think that the arguments are strongly felt on both sides. The concerns on both Opposition Benches are about unsafe discharge at weekends and the problems of staffing in local authorities, which would have a knock-on effect on the patients. None of our arguments has been about the convenience of local authorities. They were about patients. We have to agree that that is common ground. The arguments were about what was best for patients.
In the best of all possible worlds—I think the noble Earl, Lord Howe, used that phrase earlier—we would press the amendment. We would like weekends and bank holidays to be excluded permanently as long as the Bill is in effect. However, we all recognise that the Minister has made a fair compromise. Time will tell whether local authorities can change their practices and whether discharge will be safe. They will at least have a fair run at it of a year and six months to get their house in order and see whether they will be able to start up at bank holidays and weekends as if they were ordinary working days.
I am pessimistic about that, but on the other hand, as with all these things, it is a matter of how far amendments should be pushed back and forth between the Commons and the Lords. We have reached the point at which insisting further would not be fruitful. We need to see the outcome of the proposals. The Government have come up with an elegant interim solution. Let us see whether it works.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I have a question to add to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. If the Government see fit at some stage to introduce regulations that would bring about seven-day working, it is terribly important that local authorities are given adequate and reasonable notice. It would be helpful to hear from the noble Baroness that the Government will bear that point closely in mind should they decide to introduce seven-day working.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: My Lords, I welcome the noble Baroness's compromise, but I should like to put straight on the record some of the

991
underlying assumptions. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that none of us wants to put the convenience of services above the needs of consumers, patients or users of any kind. That is the underlying position.
I am concerned that an impact assessment may well not have been carried out to look at workforce planning and the availability of staff over these periods. After all, social services run a number of seven-day services, including residential services for children and home care services. However, those workforces are already seriously in difficulty, as the noble Baroness will know from the various taskforces looking at workforce planning in that area. Like my colleagues, I am gravely concerned that we will be in difficulties and will be discharging people unsafely unless we have made that impact assessment before we move to a different work pattern.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, we all share the concern that discharge should be as safe as possible. That is one reason why we have given such careful thought to the ideas that noble Lords put forward. I assure the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that we will certainly consult local authorities on any further changes and take advice, as we have done before.
I am conscious that the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, knows more about good practice in social services than does any other Member of the House. She has rightly spoken about the need for proper workforce assessment and planning to determine the impact. Many professions are changing the way they work. Social services have already done so. The changes that we are proposing will be a natural development from where social services are at the moment, taking into account where they want to be in the future. I hope that in time the changes will be positively welcomed in the modernisation of the profession.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
35 After Clause 4, insert the following new Clause—
"Delayed discharge payments: supplementary
(1) In prescribing an amount under section 4(4) the appropriate Minister must have regard (among other things) to either or both of the following matters—

(a) costs to NHS bodies of providing accommodation and personal care to patients who are ready to be discharged; and

(b) costs to social services authorities of providing community care services to, and services to carers in relation to, persons who have been discharged.

(2) Any payment which the responsible authority is required to make under section 4 in relation to a qualifying hospital patient shall, subject to subsection (2), be made to the responsible NHS body.
(3) In case of any description prescribed in regulations the payment shall be made to the person prescribed in relation to cases of that description.
992
(4) Section 4 shall not come into force until 30 days after the Secretary of State has determined that the systems of incentives within NHS bodies operate to discourage NHS bodies from discharging patients inappropriately."
The Commons agreed to this amendment with the following amendment:
35A Line 16, leave out subsection (4)
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 35A to Lords Amendment No. 35.
Subsection (4), which Amendment No. 35A removes, would delay the coming into effect of the part of the Bill that deals with delayed discharge payments until 30 days after the Secretary of State has determined that there are sufficient incentives within the system to prevent the NHS from discharging patients too early. Noble Lords will know that we had some problems with the amendment, because it does not fit with the main structure of the Bill. However, I understand the concerns of noble Lords, and the noble Baroness, who has been particularly concerned with this, that we have over-focused on social services and that there should be an explicit fairness between them and the NHS so that patients are not discharged too early, with all the consequences that brings.
Noble Lords are right to want to ensure that discharge follows proper procedures and is safe. We certainly do. The existing Commission for Health Improvement has a remit to monitor quality and to ensure that trusts provide a high standard of care. Clearly, they would not provide that standard of care if they discharged patients too early. I referred earlier in the debate to the successor body to CHI, which will be more independent of the department and will have a remit to monitor and report on patient experience and behaviour. The noble Baroness was very concerned that we should get away from data and statistics to look at real people and real hospitals. That monitoring will clearly cover aspects such as the patient's journey through hospital and discharge to another care setting. Noble Lords will recall that older people's services are the subject of a forthcoming Audit Commission study.
The National Centre for Health Outcomes Development is working with the department on improving data on readmissions. In the light of what the noble Earl said in our previous debate, that is very good news. We will certainly keep noble Lords up to date on that. It will help us discern when readmissions are caused by bad discharge factors and not, for example, by the epidemiology of the area, the demography or the high rate of chronic illness.
However, in response to concerns that the NHS may have got off lightly, we need to emphasise that strategic health authorities have a particular role to play through their performance management, because readmission rates are a specific performance indicator and therefore also have a direct effect on waiting times and access targets, which are all used to determine a trust's star rating. It is not in the interests of a trust to discharge patients too early and risk their being readmitted, because the impact on a trust's star rating carries with it a real financial penalty for trusts, in that access to

993
performance funds is limited to high-performing trusts. So, a trust with a high rate of readmissions risks losing access to extra funding and freedoms. A core discharge policy that led to readmissions could also lead to a trust failing its clinical audit.
Thirdly, the impact that high numbers of readmissions will have on the hospital's capacity acts as a disincentive to discharging patients too soon. If hospitals need to treat the same patient twice because they have come back as an emergency admission, they will have less capacity to treat patients on waiting lists. We are talking about enlightened self-interest as well as proper performance management.
It is essential to ensure that the system that we put in place is fair to patients and to social services and does not have any unintended consequences, such as causing a riot and readmissions. I believe that we have robust systems in place to prevent that occurring. Noble Lords will remember the commitment I made in our earlier discussion on Amendment No. 23, that we will issue guidance requiring social services to review the care package within two weeks of an older person returning to their home from hospital. This review will take place earlier if that person is particularly frail or vulnerable or living alone, which means that any problems can be picked up. As I said, this guidance will be issued under Section 7 of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970. Councils will be under a duty to follow it.
The three-month period between October and December when reimbursement operates in shadow form also provides extra time for the NHS and social services to ensure that the new systems introduced by the Bill function properly and to make any necessary changes. I believe that the monitoring that will be carried out by the new inspection bodies, the two-week review of the care package, the period of shadow operating and the existing incentives on trusts to perform well are powerful enough to prevent the NHS from trying to cut corners in its discharge practice and will ensure that patients are protected when reimbursement is introduced.
This may be the last time that I shall speak with, as it were, any freedom on the Bill, so I conclude by saying that I am grateful to all noble Lords who have informed and illuminated the Bill and its impact on people leaving hospital in a vulnerable condition. It has been a robust but extremely positive and constructive debate. We are all agreed that the Bill is the better for it and it sends a strong powerful signal to those implementing the Bill that Parliament is fully behind it.
I also pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath who carried the Bill through four-fifths of its passage and responded with his usual commitment and intelligence—and slight scepticism at times—but always in good heart. At the end of the day there is absolutely no distance between us. As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said, we have the common interest of the individual patient at heart. We very much hope that this Bill will make a material difference to their prospects when they leave hospital.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 35A to Lords Amendment No. 35. —(Baroness Andrews.)
5.30 p.m.
Earl Howe Earl Howe rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 35A to Lords Amendment No. 35, leave out "agree" and insert "disagree".
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the noble Baroness will know that one of our objections to the Bill—and she has implied this in her remarks—is its one-sidedness. There is a yawning absence in it of any financial incentives and penalties which would bear down on the NHS in a manner commensurate with those bearing down on local authorities. I do not believe that it was an unreasonable expectation on our part that it should have been a more balanced affair than it is. This indeed was the impression conveyed by the Secretary of State when the Government's policy was originally announced. Without such a balance, the risk is that there will be nothing to deter hospitals from discharging patients too early or from rushing through the discharge procedure with excessive speed.
I believe that that is a very real worry. We are not convinced that the gradual introduction of financial flows over the next few years will represent an adequate counterbalance to the measures contained in the Bill, and certainly not for a considerable time. Nevertheless, I do not think that any purpose would be served by sending the amendment back to another place today. I say that partly because of the concessions which the noble Baroness has already made on the issue of monitoring. I was glad to hear what she had to say on that topic. I cannot stress too strongly that it will be the monitoring of how the Bill works in practice that will be of most value in informing and shaping future hospital practice.
That is not to say that ex post facto monitoring is as powerful a determinate of behaviour as financial incentives. We could have hoped for such incentives to be in place from the outset. Alas, they will not be. Nevertheless, I think we have some powerful substitutes in the work that will be done by CHI and its successor.
In the light of that perhaps cautions acceptance of what the noble Baroness has said—I welcome all the thought and care that she has devoted to the Bill since she took over the mantle from the noble Lord—I beg to move in order to give the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, an opportunity to say a few words. I beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 35A to Lords Amendment No. 35, leave out "agree" and insert "disagree". —(Earl Howe.)
Baroness Barker: My Lords, I am sure with the minimum of three days I could get the hang of the procedure. I wish to ask the noble Baroness to clarify

995
something she said. She talked about the reassessment happening within two weeks of discharge from hospital. I understood from her comments on an earlier amendment that the period was two weeks after someone had returned to their own home from intermediate care or another form of care and not just from an acute hospital.
I was being flippant earlier on, but actually I believe that is one of the most important parts of the Bill. It is its underpinning and the determination of whether it works in the best interests of older people. I am extremely serious.
I wish to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. He approached the Bill, as he did many others, with a wonderful mixture of conviction, scepticism, charm, tolerance and occasional bewilderment at the antics of these Benches, for which I thank him. I congratulate the noble Baroness on the way that way she has taken over so effectively.
Finally, I want to put my thanks on record to the Bill team. We have made contributions to this Bill which have been far more of the real world than some of those made in another place. I believe it has been a combined effort by us all to make an unworkable Bill much more workable.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, in response to the noble Baroness's question, I said that we would look at both discharge from hospital and discharge from other forms of care. But all those matters will the subject of consultation. I am sure that the noble Baroness will be able to join in that process.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I join the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, in everything she said about the helpful and constructive approach adopted by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
47 After Clause 17. insert the following new Clause—
"Duration
(1) Subject to subsection (2), Part 1 of this Act shall cease to have effect at the end of five years beginning with the date on which it comes into force.
(2) If the Secretary of State is satisfied that it is necessary for social services authorities to continue making payments in cases where the discharge of patients is delayed for reasons relating to the provision of community care services or services for carers, he may make an order providing that Part 1 of this Act shall continue in force for a further five years.
(3) An order may not be made under subsection (2) unless a draft of that order has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, both Houses of Parliament."
The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason:
47A Because the provisions of Part I should not be made to have only temporary effect.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, that this House do not insist on their Amendment No. 47 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 47A. -(Baroness Andrews)
[Amendment No. 47B not moved.]
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Courts Bill [H.L.]
5.40 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 92.
[Amendments Nos. 140ZA and 140ZB not moved.]
Baroness Scotland of Asthal Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 140ZBA:
Page 45, line 24, leave out second "or"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendments Nos. 140ZBB and 140ZBC:
Page 45, line 27, at end insert ", or

(d) the source of payment under the new method is a government or health service body."

Page 45, line 33, at end insert—
"(1A) For the purposes of section 2(4)(c) and (7)(d) "government or health service body" means a body designated as a government body or a health service body by order made by the Lord Chancellor.
(1B) An order under subsection ( 1A)—

(a) shall be made by statutory instrument, and

(b) shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 140ZBD:
Page 45, line 37, leave out "or"
The noble Baroness said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 140ZBE. In the event of the insolvency of an insurer funding periodical payments, new Section 4, inserted in the Damages Act 1996 by Clause 93, provides that the claimant's payments are fully protected under the Financial Services Compensation Scheme. In order to receive compensation under the scheme, it may be necessary for the claimant to assign his or her right to the payment to the scheme manager. Amendments Nos. 140ZBD and 140ZBE ensure that claimants can do so without having to seek the court's approval. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: I shall know these affectionately as the "zebedee zebedoo-dah" amendments. There must be a better way of listing amendments. The references 140ZBD and 140ZBE give much cause for merriment, but the Minister has moved the amendments with her usual clarity.
On Report, I shall seek to return to the question of whether "or" is disjunctive or conjunctive, and the extent to which throughout the Bill "or" appears

997
where I believe that it should not appear and does not appear where I believe that it should. But that merriment lies ahead. In the mean time, I welcome the amendments.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 140ZBE:
Page 45, line 40, at end insert ", or

( ) a person's power to assign a tight to the scheme manager established under section 212 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000."

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hunt of Wirral Lord Hunt of Wirral moved Amendment No. 140ZC:
Page 46, line 3, leave out from beginning to end of line 42 on page 47.
The noble Lord said: We now move to a very important debate on periodical payments. As I mentioned, they are much welcomed by a range of bodies, including the National Health Service Litigation Authority, the Medical Defence Union, the Medical Protection Society, the Association of British Insurers, the International Underwriting Association and various other bodies representing claimants and defendants.
That is the general welcome. The concern is that there is provision in the Bill for the structured settlement, involving a series of periodical payments, to be reviewed. That appears to be an open-ended situation. If the provision were implemented, there would be genuine concerns that the concept of reviewability would cause more litigation and endless uncertainty. I know that many people involved in work for and on behalf of people with disability believe that that could put claimants under constant scrutiny and that there would be financial instability for defendants, whether they were government departments, the National Health Service or insurers and re-insurers and their policy holders. There is a belief that it could be a fatal flaw.
One of the points made by the Minister that received a warm welcome was that she foresaw the widespread use of periodical payments. I agree that lump sums are unsatisfactory. To some extent, they place huge pressure on the people least able to cope. The Minister added that she did not want the reviewability provisions to jeopardise the new concept. I could not agree more. If the Bill is to allow reviewability in the way presently outlined, some provision must be inserted to restrict its use. The provision for review could pursue the adversarial system for the rest of a claimant's life and impose undue burdens on defendants. In certain cases, insurers might feel that a programme of surveillance was justified, to make sure that the claimant used the funds appropriately.
Several other issues arise from this group of amendments. I realise that it is not a matter for the Minister, but I must point out that seven amendments in my name have been grouped. I know that we are anxious to make progress on the Bill, but we will need
998
time on Report to go into the matters in further detail. I want to hear what the Minister has to say about the amendments before deciding which issues to take forward in a wider debate.
Amendment No. 140ZC would leave out the provision for reviewability. Amendment No. 140C would lay it down clearly that, for reviewability to be allowed, it would have to be envisaged in the original court order that that variation would take place at some stage. The amendment would insert the following words:
"provided that the original court order for periodical payments expressly permits a party to apply to a court for variation in those circumstances".
Amendment No. 141ZA is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, but I have tabled Amendment No. 141ZB, which is a similar amendment. It is a rather lengthy provision, but it would allow variation only if there had been serious deterioration or a substantial improvement. The change would have to be of some magnitude for variation even to kick in at any stage. I shall come back to Amendment No. 141A.
Amendment No. 141AA would delete the provision whereby the Lord Chancellor could take steps, even if those steps would be better taken by the civil justice rules committee. Amendment No. 141 AB would omit lines 27 and 28 from page 46—the Henry VIII provision—which would leave out the opportunity for an order to be brought forward in any way that would amend the enactment. There is another amendment that would delete the words "or amend". Subsection (4) reads:
"An order under this section may apply (with or without modification) or amend an enactment about provisional further damages".
That would create a tremendous uncertainty because it allows anything to be enacted.
Amendment No. 141C seeks to ensure widespread consultation. I do not want to descend into a debate on whether the wording should be "may" or "shall", but I hope that the Minister realises the imperative of consultation. Amendment No. 141D would leave out the opportunity for the Lord Chancellor to consult with,
"such persons as he thinks appropriate",
but to consult,
"as widely as is reasonable in the circumstances".
Perhaps that gives the noble Baroness an opportunity to comment on the extent of the consultation envisaged.
Amendment No. 141E is an important amendment which seeks to ensure that these provisions are not retrospective. Before dealing with Amendments Nos. 141EA and 148A, I shall pause to spend a moment considering retrospection.
The effect of uncertainty cannot be underestimated. Looking back over recent years, there have been many examples of the stockpiling of claims that are awaiting decisions on levels of damages, multipliers, interest rates and now costs. There are also many examples of the backdating of increases in damages and costs. Therefore, there are real concerns that the provision

999
for possible retrospective effect would create a serious problem for all those involved in structured settlements.
To give an example: at the moment there are a number of structured settlements being entered into. That is being encouraged. They are being entered into with the consent of the parties. Will they be entered into when the parties to them realise that now these provisions could be retrospective? The structured settlement into which they are entering could be changed at some stage and reviewability imposed on an already existing agreement that does not allow for it. On the face of the Bill that would be possible. Any comments from the Minister would be much appreciated. Otherwise, I fear that we may see a sudden full stop to the evolution of structured settlements.
That demonstrates the dangers of variation. Although I spoke about the need to restrict the provision, I still return to the fact that most people to whom I have spoken outside this House regard the possibility of variation as a very serious flaw—perhaps even a fundamental flaw—in the development of structured settlements. It is a serious worry.
It is a worry not only to insurers, reinsurers and claimants, but I know that it is a particular worry to the National Health Service. I recall a very effective speech today made by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff. She pointed out that the provision now for the National health Service has been increased so that the anticipated claims for clinical negligence now stand at £5.25 billion. That is an appalling figure. Of course, it takes into account the likelihood of settlement of all claims as determined by actuaries. But in 12 months the total liability has increased by £850 million.
One reason why it has increased so substantially is that there have been a number of retrospective changes to the law which have resulted in damages awards being revisited and increased substantially. As the noble Baroness pointed out, the total of £5.25 billion is not to be paid out in any one year. The actual sum paid out during the 2001–02 financial year amounted to £446 million. But that, in itself, was £31 million more than the amount paid in 2000–01.
Aside from the NHS Litigation Authority, which has made its views very clear, the two main organisations here are the Medical Defence Union and the Medical Protection Society. The MDU has made a strong case against reviewability which includes some of the points I have already made: lack of finality and certainty; difficulty in defining the circumstances that might give rise to review, in particular for the defendant; causation—to which I shall return in a moment; costs; the wishes of the parties and retrospective costs.
Causation is an interesting point. If a structured settlement is reached, but is open to review, in many medical negligence cases or cases involving allegations of medical negligence, it will be necessary to determine the extent to which a change in circumstances is related
1000
to the negligent act rather than, for example, the effects of an illness, old age or another reason unrelated to the original negligence. That would require revisiting the whole problem. I can well understand why the Medical Defence Union is so concerned about this aspect.
The Medical Protection Society has also demonstrated a point made by a whole range of defendants; namely, that the society needs to be able to close its books, as do insurers and reinsurers. Reviewability will create a continuing uncertain liability that would be extremely difficult to manage. For example, the bodies would need to increase their reserves to meet the possibility of an order for increased payments demanded, say, 10, 20, 30 or even 40 years after the initial settlement. Furthermore, the MPS has pointed out that, as a mutual organisation, it collects from its members the subscriptions needed to meet expected liabilities. The introduction of reviewable settlements introduces a huge degree of uncertainty about those future liabilities.
In many cases of clinical negligence a claim that reaches court may well relate to what had happened years earlier. However, the MPS provides indemnity on an occurrence basis; that is, provided that the doctor was in MPS membership at the time of the incident giving rise to the claim, he or she can apply for assistance even if they ceased to be a member long before the claim is made. So the introduction of rules applying to new claims is retrospective from the society's point of view because they apply to past subscription years. The society also makes the point that I have already put forward concerning claimants being spied on.
I shall end on the most serious point of all. Reviewability may inhibit rehabilitation. I believe that there is now a widespread consensus that what is most important in such claims is to ensure that, where appropriate, everyone's efforts concentrate on helping the individual to secure an early and prompt return to work or, in other circumstances, to an early and prompt return to the community. Later we shall address the question of future medical care, but surely the emphasis in all these structured settlements—we wish them well because a system of periodical payments is far better than the old lump sum damages system—should be that the interests of the claimant, the victim, are paramount.
Lastly, as I mentioned earlier, those involved with organisations promoting disability rights feel strongly that in all this, the central focus must be placed on getting an individual back into the work and back into the community. They fear that reviewability may well inhibit the process. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 141ZA, 141A and 141B in this group. This is part of a very important group of amendments. Clause 92 is probably the most controversial clause outside the provisions relating to the administration of the magistrates' courts. It certainly caused great concern to the insurance bodies such as the Association of British Insurers and the Medical Protection Society.

1001
The right to re-open a claim for damages in very limited circumstances has existed for several years by virtue of Section 32A of the Supreme Court Act 1991, which was introduced by a later amendment. Basically, that provides that the original damages may be awarded on a provisional basis in very limited circumstances. Amendment No. 141ZA brings the restrictions on claiming provisional damages into the definition of the circumstances in which it will be possible to re-open an award which has taken the form of periodical payments.
What has to be shown before an order can be made is that in the original case it was proved or admitted that there was a chance at some definite or indefinite time in the future that the injured person would develop, as a result of the act or omission which gave rise to the cause of action, some serious disease or suffer some serious deterioration in his or her physical or mental condition and the court assessed the provisional damages on the assumption that the injured person would not develop the disease or suffer deterioration in his or her condition. That simply transposes those restrictions into periodical payments.
A right to re-open a case in those limited circumstances, whether it be provisional damages or periodical payments, seems justifiable. There are clearly cases where a condition may develop and there may be a serious deterioration in the condition, but it is simply impossible at the time of the hearing to determine. In the past, before it was possible to claim provisional damages, it led to the case being delayed as long as possible so it was possible to ascertain as accurately as may be done, whether the condition was likely to develop or not. Introducing provisional damages has made it unnecessary to delay the case in those circumstances.
There are cases where the damages cannot be easily assessed until a future date when it becomes clearer whether a condition will develop. If the court was forced to come to a final view at the original trial it might award a great deal too much in damages or a great deal too little. I entirely accept that in such circumstances a power of variation is needed both as regards provisional damages and periodical payments. I also believe that these are rare circumstances. I understand that few orders have been made for provisional damages.
Therefore, I agree with most, but not all, of what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, said. The issue on which I disagree is retrospectivity. From what I have said it is obvious that I do not agree that there should be no power of variation, but it should be at a limited level on the basis of the provisional damages limitation.
Amendment No. 141ZA would restrict variation to cases where the court, when making the original order, has expressly allowed the claimant to come back for further damages at a later date.
There are a number of reasons for this. First, if there were to be a general right to come back for damages, it would be likely to add substantially to the cost of insurance. It would also mean, for example, that
1002
medical records relating to any case where the claimant had been awarded damages—or periodical payments—would have to be kept for decades just in case further actions arose.
Despite that, if I thought that, in general, it would be for the benefit of claimants if they were allowed to reopen claims at a later date because of some change in their condition, I would support a general right. However, there is clear evidence—referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff—to show that a general right to reopen a claim for damages would not be in the interests of most claimants because of the importance of closure and the importance of the claimant, having received damages, being able to get on with his or her life.
Under proposed new Section 2B(1) of the Damages Act the Lord Chancellor may allow a variation of an order to be made in any circumstances that he specifies. As I understand it, the Government intend, at any rate initially, to restrict the circumstances in which an order for periodical payments could be reopened. But that would leave the power, which could be exercised by some future Lord Chancellor, to give a general right to reopen cases. I believe that that is inappropriate. Certainty is of great importance here. It is plainly undesirable that insurers should he faced with the risk that, at some time in the future, the Lord Chancellor might return to this legislation and widen the circumstances in which a variation could be made. I believe that we should place the same limits on the variation of periodical payments as apply in primary legislation to the variation of the order for provisional damages.
I turn to Amendment No. 141A. It is largely consequential on Amendment No. 141ZA. It seeks to remove paragraph (b) in proposed new Section 2B(3) of the Damages Act 1996. It would remove the provision under new Section 2B(3) that an order may make provision,
"which has effect irrespective c f the conditions or other terms of the court's order or of the agreement".
That wording is extremely wide. It is highly undesirable to allow existing orders or agreements to be overridden. That should not be allowed to happen. It is not clear, frankly, what is the purpose of new Section 2B(3)(b). It also appears to be in some conflict with the provision in new Section 2B(2)(b), which allows the courts to reopen a structured settlement only if the agreement for settlement expressly allows that to happen. Will the Minister explain in what circumstances the provision in new Section 2B(3)(b) can be used. It may have some legitimate purpose; but, if so, I believe that it could be contained in a narrower set of words.
I have also tabled Amendment No. 141B in this group. Its effect would be to remove the words "or amend" from subsection (4) of proposed new Section 2B. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, referred to that. The subsection states:
"An order under this section may apply (with or without modification) or amend an enactment about provisional or further damages".

1003
While it may be appropriate to allow consequential amendments, the power appears to go a long way beyond consequential amendments. It could be used to alter the existing primary legislation about provisional damages so as to extend the circumstances in which provisional damages could be awarded. That is a matter we have not discussed and will not discuss. It is highly undesirable that it should be possible to introduce the power by secondary legislation even if, as is provided by subsection (6), it has to be by the affirmative resolution procedure.
Finally, I refer briefly to the issue of retrospectivity. I am unable to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, on this part of his argument. There is already a power to award provisional damages. Where there is a power to award provisional damages by definition there must be a power to reopen that award; otherwise the damages would not be provisional. I cannot understand any real difference of principle which would require us to refuse to allow an order for periodical payments to be varied in circumstances where, if the order had been made for provisional damages, it could have been varied. I do not believe that the matter would have the serious consequences suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt.
Subject to that, I entirely agree with the noble Lord's views on the issue. Therefore, I am happy to support in general what he said.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: I have spoken to this group of amendments but perhaps I may add a couple of points and comment on matters raised.
The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, rightly highlights how damaging delays are for patients, in particular if that is on the premise that, "We'll see what is going to happen". I understand that for a small number there is an argument for an interim settlement followed by a rapid review. There is a danger that the patient will feel in a state almost of suspended animation from the time of the interim settlement until the review. The benefits are very small. On balance, unsettled issues for patients can be psychologically damaging.
As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, said, uncertainty hangs over patients. It is like a sword of Damacles. Patients are terrified that they will be watched, with any recovery going against them. Uncertainty works against them in clinical care. Perhaps I may outline the reality of a patient currently going through litigation. Everyone is frightened of looking after him. The patient goes into hospital because he is ill or into another part of healthcare because he has something wrong with him and needs treatment. However, because there is ongoing litigation all clinicians are scared of dealing with the problem. It is a natural response. There is a huge tendency towards defensive medicine. Defensive medicine is not good medicine. With good medicine, one is always undertaking risk assessment and going for management which is of least risk and most benefit to the patient. But there are no absolutes. It is always a matter of professional judgment on behalf of the clinicians.
1004
When one is being defensive in one's practice, that balance and clinical acuity is often impaired. I have seen patients who have gone back for repeated operations, offered to them in good will and with the best of intentions. They have been accepted by the patients in the false hope that they will be a magic answer to their problems but they have only compounded the problems. I had one patient in my care who was operated on 30 times. It all began when he was reoperated on when in the process of a complaint—a litigation—against someone from a previous operation. A downward spiral can occur in clinical care.
The other problem is rehabilitation. I declare an interest, because I run a chronic pain management programme for patients who have chronic intractable pain that has not responded to any interventions when all interventions and investigations have been exhausted. I know from first-hand experience that patients do not do well who undergo litigation and have not achieved closure. They are always worried that someone will say that it is all in their minds, as a way of getting out of financial or care liabilities. Such patients cannot move on in the rehabilitative process, and it becomes almost a waste of expensive resources in pursuing a rehabilitative programme when, psychologically, they and their families are not ready for it.
Such patients come under huge pressure from those around them, who love them. Everything that happens to them is blamed on the original problem. Whenever they get a headache or a backache, which we all get from time to time, it is blamed on the original problem. People tell them that it must be because of what happened to them, which reinforces their inability to rehabilitate and move on. To put it in simple words, it impairs their ability to look at the bits that still work well and maximise them, and to learn to live with the bits that are damaged.
For those reasons, and because of my genuine fear that the clinical care of these patients will be seriously compromised if it is known that they are in the process of litigation that may go on to be revisited, I do not believe that the process of review of structured periodical payments or any other type of settlement would do any patient a service. In fact, I fear that it would do patients a great disservice.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Renton: Unlike the noble Baroness and the two noble Lords who spoke before her, I cannot claim to have had any experience or expertise in the working of this matter. I retired from the Bar when I was 66, which was 28 years ago. However, as a parliamentarian who happens to be a lawyer, I like to see any legislation dealing with the administration of the law put into workable and simple phraseology and practice.
Amendment No. 140ZC would remove from the Bill a system that would cause delays and unnecessary confusion. Surely, the aim of obtaining necessary flexibility should be achieved in ways that do not cause delay. On page 46, in new Section 2B, under the

1005
heading, "Variation of orders and settlements", we find a most elaborate scheme. The Lord Chancellor is given wide powers to cause variation without, it seems, much consultation on his part.
Under subsection (6) we find:
"An order under this section … shall be made by statutory instrument".
It cannot be made,
"unless the Lord Chancellor has consulted such persons as he thinks appropriate".
But who are they? Are they the parties to the action which perhaps took place long before? The order may not be made,
"unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament".
Of course it is right for Parliament to lay down what the law should be and endeavour to achieve justice, but it is extraordinary to suggest that the variation of an order should become the responsibility of Parliament, requiring that a draft be laid and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.
The provision goes into further complication when it states that the statutory instrument,
"may include transitional, consequential or incidental provision".
We are anxious to achieve justice. Indeed, as I understand it, although it is so many years since I practised, the Supreme Court Act 1991 and the Damages Act 1996 have caused justice to be further obtained. However, I sympathise with the views put forward by my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral when he criticises the whole scheme of new Section 2B. I most earnestly hope that the noble Baroness, on behalf of the Government, will think twice about it.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: I have just one small point. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, was speaking, as I understood it, in contemplation of the Lord Chancellor making an order with regard to a specific case. I certainly had not so read it. I had thought that this was a power to create categories of case in which the court can take that action. Perhaps the Minister will tell me whether I am right about that.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I thank all noble Lords who have so far spoken. A number of themes are clear. First, there is general assent to the need for periodical payments and for them to be robust. Secondly, there is total agreement that closure—mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff—for claimants who find themselves involved in this sort of litigation is absolutely critical. We hope that the way in which the Bill is currently phrased will enable such closure to take place, and the variation which is permitted within the Bill will not do violence to that principle. This group contains some very complex and detailed amendments and I want to do each of them justice. I think that they merit individual consideration.
These amendments, none of which is consequential on any other, all relate to the provisions in the Bill for the variation of periodical payments orders and settlements. Amendment No. 140ZC would remove Section 2B entirely. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, will
1006
not be surprised to hear that the Government cannot accept this amendment. The principal purpose of periodical payments is to meet as accurately as possible the actual needs of claimants as they arise. The provision of a power to allow scope for variation in defined circumstances is an important element in realising the full benefit of periodical payments. I say in passing that the comment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, was apposite.
Our recent consultation paper sought views on a number of options. The majority of respondents. were in favour of some form of variation, with a significant number wanting something much wider that that which we are now proposing. However, I fully understand the views expressed by the insurance industry and medical defence organisations—and their desire for certainty regarding their outstanding liabilities, which were fully outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. For that reason, we have adopted a cautious approach to variation.
As stated in the Explanatory Notes, the order will, as far as practicable, adopt the mechanism currently applying to claims for provisional damages. The circumstances in which further damages may be requested shall be set out in the initial order oft he court and relate only to the individual claimant's medical condition attributable to the original accident.
There are two small but important differences when compared with provisional damages: the rules on variation will allow defendants to apply, and the circumstances will include both deterioration and improvements. Circumstances sufficient to justify a variation will have to amount to a significant change, which will keep minor disputes away from the courts.
Our intention is that the power to vary awards of periodical payments will be tightly drafted and carefully controlled—including a requirement for the court's permission before any application can be made. Any future exercise of the Lord Chancellor's power to specify the circumstances in which a n order can be varied would be subject to consultation and affirmative resolution by Parliament.
Such a restricted system of variation should not require additional compensation over and above that already payable. Insurers are already providing for such eventualities—usually by way of contingency payments—but because the amount of the award has to be calculated at the time of the original order, that can involve estimates of future need that may not be accurate. I am sure that your Lordships have known of many such instances.
In some cases, claimants might not receive the compensation to which they are justly entitled, resulting in their needs not being met or having to be funded by the taxpayer. In other cases, defendants and insurers may make substantial and unnecessary payments for events that never occur. That is clearly the worst of both worlds.
In cases where there are real difficulties in assessing the likelihood of a claimant developing a particular medical condition or overcoming a medical disability at the time when the periodical payments order is

1007
made, a variable order can provide the best solution. The Government recognise that in the majority of cases a non-variable award is likely to be more appropriate. Many foreseeable changes can be built into an annuity—and some are. The annuity can be used in a flexible way to reflect anticipated changes in the claimant's needs. There is no reason for that not to continue. The more creative that the insurance industry can be in providing flexible annuities to meet future change, the less likely that wider scope for variation will be needed. It will be less likely too that the order-making power will need to be used again.
I reassure the Committee that we have no plans to extend the scope of variation after the initial order. We want to see how the intended regime works. But that should not prevent us from keeping open the option of extending or limiting further the extent of variation in the light of experience and future developments in the insurance market, or making any minor adjustments should that prove necessary. I believe that an order-making power provides the flexibility to do so and is the best way of dealing with variation. The need for consultation and affirmative resolution will ensure that any future proposal—and, as I have indicated, none is planned—is subjected to rigorous scrutiny and debate. We believe that the greater use of periodical payments will have benefits not only for claimants but also for defendants and their insurers and that the power to vary is a necessary and important part of the new system.
I understand and have listened carefully to the anxieties expressed. I hope that now, as I respond to specific amendments in turn, I shall be able to allay those anxieties to noble Lords' satisfaction. Amendment No. 140C would limit the power to vary to circumstances where the original court order expressly permits it. We intend that the initial order will allow variation only where it is specifically provided for in the court order. This type of detail is more appropriate to the order-making power. We believe that it is unnecessary and unduly restrictive to include such a requirement in primary legislation.
Amendments Nos. 141ZA and 141ZB limit the provisions that may be included by the Lord Chancellor in an order enabling the upward variation of a court order for periodical payments. The limits they would introduce are based on the wording of Section 32A of the Supreme Court Act 1981 relating to the courts' existing power to award provisional damages, but are considerably more restrictive. Section 32A permits provisional damages to be awarded where there is proved or admitted to be a chance that, at some definite or indefinite time in the future, the claimant will develop some serious disease or suffer some serious deterioration in their physical or mental condition as a result of the defendant's act or omission.
The amendments would require proof or admission at the time of the original court order that the disease, deterioration, and, in the case of Amendment No. 141ZB, improvement, would occur.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: I must point out that Amendment No. 141ZA states that it has to be proved or admitted in the original hearing that,
"there was a chance that at some definite or indefinite time in the future".
I confess that in my original amendment I left out the words about chance, but it was replaced by the present version, which refers to "a chance" rather than to proof.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his clarification. By restricting the scope of the order to circumstances where it was proved or admitted that the disease, deterioration or improvement in the claimant's condition would definitely occur rather than where there was a chance that it would occur the amendments would prevent our making the initial order in the terms we propose, which go no further than the provisional damages. If the noble Lord seeks to replicate the position in relation to provisional damage there is probably nothing between us.
Restricting the terms of variable periodical payments beyond those governing provisional damages would discourage their use and could force awards to be made by way of lump sums and provisional damages where variable periodical payments were more suitable. That is our worry. By preventing any future orders being made in different terms in the light of experience and future developments in the insurance market, the amendments would undermine the purpose of the order-making power. Not only would they prevent extensions to the scope for variation, they would also prevent any restriction that might be necessary.
Amendment No. 141A proposes the removal of the provision that allows an order for variation made by the Lord Chancellor under Section 2B(1) to have effect irrespective of the original terms and conditions of the court order or agreement. That provision is intended to ensure that the framework for the order-making power is wide enough to capture all possible eventualities for variation. Any such order would of course be subject to consultation and the affirmative resolution of Parliament under the terms of Section 2B(6).
However, I recognise the concern outlined by noble Lords and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, about the provision. They fear that it could create unacceptably high levels of uncertainty, and the Government are therefore willing to accept the amendment. I hope that that gives the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, pleasure.
Amendment No. 141AA removes the provision enabling an order of the Lord Chancellor to make provision of a kind that could be made by civil procedure rules. The provision in the Bill is intended to provide greater flexibility, as it is likely that provisions relating to variation may contain elements of substantive law which would be more appropriate to an order than rules of court. There may also be occasions where it is more efficient to deal with a particular matter

1009
wholly by order rather than by rules. As noble Lords are aware, rules of court are subject to negative resolution by Parliament. If it is decided to implement any provision by way of an order, it will be subject to consultation and the greater scrutiny of affirmative resolution.
Amendments Nos. 141AB and 141B would prevent an order for variation amending legislation governing provisional damages. Amendment No. 141AB would also prevent an order from applying such legislation. As we intend that the initial order for variation will operate on similar terms to that of provisional damages, it is clearly practical that an order should be able to apply the legislation that governs those damages. There is also the possibility that the courts may wish to award a lump sum by way of provisional damages in conjunction with a variable periodical payments order. If the power to amend provisional damages legislation was removed from the scope of the order-making power, any necessary amendments to ensure that the two regimes could operate in tandem would have to be made through primary legislation instead. That would be extremely cumbersome and inefficient. We believe that the most effective way to achieve compatibility is through the order-making power. That provision has, of course, been considered by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which did not consider that the attention of the House needed to be drawn to it.
Amendment No. 141C raises a drafting point. The use of the word "may" in Section 2B(6)(b) is standard drafting and is not permissive but prescriptive. It is used elsewhere in the Bill. The Lord Chancellor will be required to consult before making an order under Section 2B(1). I hope that the noble Lord will agree that the amendment is unnecessary.
The Bill requires the Lord Chancellor to consult,
"such persons as he thinks appropriate".
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, raised that issue in relation to Amendment No. 141D. He and the noble Lord, Lord Renton, asked about the people whom the Lord Chancellor was likely to consult. Consultation will include—I hesitate to call them the usual suspects—the legal profession, the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers, the Forum of Insurance Lawyers, the insurance industry, the Association of British Insurers, medical defence organisations, the National Health Service Litigation Authority, the judiciary, the Civil Justice Council, disability groups and other government departments. It will be available on the departmental website.
Lord Renton: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. She has now made it clear that, although it appears to me from the wording of the clause that the Lord Chancellor can require the courts to deal with cases on an individual basis, that is not the intention of it and that, therefore, there is no question of particular cases being dealt with by an order by the Lord Chancellor but merely dealt with by the powers given to the courts.
1010
That being so, and I suppose I must apologise for thinking that it could be meant the other way. I believe that between now and Report the Government should consider the wording of the clause in case other people imagine—it is quite easy to interpret it as such—that it gives power for action to be taken in individual cases.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I hear and accept what the noble Lord says. However, I hope that during these debates in Committee we shall give those who come to construe the Bill in due course the kind of information that will enable them to be clear as to how these matters should properly be read. I hope that that will prove to be of assistance to them.
Amendment No. 141D would replace the words,
"such persons as he thinks appropriate",
with the words,
"as widely as is reasonable in the circumstances".
The wording used in the Bill is not intended to limit the scope of consultation. It will of course be important to seek the views of all those with an interest before any change is made. If Parliament is not satisfied with the degree of consultation in any particular instance, then it will be able to indicate that under the affirmative resolution procedure. Therefore, I believe that Amendment No. 141D adds nothing further to the existing provision.
Amendment No. 141E provides that an order for variation would apply only to claims arising after the date of the commencement of this section. Amendment No. 141EA has a similar effect but limits the application of an order further—that is, to injuries which occur after the date of commencement. Although I recognise the general concerns of defendants and insurers on the "retrospective" effect of legislative change, the initial order will be no more than is provided for under the current system of provisional damages. I understand that those damages cause no difficulty at present.
In those circumstances, where it is known that there is a chance of medical deterioration in the future, compensation is now paid, one way or another, either as provisional damages or built into the award as a contingency payment. As I explained, this latter practice may well lead to overcompensation overall while leaving some people who need it undercompensated. Where the court makes a variable periodical payment order, insurers should be able to reserve or reinsure against that, as they do now with provisional damages orders.
If the provisions relating to the court's power to vary periodical payments applied only to claims arising or injuries occurring after the date of commencement, it could be several years before the provisions took effect. In the meantime, awards would continue to have to include provision for events which might never occur in cases where a variable order might be more appropriate. The precise transitional arrangements for the provisions regarding periodical payments have yet to be settled.
However, I can say now that the relevant clauses of the Bill will not apply to claims concluded by its implementation date. I hope that that statement will

1011
give the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, the clarity and assurance that he needs in relation to this difficult and, I accept, testing issue.
While I understand the need for suitable insurance products to fund variable periodical payments, it is not practical to require the Lord Chancellor to be satisfied with all the arrangements that might be put forward by defendants before the provisions come into effect, as Amendment No. 148A would require. Under the intended terms of the initial order, the possibility of variation will be known at the time of the original court order. As I have said, insurers should be able to reserve or reinsure against that.
In addition, the court will have to be satisfied before making a periodical payments order that the continuity of the payments is reasonably secure. It would be open to the defendant to inform the court if the terms of an order would cause particular difficulties. In the event that a second order under the order-making power was considered, the need for different funding options would undoubtedly be taken into account and consulted upon. I therefore invite noble Lords not to press those amendments.
I have tried to answer comprehensively, because these are difficult issues. There has been a lot of worry and concern among all parties about how they will operate, but I hope that there is now sufficient clarity for noble Lords to be comfortable that these are sound provisions that they can support.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: I am obviously grateful to the Government for accepting Amendment No. 141A. We shall have to return to Amendments Nos. 141ZA and 141B, together with other amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, no doubt, because there is still some difference of opinion between us. I am particularly concerned that it is desirable in everybody's interests that the restrictions on the making of orders should be parallel with those in relation to provisional damages and that that should be on the face of the Bill.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: This has been a very important debate. We have spent over an hour productively. There have been some very important speeches. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, on her moving account of the serious problems that could be caused to rehabilitation. She gave us a practical insight into some of those difficulties. With great experience behind her words, that was of great benefit to the Committee. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, on his points. If he had not tabled the amendment to delete subsection (4), I would have done so. I therefore share his delight about the Minister's agreement to delete that subsection, although the noble Lord must take the credit.
My noble friend Lord Renton made an important point, although it was helpful to have the contribution of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, to put it in context. We shall have to consider further the
1012
point raised by my noble friend. On the face of it, his interpretation of events looks reasonable, but I take the point of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, that that may not be the effect and we must look at the issue further. I thank my noble friend for his comments.
I praise the noble Baroness, who has given the Committee a meticulous and reassuring response. As she knows, there have been some serious concerns. Her statement in summing up this wide-ranging debate will give comfort to those who have had serious cause for concern. She did not answer all the points, but I welcome the wording that she has used, in particular the adoption of a cautious approach to variation, the circumstances that she has clearly set out and the way in which she has made clear that the relevant clauses will not apply to claims concluded by the implementation date of the Bill. That series of matters is of enormous importance. We must now take time to examine carefully what the noble Baroness has said. I believe that I could summarise by saying that she has done much to reassure those who had cause for concern. It is now our task to set her words against the terminology of the Bill to ensure that it has the effect she seeks.
Sadly, rising stars do not stay in the same place for very long. I am sure that the noble Baroness, when she looks down on us from a new Cabinet position in the short time—I suppose I must say—left for the Government, she will understand that we must make sure that the legislation will apply to her successor of whichever colour. It may well occur that her successor does not share her views that it should be as restricted as she has announced, particularly in later form. I hope she will now give us an opportunity to think carefully about what she has said this evening, but we thank her for her reassuring words. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 140A not moved.]
[Amendment No. 140B had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 140C not moved.]
[Amendment No. 141 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendments Nos. 141ZA and 141ZB not moved.]
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 141A:
Page 46, leave out lines 17 and 18.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 141AA to 141EA not moved.]
Baroness Scotland of Asthal Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 141F:
Page 47, line 12, after "court" insert "in so far as it is"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving the amendment, I shall speak also to the other amendments in the group. It is intended that the Bill should maintain the present position that periodical payments in respect of personal injury are exempt from income tax. The amendments ensure that the provisions of Clause 92 accurately achieve this.
Amendments Nos. 141F, 141G, 141H and 141K clarify that the tax exemption for periodical payments paid in respect of personal injuries does not extend to other types of damages.
Amendments Nos. 141J, 141L and 141M clarify that periodical payments made by the Motor Insurers' Bureau, which compensates the victims of uninsured and untraced drivers, are tax exempt.
Amendments Nos. 141P, 141Q and 141R reflect these changes in the definition of "periodical payments" in Clause 93. They appear on the Marshalled List under Clause 92, but that should be Clause 93.
Amendments Nos. 141N and 153 remove subsection (8) from Section 329AA of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988, because the terms it applies no longer appear in the section as amended. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendments Nos. 141G to 141N:
Page 47, line 13, at end insert ", or"
Page 47, line 14, leave out "settling" and insert "in so far as it settles"
Page 47, line 16, leave out from "varied)," to end of line 22.
Page 47, line 26, leave out "and" and insert—

"(ba) in subsection (6) after "claim or action for" insert "damages in respect of,"

Page 47, line 32, leave out "and"
Page 47, line 36, at end insert—
", and

(c) the reference to an agreement in so far as it settles a claim or action for damages in respect of personal injury also includes a reference to an undertaking given by the Motor Insurers' Bureau (being the company of that name incorporated on 14th June 1946 under the Companies Act 1929), or an Article 75 insurer under the Bureau's Articles of Association, in relation to a claim or action in respect of personal injury.""

Page 47, line 36, at end insert—
", and.

(d) omit subsection (8)."

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 92, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 93 [Periodical payments: security]:
Baroness Scotland of Asthal Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendments Nos. 141P to 141S:
Page 48, line 34, after "court" insert "in so far as it is"
Page 48, line 35, at end insert ", or"
Page 48, line 36, leave out "settling" and insert "in so far as it settles"
Page 48, line 37, leave out from "varied)," to end of line 42 and insert—

"(6) In subsection (5)(b) the reference to an agreement in so far as it settles a claim or action for damages in respect of personal injury includes a reference to an undertaking given by the Motor Insurers' Bureau (being the company of that name incorporated on 14th June 1946 under the Companies Act 1929), or an Article 75 insurer under the Bureau's Articles of Association, in relation to a claim or action in respect of personal injury.""

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 93, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 94 [Power to alter judicial titles: Northern Ireland]:
[Amendment No. 142 not moved.]
Clause 94 agreed to.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 142A:
After Clause 95, insert the following new clause—
"ALTERATION OF PLACE FIXED FOR CROWN COURT TRIAL: NORTHERN IRELAND
An application under section 48(3) of the 1978 Act (application for variation of place fixed for Crown Court trial) is no longer required to be heard in open court; and accordingly section 48(4) of the 1978 Act ceases to have effect."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 96 agreed to.
Clause 97 [Rules, regulations and orders]:
[Amendment No. 143 not moved.]
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 144:
Page 52, line 1, after "made" insert "under section 31(4) which contains provision of the type specified in section 31(5) or"
The noble Baroness said: I hate to spoil the party after such a long run of amendments not moved or formally moved. I shall speak to an amendment for a change. Earlier in the Bill, some weeks ago, we debated the pilot schemes for fines enforcement that will be launched under Clause 31 and Schedule 2. Orders made under Clause 31(4) allow pilot schemes to be introduced in particular areas and, in relation to those areas, may modify Schedule 2 or any enactment in connection with its operation.
When the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform considered the matter, it said that it would accept that delegation was appropriate as would be the negative procedure. But it said that that would be in the context of Parliament approving the idea of pilot schemes as proposed in the Bill. The difficulty is that, when we debated those matters some weeks ago, noble Lords demonstrated significant concerns about the operation of the new pilot scheme. We share the Government's objective of trying to ensure that fines collection is far more effective and efficient than at present. But considerable concerns were expressed about the manner in which the Government intend that the new scheme should come into operation.
So the reason for tabling the amendment is to ask the Minister whether she has taken the opportunity in the intervening weeks since our last debate to reflect further on whether the negative procedure might be appropriate in this matter, and, if she has so reflected, to share her conclusions with the Committee. If she has not had the opportunity so to consider, will she undertake to do so before we reach the matter, as we surely shall, on Report? I beg to move.
7 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: As the noble Baroness explained in moving the amendment, it would make a modification to ensure that pilot schemes were subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
We have given the matter careful thought, and we fully understand the interest in the details of the proposed arrangements that prompted the amendment. The enforcement measures are a radical departure from existing practice, and the Government believe that they should be thoroughly tested before implementation. There would be little merit in piloting the measures unless it were possible to change or even abandon elements of the package that did not work as intended. Pilots will be carried out immediately following Royal Assent, during late 2003 or early 2004, with the aim of introducing the fines collection scheme as soon as possible following evaluation.
The pilots will allow different elements of the scheme to be tested in different areas so that their effectiveness in improving the payment rate can be evaluated. For example, a discount for prompt payment and/or an increase for default may be piloted in one area; wheel clamping or registration of the debt as sanctions for defaulters may be piloted in another.
As the Bill stands, the Lord Chancellor may, once the pilot schemes have been evaluated, make an order under Clause 31(8) modifying Schedule 2 and associated legislation in the light of experience of the pilots. That final package, which may still be the whole scheme as presently envisaged or a modified scheme, would then be put to Parliament for approval under the affirmative resolution procedure before being rolled out nationally. That approach will enable the Government to bring forward a package of tried and tested measures that, we can be sure, will deliver the improvements in performance that the Committee will want to see.
Amendment No. 144 would make the piloting of the schemes, details such as which parts of the scheme were to be piloted in which area and any temporary change to enactments to allow the pilots to take place subject to affirmative resolution. The Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform found that the power as a negative resolution had been appropriately delegated.
The final package will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, and that provides the necessary flexibility. I repeat that the Select Committee found that, in this instance, the negative resolution procedure was as appropriately delegated. We are not providing a blank cheque, and there is an opportunity to have a full and detailed debate on the details of the final scheme. We think that we have covered the concerns that the noble Baroness understandably raised in moving the amendment.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. It goes further than was possible when we covered the matters in a grouping on the operation of the pilot schemes.
1016
I remind the Minister that the Select Committee put its approbation of the negative procedure in the context that it applied only if Parliament approved the pilot scheme, which we have not yet done. That is why I do not wish to take the matter further, even if I disagreed wholly with the Minister, which I do not.
I shall consider the Minister's explanation in the light of the discussions we shall have on Report. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 144A:
Page 52, line 2, after "officers)" insert ", section 68 (power to amend legislation in connection with Criminal Procedure Rules) or section 75 (power to amend legislation in connection with Family Procedure Rules)"
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 144A, I shall speak to Amendment No. 145. Clauses 68 and 75 contain powers for the Government to amend legislation in connection with criminal and family rules respectively. At the moment, they are subject only to the negative resolution procedure. Our view is that that is inadequate, and the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform agreed with that view in its second report, dated 11th December, 2002.
I simply tabled Amendment No. 144A in order to ask the Government when they intend meeting the commitment that they have already given on this matter to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee—in their response to the Committee's report on the Bill at Annex 2 of the seventh report of the Committee—and the commitment given by the Minister on 11th February at col. 658.
After hearing the commitment made by the Minister on that date, I eagerly awaited sight of a government amendment. However, naturally patient as I am in all matters, last week I gave up on patience and tabled my amendment.
Earlier today the Minister was gracious enough to accept another amendment. I live in hope that she might accept this one. However, if she is unable to do so, I should love to know why the drafting is wrong and why the Government are to table an amendment at a later stage—or, indeed, if they will bring one forward.
I shall speak briefly also to Amendment No. 145, grouped with Amendment No. 144A. I tabled this amendment in response to paragraph 17 of the Select Committee's report. We have debated at length the Government's plans to divide England and Wales into administrative areas to be known as local justice areas. That is dealt with in Clause 8.
Clause 97(4)(a) states that the first order under Clause 8 shall be laid before Parliament only. In other words, it is not subject to the affirmative or, indeed, the negative procedure. Subsequent orders under Clause 8 will be subject to the negative procedure, as set out in Clause 97(5). The reason for the Government doing that is that the first order,
"will simply be renaming petty sessions areas as local justice areas and will not change any boundaries".

1017
But, as the Committee points out, the power to make the first order is not limited in this way. The Committee goes on to state that it considers that unless it is so limited, there is no reason why the first order should not he subject to the same procedure as subsequent ones. I agree on that matter too. It is another case in which it is to be hoped that the Minister will say that she will accept the amendment or, indeed, return with a better drafted amendment. But how on earth one could draft something better than leaving out paragraph (a), I shall live and learn! I beg to move.
Lord Goodhart: Amendment No. 146 standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford and myself is also in this group. It deals with the statutory instruments made for the purpose of changing court fees. The existing position is that an order to vary fees must be laid before Parliament. It is not subject to any parliamentary scrutiny and it cannot be prayed against.
Clause 87, taken together with Clause 97(4) would keep the existing position. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee criticised this and recommended that a fees order should be subject to the negative procedure and so could be prayed against. In response to the Committee, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said in his letter:
"The Committee was also concerned about the scrutiny afforded to Clause 87. allowing the Lord Chancellor to set fees by order. I have carefully considered the views of the Committee and agree that it would he preferable that this clause be subject to negative resolution".
This amendment does exactly that. It takes the order under Clause 87 out of the list of orders referred to in Clause 97(4) which lists those amendments which are not subject to parliamentary procedure.
Orders relating to fees under Clause 87 would then fall to be covered by Clause 97(5) which applies the negative resolution procedure to all statutory instruments not otherwise dealt with. As the Government have not put down their own amendment I hope that they will accept ours. I, too, support the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, in her Amendments Nos. 144A and 145.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I think that I shall make noble Lords happier, though I feel rather mean because I believe that my noble friend Lady Scotland should be doing so having toiled as long as she has today.
I shall work through each of the amendments in turn. Amendment No. 144A is similar to an amendment tabled earlier in Committee. On that occasion, I said to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart—at col. 658 of the Official Report of 11th February 2003—that it was the Government's intention to follow the recommendation of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform with regard to Clauses 68 and 75.
The Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform reported that it was not satisfied that the Government had made the case for the negative
1018
resolution procedure in those clauses. As a consequence, in January the Lord Chancellor responded to the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, stating that he accepted the recommendation and would consider an appropriate amendment to the clause.
I want to reassure noble Lords once again that this remains the Government's intention. We shall bring forward an amendment to the Bill on Report addressing the issue. The amendment will provide that any order made under these clauses to amend or repeal primary legislation would be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
The effect of Amendment No. 145 would be to make the first order made under Clause 8 setting up local justice areas subject to the negative resolution procedure. We are grateful to noble Lords for raising the matter. If the amendment has been prompted by concerns that the Lord Chancellor would radically alter local boundaries when making the first order under Clause 8, then the amendment is unnecessary. I can assure noble Lords once again that the boundaries of local justice areas will be the same as those of petty session areas when the new arrangements set out in the Bill come into operation.
As I said during our debate on Amendment No. 35, we shall spell this out in the transitional provisions of the Bill to be introduced as a government amendment. Current petty session area boundaries are of course subject to changes made by magistrates' courts committees using the existing procedures. In our view it is not necessary to make the first order under Clause 8 subject to any parliamentary procedure.
Finally, I turn to Amendment No. 146. Its effect would be to make orders under Clause 87 subject to the negative resolution procedure. The current, separate fee-setting powers for each of the three tiers of courts are not subject to parliamentary scrutiny and Clause 87 sought to replicate that position. However, following the reports of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform and the Human Rights Select Committee, along with the views wisely expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, in his remarks at Second Reading, the Lord Chancellor has considered the matter again and has determined that it would be preferable if this clause was subject to the negative resolution procedure.
While the Government agree with the principle behind the noble Lord's amendment, I am afraid that, as currently drafted, it is technically deficient. On page 52 of the Bill, the word "or" should be inserted at the end of line 6, while the word "or" should be deleted at the end of line 8, in addition to the noble Lord's proposal to omit paragraph (c) in line 9.
I can confirm that the Government intend to bring forward an amendment on Report to achieve the same effect and I therefore invite the noble Lord not to press his amendment.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: We wait with bated breath to see what superior drafting the Government bring forward, but we welcome the commitments just

1019
made by the Minister. However, I am little concerned with regard to his response to Amendment No. 145 when he spoke of the government amendment being part of a package of transitional provisions. Naturally we shall want to look at that to ensure that it properly covers the point. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 145 and 146 not moved.]
Clause 97 agreed to.
Clause 98 [Minor and consequential amendments, repeals, etc.]:
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 147:
Page 52, line 31, at end insert—
"( ) An order under subsection (3) shall not be made until a draft has been laid before both Houses of Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House."
The noble Baroness said: In moving the amendment, I shall, with the leave of the Committee, speak to Amendment No. 148 and also to Clause 98 stand part. I appreciate that I shall take a little longer than is usually the case when moving amendments, but I thought it appropriate to group these together and, it is hoped, knock the matter on the head today rather than take up time on Report. I hope to reach a position where I shall not need to return to this matter at the next stage.
I tabled Amendment No. 147 because I was concerned that the Government thought that the negative procedure would be appropriate for future amendments to primary legislation in connection with the Bill. It is important that changes to primary legislation are made by affirmative order. I have raised these matters in the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, during our previous debates on the Crime (International Co-operation) Bill. I have not done so within the context of this Bill.
The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee points out that Clause 98 enables the Lord Chancellor to lay orders to make any supplementary, incidental or consequential provision and any transitory, transitional or saving provision which he believes is necessary or expedient for the purposes of, in consequence of, or for giving full effect to any provision of the Bill. That includes the power to amend or repeal primary legislation. But these orders are only subject to the negative procedure. So the committee's conclusion is that in view of the fact that orders under that section may amend or repeal primary legislation, the Committee may wish to consider whether the negative procedure under this section is justified.
I have concerns overall about Henry VIII clauses. I was very intrigued to note the suggestion of the chairman of the Select Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, in the debate on 14th January. He spoke not as chairman, but as an individual giving his personal views. He said that the debate on these matters,
1020
"goes right to the heart of the key constitutional question of the limits of executive power, and of the ability as well as the duty of Parliament to prevent the unchecked extension of these limits"".—[Official Report, 14/1/03; col. 165.]
He went on to raise the question of whether there should be sunset clauses on such matters.
My questions relate to issues which arose from that debate. I begin with the last first, which is the matter of sunset clauses. I appreciate that the delegated powers committee has a further special report on such clauses, which would be valuable. I ask the Minister to undertake that the Lord Chancellor's Department reviews very carefully the use of sunset clauses and how it might concentrate the minds of Ministers as regards the proper drafting of Bills. As ever, I do not point the finger of blame at those who physically draft the Bills. They are at the mercy of Ministers who change their minds at the last minute, sometimes with good reason, but sometimes not. Has the Lord Chancellor's Department any intention to review the possible good uses of sunset clauses?
I have two specific questions which relate to the issues raised by the scrutiny committee. The first is as regards the presumption in favour of the affirmative procedure. The committee recommended this. As regards this Bill, it said at that stage that if the Government choose the negative procedure they should give their reasons in full before departing from the affirmative procedure and the Explanatory Notes. Why should these notes precede the comments of a Select Committee?
The question is whether in future the Lord Chancellor's Department will be of good behaviour or be bound over, so to speak. However, I understand now from Europe that we are not allowed to say that. I shall be a recidivist and keep to the old wording for the time being. Could the Government give an assurance that the LCD will follow the committee's recommendation on that matter?
As regards the wording of such clauses, the committee accepted that they could not always follow a standard form, but it was persuaded that when the Government drafted the Explanatory Notes they should offer an explanation of the reasons why a particular form of wording has been used in each case for a Henry VIII clause. Will the Lord Chancellor's Department follow that procedure in future if there is another blockbuster Bill or a teeny-weeny one? I hope that it is going to follow good practice on that. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: We are grateful to the noble Baroness for tabling this amendment, which raises wider issues surrounding delegated powers contained in legislation of which the Government are well aware. The Government are keen to take seriously the views of all those with an interest in powers of this nature, particularly those of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. Indeed, the report of the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, published on 11th December last year was welcomed by the Lord Chancellor in his letter of 6th January. We agreed to address all of the committee's concerns. We have given

1021
that undertaking. As I am sure the Committee is aware, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, in its special report on delegated powers, recommended a,
"presumption in favour of the affirmative procedure",
for such powers. My noble and learned friend Lord Williams, in response to the report, expressed the view that each case should be looked at individually; and, in this case, we agree that amendments to primary legislation should be subject to the affirmative procedure. To this end, we intend to bring forward a government amendment which will subject all orders by the Lord Chancellor amending primary legislation under Clause 98 to the affirmative resolution procedure. It would clearly not be sensible to subject amendments to statutory instruments to the affirmative resolution procedure. I am sure that that is not the intention of the noble Baroness, although it would be the result were the amendment to be accepted.
Amendment No. 148 proposes that orders made by the Lord Chancellor for supplementary, consequential and transitional provisions be limited to a period of three years following the passing of the Act.
I do not think that we can be quite so accommodating on this amendment as on the previous one. The provision under Clause 98, as I am sure the noble Baroness will be aware, is necessary for a number of reasons. Given the scale of the consequential amendments necessitated by the Bill, we believe that a clause of this nature is unavoidable. It is impossible to know which other Bills in the current parliamentary Session will receive Royal Assent before the Courts Bill. This could mean that Bills containing, for example, references to petty sessions areas could be enacted before provisions in the Courts Bill, requiring a consequential amendment.
We believe, therefore, that imposing an arbitrary time limit on this provision could impair the effectiveness of the Bill. It is, unfortunately, impossible to ensure that all references to petty sessions areas, for example, are dealt with before the expiry of, say, a three-year period. Noble Lords may be amazed to learn that we have identified some 1,025 different references to petty sessions in primary and secondary legislation, all of which would need to be dealt with, whether by the Bill or by orders made under it. It is not simply a matter of substituting one phrase for another in every case. Some legislation dates back to the 19th century and is not easy to amend. As your Lordships can imagine, guaranteeing that we covered every single reference would be something of a major exercise, and, were one to be identified at a later stage, the amendment would mean that a suitable opportunity would have to be found to amend the relevant statute by primary legislation.
I would, however, like to reassure the noble Baroness that the scope of this order-making power is limited and will be used only to make minor supplementary, incidental or consequential amendments or transitional provisions. It is our intention to be specific in using the power. It would not be possible for an order made under this clause to make amendments to legislation introducing new policy.
1022
In addition, as it is our intention to make orders which amend primary legislation subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, this House will have the opportunity to debate any such amendments whenever made. I hope that that reassurance and the explanation I have given go some way towards satisfying the noble Baroness and that she will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
The noble Baroness asked whether the Lord Chancellor would keep these matters under review. Yes, of course, the Lord Chancellor will keep all the matters relating to sunset clauses and so on under very careful review.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful to the Minister for his helpful and thorough response. I, too, shall keep matters under review, in particular as regards good behaviour on what should or should not appear in the Explanatory Notes.
I am grateful to the Minister for telling us about the scale of consequential amendments necessitated by the Bill. It chills the heart and numbs the brain to think of the numbers that he has thrown at us. How I look forward to them! I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 148 to 148A not moved.]
Clause 98 agreed to.
Schedule 6 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
Lord Donaldson of Lymington Lord Donaldson of Lymington moved Amendment No. 149:
Page 104, line 19, at end insert—
"Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1993 (c. 8)
In section 26 (7) (retirement date for holders of certain judicial offices etc.)—

(a) at the end of paragraph (a), insert the words "or a person who has been a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary or a judge of the Court of Appeal";

(b) at the end of paragraph (b), insert the words "or a person who has been a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary or a judge of the Court of Appeal"; and

(c) at the end of paragraph (c), insert the words "unless he is a person who has been a judge of the Court of Appeal"."

The noble and learned Lord said: There have been many times when I wondered whether this day would ever come. The provision was the last amendment. It has been overtaken by some later amendments. But the day has now come and I am very happy to move the amendment.
Let me clarify that where the amendment states,
"In section 26(7) (retirement date for holders of certain judicial offices etc.)",
we are not concerned with retirement dates but 'with "etc". Section 26(7) of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1993 states:
"After the day on which a person attains the age of 75, he shall not hold any relevant office nor shall he—

(a) be a member of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council…

1023

(b) participate in the hearing and determination of any appeal, or any petition for leave to appeal, to the House of Lords, unless he is the Lord Chancellor;

(c) act as a judge under or by virtue of section 9(1) of the Supreme Court Act 1981".

My amendment does not affect the question of whether anyone shall continue to hold a relevant office after the age of 75 because it refers throughout to former holders of office.
So when one strips it down, one comes to this position: if the amendment is agreed, we shall restore the position to that which existed when I ceased to be Master of the Rolls in 1992 whereby, when pressed for judicial manpower, it is open to the Master of the Rolls to invite those who have retired, usually recently retired or who have been appearing recently as members of the court, to assist on a daily basis.
The great saving grace of that system was that particular retired lords justices could not arrive suddenly and say, "Now I should like to sit" if the Master of the Rolls had grave doubts about whether age had overtaken their usual faculties. So there was no problem about that. In my experience I thought it right—no one has ever suggested that I was wrong in this respect at least—to invite Sir John Megaw and Sir David Cairns to sit from time to time, often at very short notice (a matter of hours) in the Court of Appeal. I gave up inviting them when they each reached the age of 84, not because they were not as bright as buttons (if I may use the expression) but because they themselves felt that perhaps the age of 84 might create some criticism if anyone ever discovered it. No one ever did discover it because it was certainly not apparent from the way in which they framed judgments and so on. That is what I suggest, but it is a matter not for me but for the Master of the Rolls, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips. When I spoke to him on this matter, he said that he was in favour, as he is very pressed indeed.
I hope that the amendment commends itself to the Minister. I should make it clear that, prima facie, I have a considerable interest in this matter because it would enable me to sit as a member of the judicial member of the Privy Council and as a Member of this House judicially, which I have never done. I could also go back to the Court of Appeal. However, let me make it clear that wild horses—including the Master of the Rolls—will not drag me back. When one has not done that kind of thing for 10 years, the strain of doing it again would be overwhelming. The amendment intends to enable those who have recently retired to be brought in and to help out. If they have kept their skill up, those of a considerably greater age might be invited to come back. But that is a matter for the Master of the Rolls, not for me.
Having declared my interest and negatived that interest, I beg to move.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Borrie: I commend the noble and learned Lord for introducing the amendment. It is not surprising that a number of people in this House are not keen on compulsory retirement ages. I commend the noble and
1024
learned Lord for striking a blow at compulsory retirement ages. For example, the age of 60 for civil servants is absurdly young.
On the other hand, of course—and I am sure that the noble and learned Lord will agree with me, although I have not discussed it with him—there is a particular justification for a compulsory retirement age for High Court judges.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: I did, I hope, make it clear that I was not striking blows in relation to retirement ages. I referred only to post-retirement.
Lord Borrie: I am not sure that I have fully understood the difference. If the noble and learned Lord intervenes in the course of my remarks, I shall happily give way to him.
I believe that he will agree with me that there is a particular justification for the existence of a compulsory retirement age for High Court judges, which has existed since 1959. They enjoy a substantial security of tenure, which is justified in its turn by the constitutional imperative to ensure the independence of the judiciary. High Court judges, as all your Lordships know, may be dismissed only by a vote of both Houses.
The difficulty before a compulsory retirement age was introduced was that, inevitably, some judges who did not appreciate their declining abilities stayed in their posts for too long. Professor Robert Stevens was, until recently, the Master of Pembroke College, Oxford. After delving into the records of the Lord Chancellor's Department, he wrote of the very great difficulties that successive Lord Chancellors and their Permanent Secretaries have had when struggling to ease out judges who were past their prime.
The late Lord Denning referred in his memoirs to a High Court judge in the 1950s who was strongly criticised by the Court of Appeal for his unusually extensive questioning of counsel. The then Lord Chancellor arranged for the judge to continue to sit for a little while and then to resign, which he did a few months later.
The extension of the service of a judge for a certain period, after the compulsory retirement age of 70, depends no doubt on careful consideration by the Lord Chancellor's Department in consultation with senior judges. If a judge is asked to continue to sit as a judge until he is, let us say, 75, his sitting does not depend on the decision of the judge himself; it is of course a request that is periodically renewed by the Lord Chancellor's Department.
However—I mention this because it was the view of the Peel Commission, in 1936—there is at least a theoretical risk that the power to extend a judge's judicial life may be used as a means of control over judges. He will get the opportunity, he may think, to continue to be asked to sit only if he acts in a way that he thinks the authorities would approve of. In 1936, the Peel Commission—on which some distinguished judges sat; it was chaired by a former member of the

1025
Cabinet, who I think was the first Earl Peel—thought that any such power to give a conditional extension to a judge's judicial life was undesirable.
Unfortunately, the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, is not in his place. I have not discussed it with him. but he might say that the European Convention on Human Rights is not being complied with if judges can continue to sit on the say-so of the Lord Chancellor's Department or of particular heads of particular courts. That service can, of course, be discontinued. I have great sympathy with the flexibility of Amendment No. 149, but I wonder how it would fit with the European Convention on Human Rights.
Although the noble and learned Lord himself referred principally to the example of the Master of the Rolls—a position which he held, as we all know—asking judges to continue to sit from time to time, his amendment is much wider than that and refers to other courts including, as he himself mentioned, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. I myself see no reason why a judge beyond the age of 75—into his eighties, if you like—may not be perfectly fit. But I am not sure that I like the idea of judges being allowed to sit only on the say-so of senior judges or the Lord Chancellor's Department. I am not sure that I see that as fitting in with the principle of an independent judiciary.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: Perhaps the noble Lord will accept it from me, first, as I said, that this amendment has nothing whatever to do with retirement; and, secondly, that the retirement age is not 70 for a large number of judges. Anyone appointed after 1993, I suppose—I forget the exact date—is subject to 70. Up to that date, the age is 75. As for the noble Lord's idea that any sort of pressure would be exerted on a retired Lord Justice because of the possibility that the Master of the Rolls might not wish to ask him back to the Court of Appeal, all I can say is that he can never have met them.
Lord Borrie: Of course the noble and learned Lord is absolutely right. However, it is a matter of perception. I can assure him that the Peel Commission, in the 1930s, was worried about that risk. He may also think that the European Convention on Human Rights is somewhat concerning in this respect.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: The noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, has instigated a very interesting debate. I am much struck by his argument that flexibility may be needed to call upon those who have great experience, and to do so at fairly short notice. However, there is a question that I must put to the Minister. If the Government feel that they cannot accede to the request of the noble and learned Lord—if so, we would be interested to hear their reason—can they give an assurance that sufficient numbers of the judiciary will be able to perform the necessary tasks? I note that there was recently a statutory instrument from the Lord Chancellor's Department to increase the number of judges by two. In response to my noble friend Lady Seccombe, the reason given concerned the huge
1026
increase in judicial review appeals regarding asylum. One can see greater volume arising in that way, so there may need to be not only greater flexibility but more full-time appointments. If the Minister cannot accede to the noble and learned Lord's request, one hopes that she will be able to assure the House that there will be sufficient numbers of the judiciary to perform the appropriate work.
I end by wishing the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, a happy 72nd birthday this month—proving the noble and learned Lord's point that 70 is no bar to effective service.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I have some sympathy with the amendment. One of the greatest 20th-century judges in the common law world, Oliver Wendell Holmes, was not appointed to the American Supreme Court until he was in his 60s. He continued to sit with no loss of skill until he was past 90. So there are cases where persons of advanced age can continue to add to the court.
I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, about the International Convention on Human Rights, but it has not been suggested that the present system—by which former judges can be called upon to sit between their retirement age and 75—contravenes the convention. I imagine that is because the selection of panel members is in the hands of other judges, not of the Lord Chancellor or the Lord Chancellor's Department.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, this has been an enlightening debate. I hope that your Lordships will not think that I am burdened by youth when I comment that having witnessed the performance of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, this evening, anyone who claims that one reaches one's prime before the age of 92, 93 or 94 might be much mistaken.
I understand entirely the purpose of the amendment so eloquently moved by the noble and learned Lord, who is right that the facility to invite skilled judges to sit when the need arises was much taken advantage of before 1993. I am not surprised by the noble and learned Lord's comments in relation to the acceptance by the current Master of the Rolls that it might be a tempting consideration.
I assure the noble Baroness that there are sufficient judges to meet current needs—and the Lord Chancellor, as already demonstrated by a recent order, will take steps to enhance their number if further needs are identified. The Court of Appeal has made significant improvements in minimising delay and the momentum is being maintained through continued skilled management.
I recognise the noble and learned Lord's concerns in seeking to exempt former Lords of Appeal and Court of Appeal judges. I am also conscious that in passing the 1993 Act, Parliament sought to strike a delicate balance in sensitive constitutional territory. Earlier decisions may need reappraisal in light of developments. Your Lordships will know that a European Council directive establishing a general framework for equal treatment in

1027
employment and occupation in terms that, it is believed, encompass the judiciary includes provisions to prevent discrimination on the basis of age. Domestic implementation is required by 2006 and careful consideration will be given to how the age provisions are to be implemented. The continuing relevance of the retirement regime established by the 1993 Act will form part of that consideration.
I believe therefore that it will be preferable to address age-related restrictions as a single exercise rather than through piecemeal changes to existing arrangements. Of course I bear in mind the historical references made by my noble friend Lord Borrie; the importance of preservation of independence and the need to give certainty. Those issues will have to be taken into account when these matters are reconsidered.
There is no way to diminish the qualities that continue to be displayed in abundance, as on this occasion, by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, and other noble Lords who left the 75-year mark behind a little time ago. I endorse everything the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, said about the performance of my noble friend Lord Borrie. He is a mere youth and there is much to expect from him, as indeed there is from the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, whom I see in her place. I had the great pleasure of telling her earlier how surprised I was when she said that she is now a retired magistrate. I rightly expressed my disbelief that that could be so.
I hope that the noble and learned Lord will withdraw his amendment. He has had to wait a long time. This issue should and could be looked at again before 2006 when we come to consider the implementation of the directive.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: Once again kind flattery by the Minister gets me nowhere. In 1993 ageism was on the ascendant. The position is entirely changed now. It is ridiculous to say, "Oh well, this is piecemeal. We have to look at it all in the light of a European directive". What does it have to do with Europe? It is our judicial system. The Master of the Rolls says that he wants to do this and I have no reason to doubt him. I do not want anyone to be misled by the Minister's perfectly bona fide assurances that orders will be brought forward—as they have been recently—to increase the number of judges.
I have lived with this situation for 10 years. What happens is that under extreme pressure the Lord Chancellor brings forward an order for the number of judges—I forget what it is called. That looks fine. The trouble is that it is subject to the Treasury's consent and the Treasury does not give consent, so it is purely a paper transaction. The matter should have been dealt with straightaway. Whether there will be sufficient support at a later stage to divide the House I do not know; I do not command any battalions, so I have to leave it to others. But it is a great pity.
1028
I am 82 now. I hope to live until 2006, but the matter should be dealt with long before then in the interests of doing things for a mass of people who will probably have different objectives. This is a unique body where it is left to independent people to decide whether they should continue giving service to the state. Nowhere else is that true. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. I hope that before the Bill leaves this House something can be done about the matter.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 6 agreed to.
Schedule 7 [Repeals]:
Lord Hunt of Wirral Lord Hunt of Wirral moved Amendment No. 150:
Page 107, line 34, at end insert—
"Law Reform (Personal Injuries) Act Section 2(4)." 1948 (c. 41)
The noble Lord said: In view of the limited time I have in which to move the amendment, I merely point out that representations have been received from a range of bodies, especially those in the National Health Service, to the effect that the old 1948 provision should be removed; that is, the provision that prevents the courts from taking into account the provision of future care by the NHS. Under Section 2(4) of the Law Reform (Personal Injuries) Act 1948, no regard can be given in determining the reasonableness of any claimed future care costs and expenses or in reducing those costs and expenses by taking advantage of facilities for providing future care services, which may be available under the National Health Service. That produces a ridiculous situation, under which the NHS—or the Medical Defence Union or the Medical Protection Society—are compelled to make substantial awards for setting up in effect private care at home on a 24-hour basis for one individual for the rest of his or her life when there is evidence that it is not in the best interests of the claimant to have what is virtually a private hospital built around them. The NHS must allow the claimant to receive what may be better treatment from the NHS when all the money has been spent. The person can then claim that better treatment free of charge on the NHS.
At the moment, the courts are precluded by this provision from balancing the cost of private treatment against the cost of public treatment even where evidence is presented to the court that the claimant, in their own best interest, should receive treatment under the NHS. I have in mind my own experience of cases in which isolating the claimant in a 24-hour private hospital that is built around their home is probably the last thing that should happen, particularly with regard to their rehabilitation. They should be among other people with similar injuries, who are often receiving better care. The courts cannot currently review the reasonableness of future private expenses or the possibility that the extra costs can be minimised or avoided by taking advantage of facilities that are available in the NHS.
How serious is that? The experience in the NHS in dealing with claims is that future care costs are the largest single item in damages awarded in large claims. About two-thirds of the total liability for clinical negligence resides in a small number of large claims

1029
where much of the award payments are channelled into the private sector for the patient's long-term care. That means that, for patients who suffered their injuries in NHS hospitals, a large amount of money is transferred out of the NHS and into the private sector for the benefit of a very small number of people.
I understand that the Medical Defence Union believes that about £1,000 million leaves the NHS—I refer to the total NHS liabilities, which have been estimated at £5.25 billion—in order to set up those facilities. It estimates that £1,000 million could be redirected into NHS care if patients who needed longterm care were guaranteed that care under the NHS rather than the NHS having to pay damages that reflect the cost of private provision of long-term care.
I hope that the Minister will take time between now and Report to consider that matter. It is strongly felt by many doctors, dentists, nurses, consultants and people in the NHS. I have not discussed the amount of money coming from insurance premiums to pay for that care. With regard merely to the NHS, we should consider how much better that money could be spent within the NHS by setting up even better facilities for everyone. I beg to move.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: I rise briefly to support the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, has outlined the case very eloquently from the financial perspective. But I believe that another perspective needs to be outlined—that of the patients themselves.
A large amount of complex, highly technical and skilled care is now available to the NHS but is not available in the private sector. If a patient has had the misfortune to put forward a complex and unusual negligence claim and he has a rare and complex condition requiring ongoing intervention, he will almost inevitably have to access NHS care. There may almost be a duplication of care provision and continuity will be lost. Perhaps I may cite one simple example. If someone has lost his whole bowel and is dependent on total parenteral nutrition, even if he is managed at home on a 24-hour basis, he will inevitably have to access the NHS.
Legislation made in 1948 was appropriate to the services of the time, but there is a danger that the level of technical care available today bears no resemblance at all to what was scientifically known in 1948. I worry that the care delivered to patients does not, in this sense, offer redress. It does not help them to live with whatever problems they have and it does not help them towards a more integrated and better quality of life.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I say both to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, that I understand the concerns which the amendment seeks to highlight. I am not able to accept the amendment because the implication of the change would not be restricted to personal injury claims involving periodical payments alone, and it is questionable whether the amendment is within the scope of the Bill.
1030
In any event, I do not believe that such a significant change to the substantive law on damages would be appropriate without full consultation. The amendment, as proposed, would also have considerable resource implications for the National Health Service.
In opposing the amendment, we do not wish to prejudge any recommendation that the Chief Medical Officer might make on possible reforms to the arrangements for clinical negligence cases in the longer term. The Government would wish to consider those before deciding the appropriate way forward. I can certainly tell the Committee that the issues referred to by the noble Lord, and alluded to by the noble Baroness, have been raised and are being considered. We await the report of the Chief Medical Officer with not only great anticipation but interest. I can assure noble Lords that that report will be read with great care, and any recommendations that the Chief Medical Officer may make will be given the utmost consideration.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: I am grateful to the noble Baroness. It would be helpful to know what kind of timescale we are operating on and whether or not the Chief Medical Officer's report will be made public.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I do not know at this moment and I am not privy to that precise information. I know that we have been anxiously awaiting the report. Particularly bearing in mind the scope of the issues which the Chief Medical Officer must address, the noble Lord will know that we would obviously prefer the consideration to be comprehensive. We await the report within the timescale appropriate to the Chief Medical Officer.
We are very aware how important this issue is. I know that a great deal of care is being taken in structuring the recommendations. If I am able to give the noble Lord specific details, I shall certainly write to him.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: I am very grateful to the noble Baroness. Obviously I shall consider carefully the points that she raised. I am particularly grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, for, again, having brought us face to face with some very practical consequences of the 1948 legislation. Of course the amendment must be within the scope of the Bill or it would never have been accepted by the Public Bill Office. However, I shall reflect on it and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 151:
Page 109, line 18, column 2, at beginning insert—
"Section 48(4)."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 152:
Page 109, line 18, column 2, at beginning insert—
"In section 70(2)(a), the words ", or in the case of the Official Solicitor a solicitor,"."
The noble Lord said: I am extremely tempted to read out the long explanation, which is technical, detailed and full of exciting information—the stuff that I know noble Lords love to hear at this time of day—but I shall resist that temptation. The purpose and effect of the amendment is to repeal any remaining legislative references that are inconsistent with the removal of the Official Solicitor, principal secretary and legal secretary posts from the list of statutory officers in Schedule 3 to the 1978 Act. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendments Nos. 153 and 154:
Page 110, line 40, at end insert—
"Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 Section 329AA(8)." (c. 1)
Page 111, line 43, at end insert—

"Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1993 (c.8)

In Part II of Schedule 1, in the entry for Schedule 3 to the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978, the words from ", other than" to the end.

In Schedule 5, in the entry for the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978 the words "or 75(1)"."

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Hunt of Wirral Lord Hunt of Wirral moved Amendment No. 155:
Page 112, line 13, column 2, at end insert ", except section 26"
The noble Lord said: I do not propose to speak at length to the amendment, but it is a further opportunity for us to refer to the duties of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. I declare an interest as a previous holder of that office.
We shall debate the issue at length in the many days that are being set aside for Report. I do not wish to preempt that. However, I hope that the noble Baroness will assure us that she is conducting wide consultation on the proposals in the Bill as they affect the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. She will be aware that another previous holder of the office— Mo Mowlam—conducted extensive consultation about a proposed change and then concluded that no change was advisable. There has been no similar consultation period this time, but the proposals have now come forward.
As the noble Baroness acknowledges, some strong views are held on the subject. It would be helpful to have an assurance that widespread consultation is planned or is proceeding at the moment on this important issue. I beg to move.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I am not able to accept the amendment. I heard with trepidation the noble Lord's words that he will return to the issue at length on Report. Of course I understand why he says that.
The amendment is deficient. Section 26 of the Justices of the Peace Act says that references to the Lord Chancellor, in Sections 5(1), 6, 7(4) to 7(6), 8 and 25 should be construed as references to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. These sections will naturally be different under the Courts Bill. Additionally, Clause 6(4) of the Courts Bill would need to be amended. So, in any event, we would not be able to accept the amendment in this form.
However, as the noble Lord knows, I have wider and less remedial concerns. First, I should set this question in context. I know that noble Lords are concerned that the provision to transfer the duchy's responsibilities for the appointment and removal of magistrates is unwelcome to some magistrates in the region.
There has been a great deal of concern expressed by the Chamber during the passage of the Bill about the lay magistracy, and the Government's regard and intentions for it. I hope that the Committee will agree that we have gone some distance to meet these concerns. We have promised to restore the Supplemental List. We have demonstrated our commitment to the role of the lay magistracy in its general criminal jurisdiction and its specialist jurisdictions. The plans to extend magistrates' sentencing powers are also a demonstration of the faith in the magistracy. We have enhanced the position of Benches in statute as a step to allay magistrates' concerns about local justice; and also because we believe that Benches are a valuable institution and important to magistrates. I do not think that we can be accused of disregarding those issues.
I welcome the opportunity to explain why Ministers of both departments are in agreement that we should transfer those responsibilities to the Lord Chancellor. The current split of responsibility for appointing magistrates is anomalous even under the current system. It does not apply to professional judges. It does not apply to other ancient duchies. Other historical counties and regions accept that local advisory committees, chaired by lord lieutenants of counties and advising the Lord Chancellor, constitute a valid means of appointing magistrates for the locality. That system will continue in the duchy area, as it will across the jurisdiction. Indeed, many would argue that in such an important matter as the appointment and removal of magistrates, the heightened opportunity for inconsistent practice represented by the split of responsibilities is hardly acceptable.
On the last occasion I answered this question I outlined the nature of the consultation. I went through the fact that when Lord Justice Auld consulted on the matter there was wide consultation about whether there should be jurisdiction bringing all the courts together to unify the system. Those matters were taken into account. Because of the lateness of the hour, I shall not go through the extensive reasons why this

1033
decision was taken. I have set out the full reasons in a letter to noble Lords. If the noble Lord returns to the issue on Report, I shall delight in extolling the reasons in full. I hope that the noble Lord will not think it discourteous of me if I do not go into any further detail at this point and that he feels content to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: I caution the Minister not to discard those very detailed notes because they will be necessary. Tomorrow I shall table for consideration on Report the kind of amendment that she seeks in order to be able to utilise those extensive notes and the speech that she has in preparation.
I warn the noble Baroness that extensive feelings are held on this issue by many people across the Duchy of Lancaster and elsewhere. There is a feeling that they have not been specifically consulted about this proposal, save by Mo Mowlam, albeit a short time ago. The virtually unanimous view was that this provision should be retained. Someone decided to alter that view without any further consultation on the specific proposal. That is why such strong feelings are held. We shall return to the matter on Report. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 156:
Page 113, line 8, at end insert—
"Justice (Northern In section 18(9), the words "and in the Ireland) Act 2002 (c. entry relating to the Official Solicitor"." 26)
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 99 agreed to.
Clause 100 [Extent]:
Baroness Scotland of Asthal Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 157:
Page 53, line 10, leave out "or 95" and insert ", 95 or (Alteration of place fixed for Crown Court trial: Northern Ireland)"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 100, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 (Powers of Seizure) Order 2003
8.11 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 24th February be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this order has been seen by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. In my opinion, its provisions are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. The order makes minor changes to the extensive list of powers of seizure in Schedule I to the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001.
Part 2 of the Act, which comes into force on 1st April 2003, gives police officers and other investigators powers to seize property from premises and persons for examination elsewhere. Those may be necessary because there is insufficient time to conduct an effective examination on the premises or there is a need to use special technical equipment.
As noble Lords will recall, the provisions in Part 2 were introduced to deal with the problem identified in the case of R v Chesterfield Justices and the Chief Constable of Derbyshire ex parte Bramley, which highlighted the difficulties faced by the police where material that they are entitled to seize is contained with a large collection of material, some of which they might not be entitled to seize.
Provision has also been made in Part 2 for the seizure and retention of inextricably linked material, such as the contents of an entire computer hard-disk drive, where it is necessary to prove when specific items of information were created or amended. The legislation recognises that, with the huge increase in the use of computers, investigators need to be able to seize and forensically examine an entire disk or hard-drive to determine when individual documents have been created, amended or even deleted.
The new powers in Part 2 are not free-standing and can be exercised only in support of an existing power of seizure. Those powers are listed in Schedule 1 to the Act. The draft order will be made under Section 69 of the 2001 Act but cannot be made until it is approved by resolution of each House. Under Section 69(1) of the 2001 Act, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has the power to add, modify and amend the powers of seizure listed in Schedule 1. The section thus provides a mechanism to allow for changes to other legislation containing powers of seizure that might need to be added to Schedule 1 or to amend it. Since the 2001 Act received Royal Assent in May 2001, new powers of seizure have been created and existing ones amended by the legislation. This order, therefore, merely tidies up the schedule to incorporate the changes. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 24th February be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
Lord Luke: My Lords, there is nothing to object to in the order. On these Benches, we approve of it.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I support the order. The Minister has given his explanation, and we are delighted that the provisions are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. I am happy with the assurance that the new powers in the order can be exercised only in reliance on an existing power of seizure and the powers listed in Schedule 1 to the Act. I support the order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (Consequential and Incidental Provisions) Order 2003
8.15 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton)The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 28th February be approved [13th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble and learned Lord said: I beg to move that the draft Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (Consequential and Incidental Provisions) Order 2003, laid before the House on 28th February, be approved.
Ideally, every last consequential and incidental provision would normally be settled before Royal Assent to an Act. It became clear, when we put additional provisions into the Act, including the safe country list and non-suspensive appeals, that it would be impossible to ensure that all consequential amendments had been identified prior to Royal Assent. We tabled an amendment to Section 157(4), with Parliament's agreement, giving us the power to do so later by affirmative order. This order allows for the amendment of previous statutes affected by the coming into force of the various provisions of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. They relate mainly to appeals and nationality.
The consequential amendments that relate to appeals amend Section 12 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. Without them, the new appeals framework at Part 5 of the 2002 Act, which also contains new provisions on the certification of clearly unfounded claims by the Secretary of State, could not operate. The Part 5 provisions of the Act are due to commence on 1st April.
Several nationality provisions at Part 1 of the 2002 Act are also due to commence in April, including deprivation of citizenship and several categories relating to registration of citizenship. The consequential amendments that are required relate to deprivation and the ceremonies associated with citizenship.
The consequential and incidental amendments in the order are necessary to ensure that previous pieces of legislation affected by the coming into force of various provisions of the 2002 Act sit with the new legislation. The order forms a small but vital part in the restructuring of the appeals and nationality systems. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 28th February be approved [13th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
Lord Luke: My Lords, once again, we on these Benches are in favour of the order and support it.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, many of the provisions relating to new registrations and naturalisation procedures and matters relating to appeals, such as detention, are consequential and incidental provisions. We have no difficulty in approving the order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) (Amendment) (England and Wales) Order 2003
8.18 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 25th February be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords. I beg to move. In my view, the measures contained in this statutory instrument are compatible with the rights protected by the European Convention on Human Rights.
It is important for those who offend to be able to reform, pick up their life again after paying the penalty and have a fresh start. As long as the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 has been in place, there has been a list of positions for which the offender, even if his or her conviction under the Act is spent, cannot escape his or her past. If asked an excepted question in respect of all past convictions by a person entitled to ask such a question, he or she must answer in respect of all past convictions, not merely those that are unspent.
The order contains several additional exceptions. The first relates to applicants for private hire vehicle drivers' licences in London. The amendment adds London's private hire drivers—minicabs and so on—who will become subject to licensing on 1st April 2003. The order will also cover those applying to be licensed by the new Security Industry Authority. The SIA will be responsible for licensing those employed in a number of private security industry sectors. Licensing will be introduced by sector beginning with door supervisors and wheel clampers at some time in 2004. Social workers and social care workers, including those in training, are to be registered by the General Social Care Council in England and the Care Council for Wales. This order will permit criminal records checks as part of the registration process which is due to commence on 1st April 2003.
The order also covers any employment or other work within a high security hospital; that is, Ashworth, Broadmoor and Rampton hospitals. The existing health service execption covers many, but not all, of those who work in the hospitals. This amendment is necessary to ensure that all staff can be made subject to the appropriate criminal records checks.
The final amendment concerns staff working in probation and bail hostels. All posts in those hostels involve contact with residents and thus it is proposed that the amendment should cover all staff. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 25th February be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee]. —(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
Lord Luke: My Lords, this draft order covers several different areas. The general public will be happy to see questions being allowed with regard to spent convictions in certain cases. We support the order.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, we welcome the measures, which are designed to add to the list of
1038
exceptions to the regime for the rehabilitation of offenders under the 1974 Act. The draft order has our support.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Police (Northern Ireland) Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments and with a privilege amendment.
House adjourned at twenty-two minutes past eight o'clock.

Official Report of the Grand Committee on the

  Water Bill [H.L.]
  (First Day)
  Thursday, 27th March 2003
  The Committee met at a quarter before four of the clock.
  [The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel) in the Chair.]
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel): Before I put the Question that the Title be postponed, perhaps I may make one or two housekeeping points. The first relates to the microphones. The gentleman in the corner will switch them on and off, so Members of the Committee do not need to touch them. Secondly, there is a revised list of groupings which Members should have in front of them.
  It may be helpful to remind your Lordships about the procedure for today's Committee stage. Except in one important respect, our proceedings will be exactly as in a normal Committee of the Whole House. We shall go through the Bill clause by clause; noble Lords will speak standing; all Lords are free to attend and participate; and the proceedings will be recorded in Hansard. The one difference is that the House has agreed that there shall be no Divisions in a Grand Committee. Any issue on which agreement cannot be reached should be considered again at the Report stage when, if necessary, a Division may be called. Unless, therefore, an amendment is likely to be agreed to, it should be withdrawn.
  I should also explain what will happen if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting. The Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division bells are rung and then resume after 10 minutes.
  Title postponed.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer moved Amendment No. 1:
  Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause—

  PART A1 WATER FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THIS PART
  (1) The purpose of this Part is to make provision for, or in connection with, protection of the water environment, including making provision, and enabling provision to be made, for, or in connection with, implementing in England and Wales Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23rd October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (referred to in this Part as "the Directive").
  (2) In this Part "protection of the water environment" includes, in particular—

  (a) preventing further deterioration of, and protecting and enhancing, the status of aquatic ecosystems and, with regard to their water needs, terrestrial ecosystems and wetlands directly depending on those aquatic ecosystems,

  (b) promoting sustainable water use based on the long-term protection of available water resources,

  (c) aiming at enhancing protection and improvement of the aquatic environment through, amongst other things, specific measures for the progressive reduction of discharges, emissions and losses of priority substances and the cessation or phasing out of discharges, emissions and losses of the priority hazardous substances,

  (d) ensuring the progressive reduction of pollution of groundwater and preventing further pollution of it, and

  (e) contributing to mitigating the effects of floods and droughts, with a view to contributing to the achievement of the aims specified in subsection (3).

  (3) Those aims are—

  (a) the provision of a sufficient supply of good quality surface water and groundwater as needed for sustainable, balanced and equitable water use,

  (b) a significant reduction in pollution of groundwater,

  (c) the protection of territorial and other marine waters, and

  (d) achieving the objectives of international agreements, including those which aim to prevent and eliminate pollution of the marine environment, in relation to which measures arc adopted under paragraph 1 of Article 16 of the Directive in pursuance of a proposal under paragraph 3 of that Article."

  The noble Baroness said: The purpose of the amendment is fundamental to the Bill. It is to put the principles of the Water Framework Directive into the Bill. It will ensure that the implementation of the directive is timely, appropriate and maximises the opportunities that are offered by it. I am aware that directives are always transposed by secondary legislation and I ask the Committee to consider whether this may be the time to consider changing that. Perhaps they should not always be transposed by secondary legislation.
  Perhaps the lack of scrutiny is one of the reasons why they were often inappropriately or badly transposed and certainly often too late. It is a case of good European theory sometimes turning into bad practice. I believe that in this case we can transform the way in which the world of water and its management is undertaken by including the Water Framework Directive in the Bill.
  That is not my opinion alone. I am sure that Members of the Committee will be well aware of the recently published report on the Water Framework Directive from the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee of another place. I am tempted to read it almost in its entirety, but I will not. It is adamant that the Water Framework Directive offers the chance of giving real meaning to the nebulous concept of sustainable development, an issue I touched upon in my Second Reading speech. In the conclusions and evidence, it is striking to see how

  GC 39
  many different bodies from all sections of the community believe that the directive should be transposed into primary legislation. I refer to bodies as various as the National Trust, several of the water companies and the RSPB. The overwhelming evidence is that the directive should be in the Bill.
  Is it a question of timing? I do not believe that it is. The directive must be transposed by the end of the year. We are considering the Bill in March and by the time that another place has considered it, it will almost be the end of the year. I believe that the opportunity could have been taken to include it in the Bill at this stage.
  I was somewhat shocked to discover that within DEFRA there are two completely separate teams; one is working on the framework directive and the other on the Water Bill. Will the Minister tell the Committee who is the person co-ordinating the teams? I am surprised that the same team is not working on both measures.
  I have asked myself why the Government have not chosen to implement the directive. Is it that they are not prepared, which having two teams may suggest? Is it that politically they do not want to include the directive in the Bill because it is complicated, or that there is a frightening effect that I do not yet understand? However, having spoken to all interested parties, I understand that it is a more cost-effective way of dealing with the management of water. Scotland has led the way in this—it has its water Act and it has already transposed the directive. I beg to move.
  Baroness Byford: I support the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer. She beat us to it in tabling an amendment incorporating the directive into the Bill. Rather than having two amendments on the same directive, I am happy to support the principle of her amendment. Although I cannot anticipate his answer, I suspect that the Minister in response will say that it was all right in Scotland but it will not be appropriate for England.
  I want to add to some of the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. I want to refer to several matters raised in the report of the Select Committee on the Water Framework Directive because I believe that they need to be put on the record. It is important to establish what we are talking about.
  At page 13, it is clearly stated:
  "Perhaps the most important of these questions, at least initially, is that which asks what is the current state of water quality in surface and ground waters in England and Wales. Before decisions can be made about what policies are needed to meet the objectives of the Water Framework Directive, it is vital that a clear understanding is reached of the current status of these waters, as currently no comprehensive overview exists of the ecological state of waters in England and Wales".
  I hope that the Minister will answer that question in his response.
  GC 40
  At page 22, the Select Committee deals with changes in land use. It states that limiting diffuse pollution will be a costly and expensive undertaking for industry,
  "and will impact on the agricultural industry which is already under severe pressure. It is likely to require changes in agricultural practice—perhaps even to the direction and the ethos of the CAP".
  a matter which will be under consideration this summer. The report continues:
  "As such it is emblematic of the significance and wide-ranging impact of the Water Framework Directive".
  Yet, as the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, said, it is not included in the Bill.
  Paragraph 57 at page 24 states that.
  "we recommend that a scientific Steering Group be set up to advise Defra and the Environment Agency on the science surrounding the Water Framework Directive".
  My question to the Minister is: has it been set up? If not, why not?
  Page 26 deals with resourcing. Paragraph 63 states:
  "Any failure adequately to resource the Environment Agency to perform its responsibilities under the Water Framework Directive would be wholly unacceptable".
  Are the Government happy that they have put in adequate resourcing?
  At page 27, it is stated:
  "We recommend that the Government examine concerns about possible conflicts of interest arising as a result of the designation of the Environment Agency as competent authority".
  Later the report refers to a democratic mandate, an issue to which we shall turn later.
  I move to page 31 and paragraph 78, which states:
  "In short, there is a palpable lack of urgency—perhaps even a sense of complacency—in the approach currently taken to making administrative arrangements to implement the Directive".
  These are critical observations by the Select Committee.
  Page 32 relates to costs and gold-plating, an issue which noble Lords often raise in the House. Paragraph 81, referring to agriculture, states that,
  "agriculture can ill-afford the significant expense that it would incur if that approach was applied to diffuse pollution. 'End-of-pipe' treatment is likely to prove expensive to water companies and their customers, and will not tackle the root of the problem".
  These are important issues and I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, for putting them forward today. The individual items should be discussed, rather than rushed through.
  I turn to look at another piece of legislation to which the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, has not referred. It is the regulations on Water Resources, England and Wales, 2003 No. 164. It was made on 30th January 2003, laid before Parliament on 31st January 2003 and comes into force on 1st April 2003. So far as I am aware, we have not debated it in the House. If I am wrong and we have done so, I apologise.
  The regulation is important because it has an impact particularly on agriculture. I want to ask the Minister why, for example, at paragraph 3 is the requirement for an environmental impact assessment to be carried out only for the projects appertaining to agriculture, particularly irrigation projects. Is it because all other

  GC 41
  industries, interests or businesses are covered under some other heading? Why has this requirement not been included in the Bill? Why has it been separated out and why have we had no opportunity to debate it? I should be grateful for the Minister's comments on that.
  Water resources are hugely important. We are anxious not only about how we use water, but about its quality. In supporting the noble Baroness. Lady Miller, in moving the amendment, I have tried to add greater body to her shorter introduction. These issues are important and the Committee needs to consider them. If one is not careful, it is easy at the beginning of the Bill to omit references to issues, particularly when the Select Committee has highlighted many of them. I look forward to hearing what other Members of the Committee and the Minister have to say.
  4 p.m.
  Earl Peel: I, too, broadly speaking support the amendment. I do so in the context to which I drew your Lordships' attention at Second Reading. I am personally involved with a scheme in north Yorkshire on the River Ure. The original purpose of the scheme was to try to overcome what we regarded as being over-extraction of water during the summer months by Yorkshire Water. I am pleased to say that that was ultimately resolved through the good offices of the Environment Agency. On the back of that developed a programme designed to secure a more comprehensive structure of the river catchment area that would deal not only with the question of water supply and water quality, but also of the surrounding land with all the conservation and environmental implications.
  Through the Environment Agency, we identified the main problem areas and how best they could be tackled—in theory, at any rate—given the various schemes and resources and funding that were available. But there were too many voids, so it was abundantly clear to us that such a scheme was unlikely to work successfully given the conditions at the time.
  Somewhat inevitably, we hit major snags. One of our major objectives was to try to secure a project manager. That was clearly essential if the project were to be taken forward in a cohesive and effective way. I suspect that that has not come about simply through there being a lack of funds available to the Environment Agency.
  One helpful development was that we commissioned the services of a local ecologist and his equally well-qualified wife to undertake a full survey of the wildlife of the river, which I believed would provide a useful baseline in order to establish any future trends in the river's ecological status. Surely, that should be undertaken in all river systems if we are to be able to understand the changes that are likely to take place in future.
  I bring the case forward as an example of a well-intentioned scheme, which is struggling through a lack of co-ordination and the inability readily to identify sources of finance. There was a great willingness to succeed, but the whole scheme needs lifting to a higher plane, with the proper enabling framework.
  GC 42
  I appreciate that it is the Government's view that the Water Resources Act 1991 gives a wide range of powers to the Environment Agency, including the control over water abstraction from rivers. I also believe that the Environment Agency has powers to instigate the baseline monitoring of river systems. However, I should be most grateful if the Minister could explain whether this is a statutory obligation or simply a power and the extent to which it is occurring, or will occur, throughout the river catchment areas of England.
  Will the Minister also explain whether it is the Government's intention to see such monitoring schemes being translated into action, thus ensuring that comprehensive river basin management schemes are put in place to ensure that each system has a good supply of water, both in terms of quality and quantity? The important point I want to make is that that should be accompanied by environmentally sympathetic land management schemes.
  I am aware of the all-embracing objectives of the Water Framework Directive to which the amendment refers and the high degree of subsidiarity attached to it. That is a welcome change among most European directives. But the question remains: will the Government be able to achieve a comprehensive river catchment management system through a combination of this legislation, previous legislation and the Water Framework Directive?
  My noble friend Lady Byford referred to the House of Commons Select Committee report. Paragraph 71 on page 28, which refers to the transposition or the directive into national law, states:
  "But until the administrative arrangements which will enable the Environment Agency to function as the competent authority have been properly explored, Defra cannot be certain that primary legislation is not required".
  My personal experience on the River Ure project, to which I have referred, highlighted the lack of cohesive responsibility available to the Environment Agency to follow through proper river catchment management objectives.
  I therefore welcome Article 14 of the directive that requires that members states shall encourage the active involvement of all interested parties in its implementation, in particular the production, review and updating of the river basin management plans. But can the Government genuinely meet these objectives through regulations? Does the Environment Agency have the power to enter into management agreements with owners and occupiers? If not, I do not see how proper catchment area management will be achieved.
  Furthermore, I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, that I am not certain that Amendment No. 1 addresses the issue. I hope she will say that it does, but I am not entirely certain. And inevitably, I must ask: will the resources be made available for such a national undertaking?
  Pesticide run-off is costing the water industry about £120 million a year. Many river systems are in dire need of sound sustainable comprehensive

  GC 43
  management plans which deliver what most interested parties want. It is about engaging people; making them feel part of the overall scheme. I do not believe that it must be over-administrative, but without having a scheme and structure in place and a project manager to bring everyone together in a cohesive fashion, I am not sure how the system as we see it will work.
  I therefore hope that the Minister will be able to assure me that at the end of debates on the Bill we will have in place a scheme which will be able to deliver the kind of requirements I have outlined.
  Lord Carter: I want to speak briefly not about the merits of the argument but about the words "General purpose of this Part". This is a purpose clause—only for this part of the Bill and obviously not for the whole Bill. However, over the years, there has been long debate on such clauses, which were used a great deal. Gradually, they have fallen into disuse because they can lead to many legal problems on interpretation.
  The noble Baroness should bear that in mind when considering the proposal. In laying down the purpose, it must be absolutely right because there could be much debate about the meaning of the various words used. I shall also be interested to hear from my noble friend whether having this purpose for this part of the Bill will have any effect on the rest of the Bill.
  The Duke of Montrose: I, too, want to speak briefly in support of the amendment. The Bill covers regulation of quantity rather than regulation of quality of water. It would be good if a larger emphasis could be put on quality, a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. Because we are dealing with water, one has a vital link with the other: the more concentrated the water becomes, the worse the pollution.
  The Water Framework Directive contains a logic which I like and it would be nice if our legislation followed the same pattern. It first sets the standards for water; it then sets out regulation for discharges of polluting substances; and then goes on to ensure that the rates of extraction are sustainable.
  As the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, mentioned, the Scottish Parliament has passed the Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003. Interestingly, that is enabling legislation which will be followed by subordinate legislation. The question being asked earlier was whether we have the legislative framework to which the secondary legislation that is being proposed will be attached. I should be interested to hear to which part of our legislation it will be attached.
  My noble friend Lord Peel mentioned the problem of how one will designate the responsible agency. It seems we shall run into an additional problem. Even in the second consultation paper on the Water Framework Directive, the issue of the cross-Border river basin districts has not been resolved. Who does
  GC 44
  one appoint and do we have an adequate idea of how we appoint the responsible agency for such awkward problems?
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, for moving the amendment. I am even more grateful that she did not read out the whole of the Select Committee's report. We are faced with the basic question. These amendments propose that we can depart from our basic procedure and transpose directives from the EU by primary legislation. That is not unprecedented but it is unusual.
  The key issue today is not whether the Water Framework Directive is desirable—most contributions indicate that it is—but whether we should give it legal effect via the Bill or follow our intention to do so by secondary legislation under the European Communities Act 1972. That is the normal way of doing so and we have already begun the consultation period.
  A number of noble Lords raised the matter at Second Reading and I wrote to them. Following the example of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, I shall not read out the letter, compelling though it is. Part of the issue is that some of the directive already exists in English and Welsh legislation. Some of the existing legal framework therefore already exists for the transposition of the directive and some of the provisions in this Bill will help the transposition. However, other parts can be transposed in the normal way and some may not be transposed even were the amendment to be accepted. Although in moving the amendment it has been stated that it will put the framework directive into primary legislation, in practice it will not.
  I want to return to the position on process. We have already carried out two major consultations on transposition of the directive and a third is planned this year. In that third phase, we will want to put forward the proposed draft regulations and an updated regulatory impact assessment. In relation to the first consultation, we asked for views on precisely the issues raised by the amendments and our use of secondary legislation. Responses to that consultation generally supported our approach.
  My noble friend Lord Carter has asked whether a purpose clause is appropriate here. The purpose as described in the amendments would not be fully carried out. Because one would not be transposing the totality of the directive, it is a flawed purpose clause. However, it also raises general issues to which my noble friend referred.
  That has allowed us to have a debate on the provisions of the directive and it has raised a number of related issues, some of which are raised in the Select Committee report. On the central issue, the report is rather tentative on primary and secondary legislation and does not come down in favour of either route. While it raises the issue, Members of the Committee cannot call it in support of what they propose in these amendments. However, it makes recommendations about assessing the legislative implications of the

  GC 45
  directive—clearly we are already engaged in that—and keeps an open mind on what should appear and in what form.
  A number of related issues were raised. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, raised the issue of joined-up DEFRA; whether people working on the Water Framework Directive and people working on this Bill are sufficiently cohesive. The answer is that they are. They are working on the same policy structure and they actually sit next to each other in the same offices in the department. In terms of ministerial responsibility, they are all accountable to my colleague Elliot Morley for delivering water policy in general. I do not believe that that is an issue. They deliver different aspects of the same policy in different ways.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, raised the issue of whether we should start from an assessment. I believe that the noble Earl, Lord Peel, also wondered whether we should start from an assessment of the status of water. The directive requires us to do that by 2004, to monitor it through to 2006 and at various stages to set objectives through to 2008. That is all in the directive and it will be transposed from the directive, but it is not appropriate to deal with that within the scope of the Bill because it can be dealt with in normal transposition. Nor is it the intention of the Government to gold-plate that transposition, unless there are circumstances of which I am not yet aware, where the benefits hugely outweigh the costs of such gold plating.
  A number of other issues were raised in relation to the approach to water management and water quality. Many of the water quality requirements and procedures, referred to in the directive, are already provided for in earlier legislation. Therefore, the Bill is primarily about quantity and quantity controls and the way in which we approach those matters. This is not the place to deliver the precise management structure operated by the Environment Agency and other agencies, but the combination of the Bill, existing legislation and the regulations that are to be transposed will give the basis for comprehensive management as required by the directive and as referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Peel. To develop comprehensive river catchment management is a big challenge. We certainly intend to go down that road. There are technical and operational challenges to be faced to take us up to 2015 and beyond.
  4.15 p.m.
  Baroness O'Cathain: As I understand the position, the Minister is suggesting that we do not need the Water Framework Directive in the Bill. However, in simple terms he is saying that we shall have the new Water Bill, the Water Framework Directive and the other regulations. One point made in the EFRA Select Committee report was that it recommends that DEFRA should take action on engaging the public in the Water Framework Directive. It recommends that DEFRA should involve local government and industry in discussions on the implications of the Water Framework Directive. In effect, it says that it should have the widest possible exposure so that not
  GC 46
  only those involved in the industry, but also consumers, know eventually what they are supposed to do, what the framework will be, what the water industry will look like and how it will be managed.
  It seems to me that this will be extremely complex. If one wants to achieve greater comprehension of all the long-term needs and structure of the industry, surely there is greater merit in doing precisely what the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, has suggested, as supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford; in other words, try to sort out the situation in one go. Or am I completely wrong?
  Lord Whitty: We are already involved in a substantial exercise of engaging the public in consultation on the transposition of the directive in relation to some of the procedures leading to the Bill. Also the Environment Agency is developing a public participation strategy and we are setting up a stakeholder communication group on the totality of water strategy. That will pave the way for developing effective ways of engaging people at the catchment area or river basin level. I agree entirely with the Select Committee that that is a desirable process.
  However, the noble Baroness and the amendments jump from there to saying that while we need to engage people in the comprehensive basis of what we are doing about water management, which I accept, we also need a single piece of legislation that covers all those aspects. Effectively that would mean producing a consolidated Bill that includes all the regulations, all the old legislation and all new legislation. No doubt that would detain us in Grand Committee in the Moses Room for considerably longer than the five days allocated for this Bill.
  Given that much of that legislation already exists, we are consulting on much of the legislation coming from the directive. We have a perfectly adequate way of transposing that—as we normally do. The amendment suggests a novel way of dealing with a European directive and a novel way of dealing with policy. Whether ideal or not, almost every area of public policy has different pieces of legislation, of whatever status, and at the same time extant. Were the Committee and its equivalent to spend their time trying to consolidate everything, we would lose focus and not be able to make changes that are imposed upon us by the environmental challenges or by European directives.
  Moving away from the procedure on environmental directives and other directives for their transposition under the European Communities Act would be a difficult step for Parliament to take. I accept some of the criticisms of the inadequacy of scrutiny, but there are some aspects of primary legislation that may not be scrutinised in the most optimal way. I believe that people understand that. People have to apply the legislation and those affected by it understand that once we have a European directive, it is transposed in a particular way into UK legislation.
  There are exceptions to that but in the amendment the noble Baroness suggests that the totality of water legislation, past and present, should be before us today

  GC 47
  in a single Bill. That would be a novel and a rather over-radical change in the procedure of the House and of Parliament as a whole and would seriously delay some aspects of the transposition of what is desirable in the European directive.
  Other issues were raised, such as the resources that the Environment Agency has to deliver its part of the Bill and related matters. There has been a significant increase in the resources available to the Environment Agency. The figure has risen from £620 million in 1999 to just short of £800 million this year. The grant in aid from the department has increased from £103.7 in 1999 to £116.7 in 2002–03 and a proposed increase for next year will bring it up to £128.4 million. That is in recognition of a number of additional obligations that have been imposed on the Environment Agency and against a background of other areas of DEFRA and government expenditure not receiving anything like that degree of support.
  In addition to references to the Select Committee and its rather tentative conclusions, there is also a reference to Scotland. Unlike some noble Lords, I am always willing to learn from Scottish examples, and sometimes they are good examples. In this respect, Scotland started from a different starting point. The structure of the water industry is entirely different in Scotland—effectively it is still in public ownership— and the state of legislation in Scotland is entirely different. Prior to the new Scottish Act, for example, the powers to control abstraction in Scotland were extremely limited. In a sense that reflects the climatological situation in Scotland. but our framework is much more developed than the preexisting framework in Scotland. In addition, the Scottish Act does not put everything into primary legislation; substantial aspects of it are being dealt with in the Scottish Parliament by secondary legislation.
  I do not believe that we can point to the Scottish example as being the one to follow here in the sense that the amendments suggest. Therefore, while we have had an interesting debate—no doubt the issue of the Water Framework Directive will rightly be touched on at various stages during our deliberation— I urge the noble Baroness not to return to this procedure. It would set an undesirable precedent and it is not the most appropriate way of dealing with the various requirements of water management with which the directive and environmental challenges present us.
  Earl Peel: I took heart from the Minister's commitment that the Government intend to go down the route of river basin management schemes, although I find the timescale rather distressing. If such management schemes are to be effective, clearly they will require a certain amount of land management negotiation. Water quality and water quantity are inevitably tied up with the management of the land within the river catchment areas. Who will negotiate with the landowners and the farmers, if that is necessary—in many cases it will be necessary—and who will have the responsibility and the power to enter
  GC 48
  into the management agreements? Without that, I do not understand how there will be effective river basin management schemes.
  Lord Whitty: The Environment Agency would be the strategic body bringing together all the interests. Some of the arrangements may be between the water companies and the landowners and some between the Environment Agency and the landowners, or between different landowners and other users of water. The strategic and catalytic role would be played by the Environment Agency.
  Baroness Young of Old Scone: On the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Peel, many of the provisions required to implement the Water Framework Directive have nothing to do with water; they concern land management and development in the widest sense, including planning, agriculture, forestry and a huge range of issues. If we were to bring all those points into a Bill called the "Water that may be a step further than the Minister has indicated. I would be interested to hear his reason.
  Lord Whitty: The noble Baroness and the noble Earl are right. But there are many matters outside the direct area of water management—what the water companies and the owners of water do—that will affect the way in which we fulfil the responsibilities under the Water Framework Directive. I do not believe that either the noble Earl or I were suggesting that the Environment Agency should have total planning control over all those activities. I am unsure whether the noble Baroness will be relieved or disappointed about that. We are talking of bringing together the various forces that give a coherent way of managing particular water basin and river catchment areas. In most circumstances. the Environment Agency would have a lead role in such a situation. but it would not have a management or a direct regulatory role.
  4.30 p.m.
  Earl Peel: When I next stand in Masham town hall, in front of those who are interested in bringing together the River Ure management scheme, what am to say? I shall tell them that the Minister has said that the Environment Agency may have a role; that it may do this and it may do that. Among a whole range of people there is a great willingness to bring the situation together in an effective way. I do not expect the Minister to answer me now, but perhaps in writing he could explain how best such a scheme could effectively be administered and taken forward. There is a great willingness among people to do it, but there is a lack of steerage and, at times, commitment. Unquestionably there appears to be a lack of responsibility.
  Baroness Byford: I shall respond to a couple of comments made by the Minister and then I shall ask him to answer some questions that I put to him. Returning to the secondary legislation issue, the Minister said that the Select Committee report did not say that primary legislation was essential. He

  GC 49
  mentioned that it was a possibility. The report stated quite clearly that until the administrative arrangements which will enable the Environment Agency to function as the constant authority have been properly explored, DEFRA cannot be certain that primary legislation is not required. That is what the committee said. I cannot agree or disagree with that. That is what the report says and I think the Minister is pushing that statement away a little too quickly. That is unlike him, because normally he is very generous.
  The Minister said that a third stage of consultation is taking place later this year. When will that end and when shall we have a response to the consultation? If it does not happen until later in the year, we may not receive the results until next year, and the time for the directive will have overrun and the Bill will have completed its passage through the House.
  I ask the Minister to think seriously about the important point made by my noble friend Lady O'Cathain that people should be made more aware. Clearly people should be brought into this process and should have better information. I record my thanks to the Minister for eventually helping us to find our way through four Acts. It was nearly impossible. Many noble Lords may wonder why we have tabled certain amendments, but they were tabled to find out certain matters. I am sure it was a challenge to the Government as well.
  If it is said that the Government want the general public to understand and to take part in the system, the public will not wade through four Acts and try to look at Butterworth. My noble friend has raised an important point that I hope the Minister will address with greater seriousness than he may at the moment feel is necessary.
  The noble Lord, Lord Carter, said that the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, may have difficulties with her amendment as it stands. I do not believe that that detracts from what she is trying to achieve. It would be wrong of me to put words into her mouth, but she may want to reconsider it. I hope that this debate will add to what she is hoping to achieve.
  I want to raise two other matters with the Minister. The Minister answered the first question raised by my noble friend the Duke of Montrose, but not the question of cross-river basin management. I would be glad if he would do so. And I did not receive a response on the Water Resources, England and Wales, statutory instrument, 2003, No. 164, to which I referred in great detail. Perhaps the Minister could respond to those points. In that document it clearly states that some small changes may take place and an environmental assessment will be carried out on all agricultural projects. The Environment Agency will judge whether it is likely to have a significant effect on the environment. I would like such matters clarified because they are not in the Bill.
  The NFU is anxious to give guidance to its members on the regulations that take effect from 1st April, which is not many days away. The Minister did not respond to that. Could he also mention the cost of' the impact on trickle irrigation?
  GC 50
  I also understand that there is a slight change in statutory instrument No. 164 of 2003. My understanding is—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—that originally it did not include areas of less than one hectare. One hectare does not sound much, but it is two-and-a-half acres. One can carry out a lot of horticulture on two-and-a-half acres. I believe it slipped the Minister's mind to answer my question on statutory instrument No. 164.
  Lord Carter: The noble Baroness has mentioned the NFU. We have all received a letter from that organisation and a briefing from the CLA. There is also one from the RICS, but I do not believe that any of them have mentioned the directive.
  Lord Whitty: The noble Baroness raises a number of points. It is intended that the third consultation will take place over the summer and will include the draft regulations, as I believe I said, and a public response to those. We intend to meet the deadline of transposing that part of the directive by the end of 2003. That is a fairly quick timescale, but I make no commitment that that will be in place while we consider the Bill. It deals with a different aspect and not the primary aspects covered by the Bill.
  It is true that the Select Committee said that we should consider that, and we may need to look at the issue of primary legislation, but the point in the report to which I refer is paragraph 71, which states:
  "the important point is the effectiveness of the transposition of the Directive into national law, not the means by winch that is achieved".
  That gives no primacy to doing that by primary legislation.
  In relation to cross-Border river basins, some complex technical problems are involved. The body for England and Wales is already a cross-Border body. Cross-Border matters between England and Scotland involve rather smaller catchment areas than between England and Wales. Detailed discussions are taking place between the English authorities and the Scottish authorities, primarily between the agency and SEPA.
  I apologise to the noble Baroness for not picking up the point relating to the application to agricultural projects. That covers a gap in the regulations where it is necessary to transpose the directive. That means that it will apply to those sectors of agriculture that are not already subject to the planning controls or to abstraction controls and covers a gap in the 1987 directive.
  On the environmental impact assessment. the test has significant environmental effects. That is the same test as was in the 1987 directive. On our estimation the number of new projects that would be covered would be relatively few. Therefore, most land use that fell under that requirement would already be covered by previous directives. It may help the noble Baroness if I write to her setting out the terms of the earlier regulation in that respect.
  Rather than write the speech that the noble Earl will deliver at Masham town hall, I shall write to him about the way in which we see the development of coordination on river basin water management. The key

  GC 51
  role, as I and the noble Baroness, Lady Young, have indicated, would be with the Environment Agency, but clearly it is a little more complicated than that. The powers of the agency would play a significant part, but other aspects would require private landowners and other private operators to play their part.
  Earl Peel: It is important for the noble Lord to appreciate that in our case there is a great willingness for all interested parties to co-operate in such a scheme. Matters appear to have gone wrong, whether through lack of finance or through direction or whatever, because the project officer has not been appointed by the Environment Agency. Without such a project officer to act as a catalyst the scheme will not work. If we could get that far down the line, I believe that there would be a tremendous willingness among many interested parties to make the scheme work without necessarily calling upon the Environment Agency to produce substantial resources.
  Baroness Byford: Before the Minister answers that point, perhaps he could reply to two points that I raised: first, the difference between the directive, including land under a hectare; and, secondly, he said that the directive would not affect many in agriculture at the moment, but trickle irrigation, which I believe many people will use, is not included.
  Lord Whitty: I shall have to write to the noble Baroness about the situation on less than one hectare. I am unable to respond to that immediately. On the second point, trickle irrigation is introduced under the Bill and indirectly by some of the transposition. However, if it were to require an EIA (environmental impact assessment) it would need to have a significant environmental effect. Some projects would automatically go through and for others, where there was a query that the environmental impact would be large, we would require the full EIA procedure in the estimate. That would be a limited number of projects of all kinds, including trickle irrigation.
  Lord Livsey of Talgarth: Perhaps I could comment on some of the Minister's responses before my noble friend replies. He stated that there were four pieces of legislation. In promoting a Bill it is perfectly normal to state on the face of the Bill that it will amend the Water Resources Act 1991, the Water Industry Act 1991 and the Reservoirs Act 1975. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, was trying to bring a piece of European legislation, the Water Framework Directive, within the ambit of the Bill. That is straightforward; it is a one-off. I point out to the Minister that the amendment refers to the England and Wales Directive 2000/60 EC. I have that document which states clearly that this is the directive of 23rd October 2000. It establishes a framework for community action in the area of water policy. Why will the consultation on that directive not be completed until the end of 2003?
  Lord Whitty: I thought I had explained. The consultation on the directive has been a three-phase matter. Two of those phases have been completed. The
  GC 52
  third phase will be completed this year well in time to meet the deadline set out in the directive. I do not believe that there is an issue of slow progress by the Government on it. We have engaged many people to look at how the directive should be transposed. On his more general point, the issue is not what we describe the Bill as, even if we were to adopt a catch-all purpose clause; but what is the normal procedure of this Parliament in dealing with European directives.
  4.45 p.m.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: Will the Minister be more specific on that point? He says that we have engaged a lot of people, but what is a lot of people in the terms of something as wide as the directive?
  Lord Whitty: I am sorry; I did not quite catch that.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: The Minister says that we have engaged a lot of people in the consultation. In his terms for the directive, is that 1,000, 5,000 or 20,000 people?
  Lord Whitty: I have absolutely no idea. We write to a lot of organizations—probably hundreds—in the course of consultation, as Members of the Committee know. I have no way of telling how many people they then engage in discussion. I would assume that those who respond have themselves engaged with many of their members and those whom they claim to represent. However, I am afraid that there is no way for me to give a definitive answer.
  We have engaged in a three-stage consultation on the directive, as we would with any detailed legislation. The directive itself gives us three years to transpose it. The timescale towards its complete implementation takes us in some respects as far as 2015. That is why I referred to 2015 earlier, which the noble Earl criticised. We are at the beginning of a long-term process in which, as Members of the Committee have said, we have to engage and inform people, and to bring them together to deliver the intentions of the directive and the Bill.
  I am clearly unconvinced, however, that one way to do that is to spend an awful lot of time trying to produce one consolidated piece of legislation to reflect all the different aspects, many of which are already in place and with which people are already reasonably familiar.
  The Duke of Montrose: I have a note that states that the programmes of measures for water-basin districts must be operational under Article 11(7) by 22nd December 2012. Will the Minister help me with that?
  Lord Whitty: Different parts of the regulations have to be completed at different times.
  Noble Lords: Oh!
  Lord Whitty: That applies to primary legislation as much as it does to European legislation. I do not think that the noble Duke should be seriously surprised at that.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I thank all Members of the Committee who have spoken to the amendment. Each one, at least on our side, has given an interesting picture as to why we feel that it is necessary. The Water Framework Directive is all-embracing. The noble Earl, Lord Peel, and the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, outlined very well why it will affect people, not only in land management terms. It will affect them socially, through their pockets in terms of the bills that they pay, and in many other ways with which I do not think the Government have yet been fully seized.
  One point that has been made again and again is that of costs and benefits, and how they will vary in terms of transposition. The Minister says that he has consulted a lot of people, and I suggest that consultation begins with Parliament, with democratic consultation. For that reason, I am particularly disappointed that the Government continue to resist having the Water Framework Directive in the Bill.
  I must declare an interest at this stage, because my husband chairs a voluntary committee in Somerset that is trying to bring together land and water managers, the Environment Agency, the voluntary sector and others to conduct a pilot into the management mentioned by the noble Earl. The evidence from the Select Committee gives the Government's official terms, stating at question 22 that they have made only a belated decision to conduct one pilot in the Ribble valley. I do not call that broad consultation. Until one has had some pilots and people can see how they are working on the ground, they cannot understand what the idea is about. It is an exciting opportunity, but very complicated to put into practice.
  I certainly bow to the knowledge of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, which is far superior to mine as to whether my amendment achieves the purposes that I wish. If it does not in his judgment, I will certainly look at it again.
  Lord Carter: It is not the judgment of Lord Carter about which the noble Baroness has to worry, but that of the judges if the provision is challenged.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: In any case, I hope to come up with something that will more exactly achieve the purpose that I wish, if the amendment will not achieve that.
  Without a kick-start, the directive is still likely to be implemented by the Government in a piecemeal, late and unco-ordinated way. I feel great sadness that we cannot scrutinise and debate it so as to give us much more influence over how it is transposed. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, says that the CLA, the NFU and the RICS have not mentioned the directive in their briefings, but they certainly mentioned it in their evidence to the committee. I suggest to him that they have not mentioned it in their briefings because they have become depressed by the Government's attitude and the fact that it will not be in the Bill. When they see that there is a will in the House to put it in, I am sure that they will brief us and the Government at length on it.
  GC 54
  The Minister said that consolidation was too difficult. I do not accept that we should be held back by that. Let us be a bit more ambitious. I found it refreshing to read the Scottish Bill—and with that, I should say that perhaps we should have fines whenever a bad pun about water is committed, and at the end we could give the funds to WaterAid. The Scottish Bill was in extremely plain English. I accept that Scotland does not have all the complications that England does, but nevertheless I feel that we should focus on a consolidated Bill.
  Perhaps the provisions are a good place for the Government to start. They could put into practice a principle, which they should have, that the general public can understand what on earth legislation is about. It is difficult for Members of the Committee to understand. I too appreciated the Government's efforts in giving us amended copies of the previous Bills so that we could see what the effect was. My goodness, I should think that even the draftsmen have huge difficulty. It would be nice if we could start on that principle for something as important and basic as water.
  The Minister mentioned that there would be delay if the amendment were agreed to. The directive has to be transposed in principle by the end of the year, so I do not accept that the delay would be likely to be very long.
  I am not sure how the Environment Agency views the lack of transposition of the directive. I suspect that it will work one way or the other, whichever it is given, because it will have to. The noble Lord said that it had adequate resources. I would have thought that it would have welcomed the certainty of the directive being transposed. Many others have wanted to be sure in that way, notably the water industry, for which certainty was particularly important. That wish for certainty ran through many pieces of evidence, including from the Wildlife Trusts. If the Environment Agency were frank, it might welcome it too.
  Scotland is different, apparently. but I do not believe that it is different in relation to the amendment. It has to transpose the legislation, as do we. As the Bill goes through Committee, I for one will watch out sharply for when we need primary legislation. We are certainly unlikely to see another water Bill within the next five years, so I suspect that we may even see some government amendments tabled, because the Government will recognise that pieces of the directive will need primary legislation. In the meantime, heartened by the support that I have had, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
  Baroness Byford Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 3:
  Before Clause I, insert the following new clause—
  "DUTY TO CONSERVE WATER RESOURCES
  The Secretary of State shall take all necessary steps to encourage the efficient use of water by all users and consumers."
  The noble Baroness said: The amendment is tiny compared to the first two. I am very hopeful that the Minister might look sympathetically on it, because I would have thought that it was in the interests of all of us to wish to conserve water resources. We have all said clearly that we desire to use water carefully. Indeed, our subsequent amendments look specifically at that. However, to state that on the Bill would give greater encouragement not only to those in the industry or in business using water. but to us as individuals.
  I well remember my noble friend Lady O'Cathain saying that when she turned the tap on and then put the toothpaste on the toothbrush. she realised that she had allowed the water to run. Ever since, I now do that in reverse. Such silly actions are hugely important. The amendment is only very small, but I hope that it will receive great support from the Committee. I want to speak to it more fully after that broad introduction.
  The Water Industry Act 1991 lays a duty on water undertakers to encourage efficient use of water. The amendment would widen the responsibility and should result in a government campaign similar to the good campaigns currently under way on, for example, energy conservation. Government departments and agencies should be set targets for improved use of water. Private industry already does that. Rio Tinto, for example, is introducing a scheme throughout the company. It has wider aims of increasing water-use efficiency, especially by increasing its use of recycled water and reducing its need for fresh water.
  There is also a need to inform the public—we touched on that in great detail on the previous amendment—about water usage. We must encourage them to use water sensibly and to conserve it. There was much information during the drought years, but since then our minds might have slipped away from the need to conserve water.
  As Members of the Committee will know, the Bill has taken three years to come before us. In fact, it was originally a reaction to a drought. Since then we have had extensive flooding, often unfortunately at the wrong time of year. There has been a lot of water. However, that should not take our eye off the ball. There is a need to require people to conserve water, even when it is in abundance. The Select Committee report states on page 35 that,
  "the first—and perhaps over-riding—conclusion of our inquiry is that the Directive needs much greater public promotion".
  That is hugely important.
  I am trying to encourage the Minister that the amendment is only a few words—five—to accept. I hope that, with the support of others around the Committee, we can persuade him to accept it to the Bill. I beg to move.
  Baroness O'Cathain: My noble friend says most disarmingly that the amendment is only five words, but those five words are fundamental to the whole future of water in this country. I will not go back to the toothbrush analogy, but people simply do not realise
  GC 56
  how valuable water is or how easy it is to conserve. They do not realise that it is in their interests to do so, not only as consumers now, but for following generations.
  One big issue that came out at Second Reading was the stunning information given to us by the Environment Agency about the shortage of water per capita in parts of this country, by comparison with Sudan and Ethiopia. If those facts were brought home to the public in a greater way. I am sure that everyone would be prepared to act. It is not as though the Government are saying, "Don't drive your car". That would inconvenience people, but being sensible about conserving water would not. It merely means that they become slightly more responsible, and I support the amendment absolutely.
  5 p.m.
  Baroness Young of Old Scone: I was delighted to hear the noble Baroness talk about the water shortages that I pointed out at Second Reading, particularly those in the south and south-east of the country. A number of requirements are already laid on elements of the water industry to promote water efficiency. Ofwat requires water companies to undertake a basic minimum level of activity unless supplies are under pressure, when a more active approach is necessary. Such an approach is not defined. In practice, some water companies do the minimum that they think that they can get away with in the face of Ofwat's requirement.
  It is not just the water companies that are involved. Households could save up to 40 per cent of water through efficiency measures, both in design of houses and low-water appliances. Industry could save 30 per cent with even the most simple and cost-effective measures. There has not been as much estimation of the water efficiency savings that could be achieved in agriculture. but the dairy industry could probably make savings of upwards of 20 per cent. More effective irrigation methods could have a major impact on water use. There is a long way to go if we are to have the water efficiency level necessary in view of pressures on the water system.
  From all that, one might think that I would support the amendment, but I am afraid that I do not, It seems to be one of those nice, motherhood-and-apple-pie amendments that admonishes the Secretary of State to admonish the rest of the world. A number of amendments on water efficiency take a more targeted approach, including Amendment No. 74, whenever we get to it. The noble Baroness has raised an important issue, but the amendment may not be the one to deliver the right action in practice.
  Lord Livsey of Talgarth: I certainly support the amendment. Contrary to what the noble Baroness said, I believe that it lays out some very important principles relating to the conservation of one of our most precious commodities. We have to be responsible in that respect.

  GC 57
  In the Water Industry Act 1991, the industry itself had to ensure that wastage was minimised. There is still a lot of wastage in the industry, but it is better than it was in 1991. There are still tales of about 25 per cent wastage, but we have to look at the state of the infrastructure. It was probably put in place by our great-grandparents, and has done very well for the past 120 years or so.
  We debated metering at Second Reading and how there were scarcities of water in different parts of the UK, as the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, said. In the South East, metering could be very effective so far as consumers and users are concerned. In other parts of the country where population pressure is not so great, the infrastructure is often in quite a state. Indeed, the pressure for metering in such places may not be so great. That will have to be resolved, and it will no doubt be debated further in greater detail.
  Sadly, we have heard recently of other problems to do with the supply of water in the Middle East and how scarce it is. We need to do everything that we can in terms of the efficient use of water, and ensure that conservation is right at the heart of the legislation.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: I also want to speak in favour of the amendment. In doing so, I reiterate an interest that I declared at Second Reading, which is that I hold an abstraction licence. By declaring that, I keep my hands well washed —that is another pound into the pot suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. I also want to put on record how grateful I am to have been briefed by the water industry, the Environment Agency and Ofwat before the Bill. Those briefings have been extremely informative and helpful.
  I shall not lay any responsibility or say who the offender was, but in those briefings we discussed water resources and how one might have additional ones. It transpired that in the territory, shall we say, of one major water company, the nearest and most easily accessible additional water resource that it had was the water leaking out of its own pipes. The quantity was very large. When we put the duty to conserve water resources in that context, it is very significant.
  It has already been said that many water companies have had enormous success in terms of improvements, and that becomes extremely hard work below a certain point. However, if one installs the correct recording procedures so that one knows exactly what is happening—some water companies have done so—one can tackle leakage, and leakage is a resource. It is a significant factor.
  Metering has been mentioned. If the development suggested in the South East goes ahead, it will help metering, because the practice in this part of the world is that all new houses are metered. The proportion of houses with meters will by definition rise.
  My final observation on good use of water resources is a different aspect of the same point, and I am persuaded of it by looking abroad. One finds that other countries, especially the drier parts of the United States, are terribly good about ensuring that irrigation
  GC 58
  water is already soiled water that has been rough-cleaned to a state in which it is suitable for such a use. The irrigation process becomes part of the recycling process and the cleaning process.
  We can do a great deal if we set about that. However, in this country we do not work and think in that way enough. We might if the principle were enunciated in the Bill. I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, would not support the amendment, as it would help enormously by enunciating that significant principle. If it were included in the Bill, everyone would then know that they had to take the principle into account.
  Earl Peel: I support my noble friend. If one is to have a water Bill, it seems totally logical that:
  "The Secretary of State shall take all necessary steps to encourage the efficient use of water".
  I cannot think of anything more sensible, frankly.
  Like my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith, I was disappointed that the noble Baroness. Lady Young, did not support the amendment. I think that she said that she preferred the targeted approach. To me, that conjures up the idea that the Government, and through them her agency, will take a selective approach. I am not sure that that puts out all the right messages. I noticed, of course, that she was selective and chose agriculture as an example on which efficiencies could be made. She was absolutely right. However, we must not forget the fact that agriculture is responsible for only 2 per cent of the total a mount of water abstracted.
  Baroness Miller of, Chilthorne Dinner: I would certainly like to support the amendment. Later amendments are targeted and I welcome the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for our Amendment No. 74. However, the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, lays the ground that efficient use of water should be a basic principle of the Bill.
  I am not entirely sure what has happened to the Government's resolve, as stated in Taking Water Responsibly. Perhaps the Minister will say where that went. They stated:
  "The Government will bring forward legislation, when Parliamentary time allows, to place water companies under an enforceable duty to conserve water in carrying out their functions. It will also bring forward legislation, when Parliamentary time allows, to place all other abstractors under an enforceable duty to use water abstracted … in an efficient and effective manner".
  They went on at great length in promotion of efficient use. I accept that they did not seem to lay a responsibility on themselves to ensure that that happened, but that duty was implicit on the Secretary of State throughout Taking Water Responsibly, Why else would the Government publish something with that title?
  I was also very struck by some words at the beginning of Water Wise, an excellent little book produced by the Environment Agency. They state:
  "By investing a little time and money in implementing a simple water management plan, your organisation could reduce its water consumption by up to 80 per cent. releasing money to be invested in other parts of your business".

  GC 59
  I suggest that that would apply to public bodies, private businesses and private households. By simply encouraging people or organisations to take that line, and by having a duty to enable them to do so, the Secretary of State would be doing a great service financially to many organisations and people. Companies could justify to their shareholders that they were making investments because they had to.
  I further remind the Minister of the statements that he made yesterday, when he was talking about encouraging the labelling of appliances and so on to be energy efficient. He was replying to my Question on the successful Are You Doing Your Bit Campaign, and talked about the fact that the Government would do more to encourage efficient use of energy. He did not use the word resources but, in considering the Bill, we must regard water in the same way in which we regard energy. I shall return to that subject later in terms of water conservation. After all, it takes a large amount of energy even to clean water up, so the two are linked.
  The amendment paves the way for the more targeted amendments later in the Bill, and I assure the noble Baroness of my support for it.
  Lord Whitty: I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, that I have some sympathy with what she is saying. Water used efficiently is very important, and we should ensure that the Bill and other measures increase the efficiency with which water is used. My problem with the amendment is that it could confuse the situation as to the burden of responsibility rather than clarify it.
  Water companies, Ofwat and the Environment Agency all have duties and powers to promote water efficiency. To put a general duty on the Secretary of State could well confuse that. It would cut across the duties and powers already in place and those proposed in the Bill and elsewhere, and could lead to confusion of roles.
  Water undertakers are already under a duty to maintain and develop an efficient and economic system of water supply in their areas. That duty provides the basis for setting annual leakage reduction targets, to which reference has been made—leakages have been reduced by 25 per cent during recent years. Water undertakers are also under a duty to promote the efficient use of water by their customers. There is therefore a two-tier responsibility. Ofwat continues to require leakage reduction where that is economic, so the regulator is already involved in the matter.
  A number of responsibilities fall to the Secretary of State. For example, the Government play an important role in ensuring that leakage targets are set and achieved. The Green Technology Challenge, a scheme introduced in last year's Budget, will offer enhanced capital allowances for investment in designated technologies to minimise water use and improve water quality. So there is a direct role for the Government, but the responsibility in existing statute, the rest of the Bill and the various directives that apply relates to the water companies themselves, to their
  GC 60
  responsibility to encourage water efficiency on the part of their consumers and to the regulators, not to the Secretary of State or the Government.
  We may return to the issue when we discuss the amendments to which my noble friend Lady Young of Old Scone and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, referred, including her own amendment. That may be a more appropriate point at which to consider some form of amendment to the Bill—without committing the Government to accepting those amendments. But here in the Bill and in this form, such an amendment would confuse existing responsibilities. Whatever the merits of raising the issue. the Government do not support such an amendment, five words though it may be, at this point in the Bill.
  5.15 p.m.
  Baroness O'Cathain: An idea has just struck me. The Minister says that there is a duty on everyone to promote the efficient use of water. That is fine. But there is a difference between conservation and efficiency. One can be efficient in the use of water—for example, one can use one's sprinklers only at night, so that there is no great evaporation—but it would be much better to specify conservation, because some plants do not require to be sprinkled at night. There is a subtle difference. Many people understand the idea of efficient use of water but, because from time to time we are deluged—we have floods and what seems to be constant rain—everyone thinks that there is plenty of water and so are not concerned about conserving it. There is a subtle difference that we should consider further.
  Baroness Byford: I am grateful to all Members of the Committee who spoke in support of the amendment. I am deeply disturbed that the chief executive of the Environment Agency does not think that it is a good idea. Members of the general public will view that with slight concern—I certainly do.
  Baroness Young of Old Scone: I hope that I did not leave the impression that I do not think that water efficiency is a good idea; I simply said that the amendment was perhaps not the best way to achieve that outcome in practice.
  Baroness Byford: I hear what the noble Baroness says, but I shall read Hansard carefully tomorrow. I do not regard the amendment as in any way an apple-pie amendment; it is hugely important. So I am disappointed that someone who heads the Environment Agency, who will have to deal with the Bill and try to encourage us all—whether we work for water companies or are just private individuals—to ensure that it works, reacts in that way. But there we are.
  I must say the same for the Minister; he will not be surprised at that. He said that he was sympathetic, but on this occasion we need more than sympathy. He said that he felt that the amendment cut across duties and confused other roles. Nothing is more confusing than what we are having to do, which is to go through the Bill, which refers to so many different Acts, let alone

  GC 61
  the statutory instruments and everything else. The amendment would clearly insert at the front of the Bill just a few words, so I am bitterly disappointed that both the Minister—although I do not mean him personally, but the department—and the Environment Agency take that view.
  I am grateful to Members of the Committee who have supported my amendment. My noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith made an interesting suggestion concerning how the issue is being addressed in America. As we all know, some parts of America are very dry.
  So I am not at all happy, and if we were on the Floor of the House, I should call for a Division. I register my objection. I am not satisfied, however kindly the Minister put me down, that the Government are unable to accept the amendment. We shall certainly return to it. My noble friend Lord Peel mentioned that agriculture accounts for only 2 per cent of total water drawn down. We as householders should be declaring an interest—we all use water. Each of us uses a lot of water and there are ways in which we can help.
  My amendment is so small and refers to,
  "all users and consumers".
  However, we are where we are. With reluctance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 1 [Licences to abstract water]:
  The Duke of Montrose The Duke of Montrose moved Amendment No. 4:
  Page 2. line 9, after "days" insert "in any period of twelve calendar months"
  The noble Duke said: This is a probing amendment to ascertain whether the temporary licence is intended o cover a continuous period or whether, for example, an abstractor could take water once a week from April to September to restock water storage containers. The amendment is also intended to establish whether the temporary licence may be renewed year on year for the same purpose.
  Perhaps those Members of the Committee who are modern-technology literate will forgive me if I fall back on old-fashioned imperial measures. I realise that it would take a big bowser for stock to fill one with 4,400 gallons per day before the operation fell within the 20 cubic metres at which a licence is required. However, if someone was in the habit of refilling a swimming pool once a week, he might well exceed the 20 cubic metres threshold on one day of the week, but not as an average over the whole week. I beg to move.
  Lord Whitty: The temporary licences are intended to be used to cover one-off abstractions of a duration of fewer than 28 consecutive days where large volumes of water are needed for short periods—for example, at a summer fair, for pressure testing of pipelines or other episodic events. Under the Government's definition, the Environment Agency will be able to assess the effects of short-duration abstraction of that order in relation to the time of year and current pressures on the system.
  GC 62
  With that clarification, the effect of the amendment moved by the noble Duke would be undesirable in several respects. It would allow abstractions on any 27 days in a 12-month period, rather than on 27 consecutive days. It would also allow short duration abstractions at a fixed time over many years—for example, for 27 days, or almost the whole of February, every year for 12 years. I do not think that that is the noble Duke's intention, but that is what his amendment would allow. It would also allow short-duration abstractions over many years at any time of the year—for example, any 27 days in any one year for 12 years.
  Any of those cases would represent a fundamental change to what is intended to be the use of temporary licences. In all of them, the Environment Agency would have difficulty assessing what would be the impact and enforcing its decision. In turn, that would increase the time needed to determine the application and would defeat one objective of having a temporary licence provision, which is to deal with situations that may arise suddenly by providing a short-duration licence that can be issued quickly, without going through the lengthier process required for a permanent licence.
  With that explanation, I hope that the noble Duke will understand what is intended by temporary licences and that his amendment would significantly worsen the situation.
  The Duke of Montrose: I thank the Minister for his reply. What he said makes the meaning of the Bill's wording much clearer. We shall have to consider whether what he said is enough to make it clear for ever and a day, or whether some wording still needs to be added to ensure that anyone reading the Bill understands what he has explained to us today. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 5:
  Page 2, line 9, at end insert—
  "( ) Where the issue of a licence also concern, the construction of engineering facilities that are related to the supply or storage or processing of the water that is the subject of the licence applied for, the licence issuing authority shall take into account the expected life of those related facilities when considering, the duration of the period for which the licence is to be issued."
  The noble Lord said: The amendment is grouped with Amendment No. 55, which picks up a similar point. That point was mentioned on Second Reading by several of my noble friends—Lord Elliot of Morpeth, Lady O'Cathain and Lord Peel—and by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie. Indirectly, it was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, who sought to give reassurance on the issue of discharge licences, which are subject to a four-yearly review that, she says, appears not to cause any problems. I accept that. It may or may not be an argument, but how many times have we all read in legislation that a Minister may decide on different courses of action for different cases? I hate to think how many times I have read that since I have been in the House.
  The problem is the glaring inconsistency between the problems of long-term planning and financing of the water industry—especially of infrastructure—and what we know of the suggested licensing regime under the new system that will operate on 12-year blocks. If one simply considers the problems of providing major reservoirs—or, indeed, catchment area transfer schemes—to supply water over big distances, they probably have at least a 20-year planning and lead-in time before they can be brought into action.
  No one, and I seriously mean no one, will consider anything of that nature—it will not even get to first base—on the basis of an assurance of an abstraction licence for 12 years. That is unreal. So we have an immediate and apparent problem. One Member of the Committee has already referred to the fact that parts of the water industry are still running on essentially Victorian infrastructure. I do not suggest that one would necessarily want to introduce a licence that would match the lifetime of the infrastructure, but I hope that we can ensure that, even today, the industry builds to similar standards. The disruption that is caused if we do not is usually a hidden on-cost that the whole of society must reluctantly bear.
  One would not build a house on the basis of a 12-year supply of water, but the Government are blithely talking about adding about another 500,000 houses in the south-east of England, where water supplies are already supposed to be under pressure. That is a glaring inconsistency.
  This is a probing amendment—although I regard the whole Grand Committee process as a probing process. The amendment would simply require the "issuing authority"—I used that wording deliberately because, without wanting to hurt anyone's feelings, nothing lasts for ever and the Environment Agency may not last as long as much of the infrastructure that it sees installed—to,
  "take into account the expected life of those related facilities".
  I shall listen to the Minister's reply with interest, but I suspect that the wording might have been slightly more appropriate if I had used the words, "the funding period", which would at least have allowed the installer to get out of financial trouble. Major infrastructure for the water industry is enormously expensive. It is expensive for whoever undertakes it. If a farmer creates an impounding reservoir to take winter run-off and use it for irrigation in the summer, relatively for him, that is a very high cost. The same argument applies to someone using boreholes for aquifer recharge—as can be done. All those systems are expensive for the person undertaking the work. That is a fundamental point.
  I hope that the Government may be somewhat more sympathetic to this amendment than to earlier amendments that, in my view, are equally important. We shall come to the question of licences later, but if there is concern that it will be impractical to manage the abstraction of water in the interests of the catchment area sufficiently well if the licence period is too long, I suggest that that is the problem not of the
  GC 64
  person holding the licence but of the person issuing licences. We must think carefully, but there is no reason why in particular cases involving major infrastructure costs, or an individual who is undertaking high relative expenditure, people should not have a licence for the full period—at any rate for them to recover their costs. That would make planning such operations much easier.
  I shall say no more. I could enter some slightly less productive areas that are, to an extent, red herrings to the issue, but the fundamental point stands. I accept and place on record that the existing system is working extremely well. In my briefing, I am assured that long-term planning continues and that the system is beginning to work extremely well. But if we look for the legislative authority that makes it work, it does not really exist. At least, it is not spelled out.
  I am encouraged to the extent that people will undertake what needs to be undertaken regardless of the law. That has always been the case. But some provisions should be in primary legislation, so that everyone knows what is the background and, more importantly, so that some lunatic cannot get hold of the system and make a mess of it. I beg to move.
  5.30 p.m.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My name and that of my noble friend Lord Livsey are attached to Amendment No. 55, along with those of the noble Baronesses, Lady O'Cathain and Lady Byford, because we, too, want to probe the issue and discover the Government's thinking.
  We feel encouraged by the balance in the Bill that ensures that the habitat side of the business will be protected in a way that it has not been before. However, to have proper regard to sustainability, we must ensure that when people decide to invest in something, the agency will get its judgment right. The amendment places an additional onus on the agency to get its judgment right, so that it does not jeopardise someone who makes an investment only to discover that it was not as good as he thought.
  The Bill includes sufficient safeguards for eventualities that we may not predict, such as periods of drought. The amendment is geared more to times of normality. I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply.
  Baroness Byford: My noble friend Lady O'Cathain is absent at the moment, so I shall speak to Amendment No. 55 on her behalf. It asks the Government to take into account the costs that my noble friend mentioned when speaking to a previous amendment.
  We have received correspondence and telephone calls from and held interviews with people who are involved in the industry who are worried about future investment if there is no relevant life-expectancy. That will put them off investing. I know that the Minister is well aware that, unfortunately, many of the water companies' existing pipes, and so on. are from the Victorian era. Although they were well built, it is a

  GC 65
  long time since then and much of the infrastructure will have to he replaced. Thereby attaches a huge problem.
  My noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith touched on new build and the associated costs. In passing, I ask the Minister what costs included in the recent announcement by John Prescott about the anticipated new house build in the South East were directed towards providing water and sewerage. I understand that those costs were not included in that estimate. If so, why not? Was it because the costs were too high; or was that just an oversight? We all know that those costs are significant, and it is unfair to expect those who will carry the burden, whether as an individual business—my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith acknowledged his interest in that respect—or as companies, to undertake work when they cannot cover their costs.
  If the Minister does not like the amendment—he may well say that he has reservations about it—perhaps he will explain to the Committee what time frame he would consider practical. Other, later, amendments, consider specific businesses, but I do not want to go into the specifics at this stage. This is an overriding, wide-ranging amendment, and it would enormously help the Committee if the Minister were to respond to the questions posed by my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. We do not want to put people off investing but to ensure that our future structure is strong and sound.
  We all know that we waste so much water, especially through leakage. if licensees will not get a proper term of life-expectancy, is it really fair to expect them to invest as they have during recent years? I support Amendment No. 55, as well as Amendment No. 5.
  Lord Sutherland of Houndwood: I support the amendment, because it encapsulates an important principle that applies to other amendments that we shall consider. That is that to judge the effectiveness and fairness of legislation such as this, one should take into account its impact on users of water, the industries that must use water and the many other constraints under which they work—such as, in the end, setting adequate investment and planning horizons. The amendments would help the setting of investment and planning horizons that would lead to the efficient use of water, and therefore increase the worthiness of the Bill.
  Earl Peel: It is worth adding that any such business is likely to have bank borrowings. The bank will of course seek security when negotiating such borrowings, so I support the amendment from that perspective, which is integral to businesses that rely on abstraction licences.
  Baroness Young of Old Scone: I am afraid that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, rather took the wind from my sails by citing my example on Second Reading of sewage treatment works, which are regularly reviewed on a four to six-year basis and may have their licences altered with no compensation, although they have a right of appeal. So a 12-year
  GC 66
  licence is more secure. Since the noble Lord stole that example, I was trying to think of others from other regulatory fields, but I could not think of one that was not parallel to the Bill's provisions, as opposed to those of the amendment.
  For example, under the integrated pollution prevention and control regime, factories, including some of our major chemical complexes, are regularly regulated. In many cases, they involve extremely high-cost, long-term investment, but their licences are renewed every six years. Nuclear power stations and reprocessing plants have an asset life-span of not just tens or fifties but of thousands of years, bearing in mind the waste legacy issues, but they also have licences that are reviewed over a few years.
  Investment occurs right across the industrial and commercial world where it is not posiible for businesses to say with absolute certainty that they will hold a single licence of an entirely predictable nature for the entire length of their business. If we look elsewhere in the regulatory regime, we will understand that that is not a deterrent to investment.
  Indeed, water company investment is in a blessed state, in that it is one area of life where we have a long-term, strategic forward view. The sustainability of an abstraction proposition is assessed at the point of licensing to ensure that it is environmentally sustainable over a number of years. That decision is made against the background of the company's long-term water resource plan and the nation's water resources strategy, which stretches 25 years in advance.
  When it comes to renew such licences, it would be strange if there had been such substantial change from the forward look over that 25-year period that the water resources strategy implies that there needed to be huge dislocation in the licence. It is more likely that there would be fine-tuning, such as the other industries that I mentioned—our major industrial complexes and nuclear power stations—take in their stride as part of their normal business process.
  5.45 p.m.
  Lord Whitty: Investment in water facilities of all sorts is very important for the Government and the regulators. Part of the reasoning behind the amendments is probably misplaced, in that the Bill does not fix the duration of any new abstraction licence, it simply requires a time limit to be placed on every licence. When considering the length of licences or their renewal, the Environment Agency, as the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, said, must take account of the abstracter's reasonable needs, which includes the need for investment. Indeed, if the agency were not to take such needs into account, it would be open to challenge. If that led to a decision that a long-term licence was needed, the agency would have to act accordingly. But it is up to the agency to decide the licence duration on a case-by-case basis and in a way which fulfils its primary duty to consider local water resources.

  GC 67
  It would therefore be inappropriate to incorporate a criterion such as fixed duration or to include a single unilateral criterion on asset lifetime which would be seen to override other criteria, not least the basic environmental criteria that are the objectives of the Bill.
  The agency must consider costs and benefits in the exercise of its powers by virtue of its obligations under Section 39 of the Environment Act 1995. That will clearly include some of the issues referred to in this debate.
  The agency has recently published guidance on how it will address the duration and renewal of licences. Licences longer than what it regards as the normal 12-year period will be considered if the tests set out in Taking Water Responsibly are met and therefore justify a licence for longer than 12 years. Neither the duration nor the exemption from the duration are matters for the Bill. They require the Environment Agency to use its judgment on a case-by-case basis.
  The Government accept many of the more general points made in this discussion about the need for investment, to ensure that planning takes account of that need and that the regulatory provisions are sensitive to it. However, it would be inappropriate to write a single criterion into the Bill. With all respect to the noble Lord, it is quite a crude criterion relating to the lifetime of a specific asset with no cross-reference to the environmental outcome. Although many of the considerations to which he refers are appropriate for consideration by the agency, I do not think that including them in the way he suggests would help.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Byford, the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, and the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland of Houndwood, for their support for the principle of the amendment—even if the wording is not perfect. I also thank my noble friend Lord Peel for what he said.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, spoke about industries being regulated under the integrated pollution prevention and control legislation. I, too, had something to do with that passing through the House. I have lived not exactly under the shadow of a nuclear power station, but there is one not far from where I live, for a long time, so I am well aware of the problems that they can create.
  It is essential that industries producing discharges which can cause immediate and direct environmental damage if they escape should be regularly reviewed. I do not doubt that those industries are only too aware of that and review their own procedures even more regularly than might the Environment Agency. That is different from this instance, where we are dealing with the abstraction and use of a natural resource.
  If we are considering, as we are obliged to do in the long-term planning process, the construction of a new major reservoir costing many millions of pounds and all the infrastructure involved in processing that water and getting it to customers, that process will not start.
  GC 68
  As I understand it, there is no presumption of renewal of a licence. We shall come to that later in the Bill, but it is absolutely fundamental.
  I am aware, as the Minister has acknowledged, that the Environment Agency can, if it wishes, consider a longer-term basis for abstraction licences. If major problems are to be resolved in the future, longer-term abstraction licences must be considered.
  I was a little concerned when the Minister said that licences for longer periods could not be issued without a concern for the environmental criteria, which is the primary reason behind much of the Bill. In a way, that is right and proper, but that consideration must be made before we even begin to consider issuing a licence, if it is to be issued at all. Once one has a licence and infrastructure costs mount up, one is committed on behalf of communities across the country, one by one. One cannot, at some point, turn off the tap because a wetland might be becoming a little dry. That is impractical.
  We shall have to return to this issue. We are considering what should be in the Bill. I have always believed that one should try to write into the Bill the primary matters which make it comprehensible for ordinary people, so that they understand the guiding parameters backing a service such as the water industry. Most thinking people would feel concern at the possible inconsistency—I put it no higher than that—between practice on the ground and the reality with which the industry has to work. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause I agreed to.
  Lord Livsey of Talgarth Lord Livsey of Talgarth moved Amendment No. 6:
  After Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
  "IMPOUNDING TO CREATE LARGE RESERVOIRS
  (1) The Agency, prior to granting a licence to a water company to impound water in a large reservoir, shall conduct—

  (a) an environmental impact assessment;

  (b) a social impact assessment; and

  (c) the subjection of plans to the local planning authority to obtain planning permission.

  (2) The Secretary of State in England and the First Minister in Wales shall have the power to refer such planning applications to a public inquiry."
  The noble Lord said: We are addressing three amendments. Amendment No. 6 deals with the impounding of large reservoirs; that is specific to reservoirs that have a capacity of more than 25,000 cubic metres. Amendment No. 7 relates to smaller reservoirs—my noble friend Lady Miller will speak to it. Amendment No. 8 addresses compensatory flow into river systems from reservoirs.
  Amendment No. 6 relates to impounding to create large reservoirs. The new clause states that the agency, prior to granting a licence to a water company to impound water in a large reservoir, shall conduct three things in principle—an environmental impact assessment, a social impact assessment and the subjection of plans to the local planning authority to obtain planning permission. The second part of the

  GC 69
  new clause would ensure that the Secretary of State in England and the First Minister in Wales shall have the power to refer such planning applications to a public inquiry.
  This is a very important new clause. Indeed, as someone who comes from Wales, I believe it is crucial. We believe that the Bill should guide the conduct of the water company in increasing the water capacity, if that is its wish. When one dams a valley or other area, which is often in an environmentally sensitive area anyway, the impact can have an enormous downside and completely change the environment of the area where the reservoir is created. Local communities are often completely disrupted where a valley has been dammed. In the past, entire communities have been lost under the waters—drowned, literally—and the inhabitants have had to be relocated elsewhere.
  It is obvious that any plans would have to come within the ambit of the local planning authority to obtain planning permission. As a fallback position, there must he an appeals mechanism so that an appeal can be made on all those aspects—perhaps to oppose any such development. The purpose and function of the proposal is to try to prevent communities from flooding, with the loss of livelihood, housing and community facilities and amenities, in addition to the environmental factors that I mentioned.
  There is another aspect to that in that reservoirs can also be extended. A proposal is being considered that might extend one of the reservoirs in mid-Wales to twice its size. That is in the Elan valley.
  I see the amendment as a protection of communities and a way to give them the means to appeal against someone coming along and basically saying, "We are going to drown your valley".
  I point out the number of reservoirs in Wales and the large city conurbations which they supply. I will write out their names for the benefit of the Hansard writers. One at Llandegfedd, near Pontypool, is a totally different type of reservoir to the ones in mountainous areas, and is basic to the water supply to south-east Wales.
  The Talybont reservoir in the Brecon Beacons supplies Newport, along with the Usk reservoir; the Crai reservoir supplies Swansea; the Taf Fechan system in the Beacons supplies Cardiff—there are three of those reservoirs; the Ystradfellte reservoir supplies Swansea; and the Llyn Brianne supplies Swansea and also transfers water. The Elan valley complex, which was very wisely invested in by the citizens of Birmingham in Victorian times, supplies almost, but not entirely, all of Birmingham's water supply. The Vyrnwy supplies Liverpool. The Celyn, which also supplies Liverpool, involved the flooding of Tryweryn. That did more for creating Welsh nationalism than any other act of any body in the United Kingdom in the past 50 years. The Brenig reservoir supplies north Wales, the Clywedog regulates the River Severn and the Llys-y-fran reservoir supplies Haverfordwest and Milford Haven.
  That is just a few of the reservoirs in Wales—there are many more. People in Wales will say that they do not want any more of their valleys flooded, thank you very much, and they do not want to lose a single additional community. In 1970, two valleys were saved from damming—the Senni, in the area I come from, near Brecon, and the Dulais, in Montgomeryshire. Indeed, my noble friends Lord Hooson and Lord Thomas of Gresford became local heroes because, with the flood defence committee, they prevented both valleys being flooded. They contained substantial communities, not just farmhouses. During drought conditions, it is sad to see heaps of rubble in low water that used to contain communities, very often Welsh speaking.
  The amendment would ensure that that historical situation does not repeat itself. We were talking earlier about the conservation of water. An efficient use of water should, if conducted properly, prevent such things from happening in the future. However, I fear that doubling the size of one of the Elan valley reservoirs will be quite an issue. It will impact entirely on another river system as well, so it is very important for the environmental aspects to be fully considered.
  Amendment No. 8 is all about compensatory flow from reservoirs into river systems. It states:
  "The Agency shall set volumes of compensatory water flows to be released from reservoirs and impoundments into rivers in sufficient quantity to sustain the water quality and ecology of river systems".
  This Bill is all about sustainability. I assure noble Lords that there are many instances, particularly during long summers, when acute observation shows rivers becoming ecologically unviable. One can see what happens to oxygen levels; there are dead fish in the river, and insect life is reduced. During the summer there is very often a conflict of priorities. The great demand for water conflicts with the need for sustainability. Decisions are taken, orders are made and often, because consumers or industries are running seriously short of water, the poor old river's compensatory flow becomes reduced. This can he very damaging; in bad drought years, the impact on the ecology of river systems can last for at least the next five years.
  The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that throughout the year volumes of compensatory water flow from reservoirs continue to be released into rivers to ensure that they remain ecologically sustainable. It is my privilege to speak to Amendments Nos. 6 and 8, and my noble friend Lady Miller will address Amendment No. 7. I beg to move.
  6 p.m.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: Amendment No. 7 is different from those spoken to by my noble friend Lord Livsey of Talgarth, which I wholeheartedly support. But I believe that what they have in common is the proportionate nature of regulation. As my noble friend has outlined, there clearly needs to be a strengthening of regulation. However, Amendment No. 7 would lighten the regulation with regard to small impoundments that

  GC 71
  farmers, in particular, make on their lands when precipitation is at its greatest—in January, February and March.
  The purpose of Amendment No. 7 is to encourage farmers and landowners to store winter water and to obviate the requirement for multiple consents for a very simple operation. Let me explain how complicated the Bill will make such a simple exercise as creating a small pond on a farm either for wildlife, for use later in the year to irrigate crops or for any other reasonable use.
  The 25,000 cubic metres that I have suggested seems large when written down but it is not a large amount of water. Under the Bill as it stands, farmers who wanted to store that amount of water, would need the following consents; they would need consent under the Land Drainage Act 1991; an obstruction licence time-limited consent; an impoundment licence; and certification under the Reservoirs Act 1975. I will be encouraged if the Minister tells me that farmers will not need quite that many consents. However, for the creation of a small pond on a farm, that is over-regulation.
  Furthermore, some of the other laudable efforts that the Government are making in terms of their agri-environment schemes are encouraging the creation of small ponds and habitats that can be created by ponds.
  Habitat creation would be one benefit. A second would be that at times of floods, not quite so much water would be going downstream. Therefore, flooding problems further down the system could be alleviated if several landowners and farmers followed this pattern of working.
  Thirdly, if water were flowing that fast, it would be likely to trap some of the silt and diffuse pollution so it would keep water quality downstream better. I have already mentioned the important subject of habitat.
  So there would be a lot of benefits to the environment and the public. This is one area that the Water Framework Directive catchment management system could encourage, but the small amounts of water specified in the Bill discourages this approach. It will mean more paperwork, more licence fees and will discourage the farmer. The Government have spoken about better regulation; I remind them that of the five principles of good regulation, which I have here, the first is to be proportionate; regulators should intervene only where necessary. My amendment would take out a completely unnecessary regulation.
  The Duke of Montrose: At the risk of being accused of being a little boring about the amendment spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, Scottish legislation has introduced the concept of a water use licence that allows for both abstraction and discharge activities. Bringing everything together under a single licence might be a step towards simplification.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: I support these amendments in principle, although I have some hesitation about parts of them. Again, this is a question of what should be on the face of the Bill.
  GC 72
  I should like to speak first to the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, and then come back to Amendment No. 7, which the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, spoke to afterwards. Amendments Nos. 6 and 8 refer specifically to issues relating to very large reservoirs. While I may sympathise with the number of inundated Welsh valleys, it sounded as though an awful lot of that inundation was for the benefit of the people of Wales. However, I have some sympathy about Birmingham.
  The noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong, but with regard to Amendment No. 6 it would be quite remarkable if an environmental impact assessment were not already required in planning a really large reservoir, so I think that point would be covered. So, indeed, would the planning issues: one simply could not build one of these reservoirs nowadays without planning coming into it. The planners would have their say and demand their fee. It is slightly different for the very small reservoirs, but planning, as well as planning inquiries, can already be authorised.
  I am sure that no responsible water service provider would undertake work without having made a social impact assessment. However, when making such an assessment, it is difficult to know where to draw the boundaries? Do we draw them within the confines of the reservoir or at the limits of the wider community that might benefit? If there is to be a proper social impact assessment, one needs to look at the wider issue rather than the narrow one. Ultimately, it would come down to proper compensation. Very often in this country, proper compensation is restricted by the current compensation law, a separate issue which is nothing to do with the Bill.
  If we had more flexible and easier compensation laws so that people were better and more fully compensated for the very real loss and disruption that they might suffer if a valley in which they were resident were flooded, many of the difficulties in the planning process would disappear. We do not have such a system, unfortunately, but perhaps it is as well to mention that point yet again. I think we will find, when the Minister replies, that the points proposed in Amendment No. 6 are largely covered.
  Amendment No. 8 proposes a new use for reservoirs—I am sure that it is being considered— slightly stronger than the current practice. Reservoirs are used largely for storage and, to a certain extent, to maintain flow, but not as the primary purpose of constructing a reservoir.
  If the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, is serious about his amendment, the almost certain consequence will be that reservoirs will need to be somewhat larger than they are at present. If we are going to use reservoirs as a proper part of water management to maintain flow during periods when it would otherwise be low, and to reduce flow when it is high, larger reservoirs will be needed than are provided at present. The principle of good water management is inherent in the amendment and it merits serious consideration.
  I support Amendment No. 7. We should keep reservoirs of the size referred to in the amendment as much out of the regulatory process as possible. We

  GC 73
  should bear in mind that we will he impounding what would otherwise be surplus water that is running down rivers and out to sea. It might be necessary to be slightly more flexible about the dates suggested in the amendment, but that problem is covered to a degree by the words "in time of flood".
  For the benefit of those Members of the Committee who are not immediately literate in metric measures of water, 25,000 cubic metres is about 5.5 million gallons. It is 25 megalitres, which is half the volume of water eligible for competitive supply under the competition rules suggested in the Bill. It is a large amount of water, but it is not massive. Expressed another way, it represents 50 acre inches. If you wish to put 4 acre inches on a crop from sowing to maturity—which is about average—you can work out how many acres can be irrigated throughout the season.
  This is very important for farm storage, horticultural storage and irrigators. It is a part of water management to the extent that it is using water which would otherwise run out to sea. It is something that should be encouraged in every way. We may need to look at the exact wording of the amendment but it definitely deserves strong support. We should do everything we can to support the principle of the amendment.
  6.15 p.m.
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: The noble Lord, Lord Livsey, took us so far around Wales that perhaps I should declare a family interest. Llyn Brianne I know; some of the other reservoirs I do not know. So, if I do have an interest in any of the valleys the noble Lord seeks to protect, I declare it now. I wish that during this beautiful week we had all been able to meet at Llyn Brianne reservoir.
  I can reassure the Committee with regard to Amendment No. 6. As the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, said, the proposed development of any large reservoir is subject to planning consent under town and country planning law. The developer of a large reservoir must apply for planning consent from the local planning authority and, in the same way that the planning law refers to the ability of the Secretary of State to call-in a planning issue and to call for an inquiry, in Wales that role will be undertaken by the Welsh Assembly. There is also an appeal mechanism.
  An impoundment to store in excess of 10 million cubic metres of water—for a horrible moment I thought the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, was going to set the Committee mental arithmetic tests—would require mandatory environmental impact assessment under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment (England and Wales)) Regulations 1999. Smaller impoundments are subject to environmental impact assessment if they are likely to have a significant environmental effect by reason of factors such as size, nature and location.
  Where a project is subject to environmental impact assessment, an environmental statement has to be produced to inform the planning decision. The statement must address a range of issues, including the
  GC 74
  effect of the development on the local population. Noble Lords have raised an important point. Although we appreciate their concerns, I hope that when they have had an opportunity to read my response in detail they will agree that the amendment is not necessary in the light of current planning controls.
  Amendment No. 7 does not achieve what is sought and could give rise to some practical problems. However, to some extent we support the intention behind the proposal to facilitate the storage of floodwaters without unnecessary bureaucracy. As the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, said, this would help reduce flooding and provide stored water for other purposes during drier periods.
  We should bear in mind that the controls that are the subject of the clause deal only with impounding works that are constructed across a natural watercourse. By their very nature, such works are usually permanent and can cause significant disruption to flows passing on downstream to neighbouring owners and beyond, with the potential environmental disbenefits that could follow.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: Perhaps I can help the Minister in a practical sense. When a stream is in full flow you could construct a run-off similar to the ones that mills used to have—which would be activated only at times of high-flow—thereby avoiding interruption of the stream. I am grateful for the Minister's support. There are ways round the mechanical difficulties to which she has referred.
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Yes. But, for the reasons I have outlined, it would not be possible to impose the controls that we are seeking to improve by this clause only during defined months or during periods of flood. I shall obviously give further consideration to the point made by the noble Baroness. It is obvious from the way in which she spoke to her amendment that we share a common aim.
  I can give some reassurance in regard to exemptions for water that is diverted into off-stream storage areas in the circumstances covered by the amendment. There is already an exemption in the Water Resources Act for abstractions for land-drainage purposes, which includes,
  "protection of land against…encroachment by water".
  That is the other half of the equation to which the noble Baroness referred with regard to flooding.
  While we propose in the Bill to reduce the scope of activities which fall within the exemption in Clause 7, the words I have quoted will remain unchanged. I hope that reassures the noble Baroness that, both now and in the future, water abstracted from a stream or river in times of flood is already, and will remain, exempt from the need for an abstraction licence.
  Of course, that deals with only one of the criteria for further exemption suggested by noble Lords. The other is that storage during January to March should also have an exemption. This is more difficult. Sometimes, if we have dry winters, flows during these months may be severely limited. There are sonic areas

  GC 75
  of the country—I know that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, will say that farmers work well together—where several irrigators seek to fill their own reservoirs from the same source of water and there is simply insufficient water for all to have a free hand. The Environment Agency is encouraging the storage of winter water and, rightly, will grant winter water storage licences only in those areas. However, control is needed to ensure that there are fair shares for all.
  It is proposed that exemption would be available only if the land-drainage consenting process were applied to the scheme. We understand that the noble Baroness wishes to reduce bureaucracy. The Bill contains no proposals to make storage schemes more complicated. All types of permissions are covered to take into account different issues, such as a scheme's impact on water resource, on flooding and on safety in the case of a large and raised reservoir.
  We do not believe that it is good practice to use one regulatory regime to achieve the objective of another. Impounding controls are aimed at ensuring the protection of other users and the environment from the potential stoppage of the flow, whereas the land-drainage systems are there to ensure that we do not aggravate flooding. Any new on-stream impounding structure will require both an impounding licence and a land-drainage consent. We expect the Environment Agency to ensure that applications are co-ordinated to minimise the bureaucracy involved. I hope that that explanation reassures the noble Baroness.
  We believe that Amendment No. 7 is not necessary and would not work in practice. I hope I have shown that the removal of controls during January to March would not be advisable in certain circumstances.
  As to Amendment No. 8—I have visions of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams, talking about river systems being affected to the disadvantage of those who prefer to catch sewin—the agency already has a duty to protect and, where possible, enhance the environment in exercising its powers and can apply conditions to the licences it grants.
  In the grant of any new abstraction or impounding licence the agency will consider the needs of the environment and the rights of existing abstractors. Where it is necessary to attach conditions to the licence in the kind of case referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, the agency can, and already does, constrain the licence to ensure that it is part of a sustainable extraction regime. These licences are in operation and include management arrangements to ensure that the environment is protected.
  I hope that I have given noble Lords the assurances they seek. The subject is quite complex. I have covered a range of issues but, if anyone requires further information after the Committee stage, I shall be delighted to write to them.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: I apologise to the Committee. I made an arithmetical error—I knew it was wrong as
  GC 76
  soon as I had said it—because I cannot read my own writing. In fact, 25 megalitres is 250 acre inches and not 50.
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: If the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, is going to set the mental arithmetic test, answer it and mark it himself, I shall be much relieved.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I thank the Minister for offering to help further in regard to Amendment No. 7. She seemed to support the spirit of the amendment in part, but then said that she did not support it. I would welcome further discussions on exactly what I am seeking and how it might be achieved.
  6.30 p.m.
  Lord Livsey of Talgarth: The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, referred to a number of issues, including compensation. There is no compensation for losing the house in which you were born or the community in which you were brought up. To understand, you need to talk to someone who can tell you, "I was born there", and who points to the middle of a piece of water; who deliberately goes there in the middle of a drought to see where he or she was brought up. It is a very sensitive issue indeed.
  The noble Lord referred to the new use of reservoirs in terms of compensatory flow. As the noble Baroness said, reservoirs are used already for compensatory flow. Amendment No. 8 seeks to ensure that it is on the face of the Bill that compensatory flow into rivers should be at a sustainable level and not damage the ecology. I am afraid that, so far as compensatory flow is concerned, some river systems are totally inadequate.
  Perhaps the noble Baroness will write to me—or perhaps inform me in a later debate—and specify precisely where these flows are protected in existing legislation. I suspect that it is in the part of the 1991 Act which deals with the water industry.
  As to Amendment No. 6, the Minister said that the Secretary of State and the Assembly can call in various applications and that there is an appeal mechanism. Again it would be helpful to know where these assurances can be found in legislation. She said that I should be reassured—I am sure she is right— but one of the reasons for the amendment is to provide reassurance to communities that mechanisms are available to protect them and that there is a proper appeals mechanism. People would be reassured if that were the case.
  I did not hear what the Minister said about the environmental impact and its relationship with the local population. I shall need to read Hansard in some detail if I am to return to the issue on Report. I may wish to return to certain aspects of the amendment in the future. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 2 [Restrictions on impounding]:
  [Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 not moved.]
  Clause 2 agreed to.
  Clause 3 [Existing impounding works]:
  The Duke of Montrose The Duke of Montrose moved Amendment No. 9:
  Page 4, line 39, leave out "otherwise" and insert "in relation to England"
  The noble Duke said: In moving Amendment No. 9, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 10. Clause 97(5) makes it quite clear that the Bill applies to England and Wales only. The use of the word "otherwise" in Clause 3(12)(b) makes one wonder whether we are entering the areas of cross-border and river-basin districts and all the other issues referred to earlier. Or does it hint at some future development to which the Committee is not so far privy? Perhaps the Minister will enlighten us as to the wording in the clause.
  Amendment No. 10 is a probing amendment which seeks to remove the words,
  "appears to the Environment Agency"
  and to more clearly define the relevant person. It would not, for example, be reasonable to serve notice on a civil engineer or a contractor who was doing work at the behest of a landowner, even though the constructor may well be "responsible" at the time of those works. I beg to move.
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: As regards Amendment No. 9, the provisions of the Bill apply to England and Wales only. The clause already defines he National Assembly for Wales as having jurisdiction over appeals in Wales and so, by definition, the Secretary of State can have jurisdiction only over appeals in England. Therefore Amendment No. 9 is not necessary.
  There seems to be a misunderstanding as to the nature of the clause. Unless I am advised to the contrary before I have dealt with Amendment No. 10, the specific point raised by the noble Duke concerns cross-border river basins. I remember getting into terrible trouble banning lead shot on one side of the border between England and Scotland, so I shall await enlightenment on that issue.
  As to Amendment No. 10, Clause 3 allows the agency to serve a notice on a relevant person which would require that person to apply for an impounding licence. The agency will not do this for each and every unlicensed impoundment but only for those where it believes a licence is necessary to secure the proper management of water resources or to protect the environment.
  The agency may serve a notice on a number of people—landowners, tenants. those operating impounding works or benefiting from them in other ways. The wide scope of the definition of "relevant person" is to ensure that the person who is in a position to implement the required changes can be identified. Any person who is aggrieved by service of a notice can appeal against it.
  GC 78
  The amendment would restrict the range of persons upon whom the agency could serve notice. This could result in the agency not being able to serve notice upon the person who, in all the particular circumstances, bears responsibility for the impounding works.
  The Secretary of State would be responsible for the part of a river in England and the National Assembly for Wales would be responsible for the part on the other side. This is where I got into trouble on both sides of an estuary over the issue of flying ducks with lead shot in them. The situation is clearer here because there are simple, physical boundaries.
  I see that I may not have convinced the noble Duke. Perhaps I may write to him to clarify the matter.
  The Duke of Montrose: I would like clarification. It is a puzzle why it should state "otherwise" in the Bill. There is another strange situation. The consultation document outlines river-basin districts. The head waters of the River Tyne begin in Scotland and then flow into England. It would appear that the river basin district will be coupled into the English side of management. If the Secretary of State can exercise his powers only up to the border, what will happen to the part of the River Tyne that is outwith England?
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I shall need to come back to that question. That part of the River Tyne will stay there. Obviously there are other rivers where the same problem will apply. I can see the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, about to rise to speak about the River Severn. It is a complex issue and concerns the judgments that will have to be exercised. Quite clearly a consent in one jurisdiction would have to have regard to any impact it would have along the length of the particular river or waterway. However, before I get into deeper water, it would be wiser for the noble Duke to wait for my letter.
  It will be clear cut where such a case arises in Wales because it will fall to the Assembly for resolution. In England it will fall to the Secretary of State. There is not a cross-border basin sub-text. Where the Water Framework Directive has cross-border implications, these are under consideration. The drafting will be a matter of convention.
  I have now reached the stage where I am not quite sure that I have followed what I have said myself. It may be wise that we both read Hansard and for me to write to the noble Duke.
  The Duke of Montrose: I thank the Minister for taking so much trouble to try to unravel this difficult problem. We shall return to the issue at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 10 not moved.]
  Clause 3 agreed to.
  Clause 4 agreed to.
  Clause 5 [Rights of navigation, harbour and conservancy authorities]:
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer moved Amendment No. 11:
  Page 6, line 21, column 1, leave out—
  "A supply reservoir of the authority's"
  The noble Baroness said: Amendments Nos. 11, 12, 13 and 14 are intended to probe why the Government believe that the water controlled by British Waterways is better left out of the regulatory system which the Bill seeks to introduce. It is water that will be caught in a catchment and the fact that British Waterways may choose to use it for a canal system, or for any other purpose, will simply mean that that water will be unavailable to other systems. That is not a satisfactory situation.
  If the Water Bill intends that water will be better managed on a national basis by the Environment Agency, then to leave out a major water user—and perhaps when he replies the Minister will indicate how much water British Waterways has under its control—would seem irresponsible unless there is an extremely good reason for doing so. I cannot imagine that there is one.
  If British Waterways is outwith the regime, it could choose, for example, to sell its water for commercial gain—the Minister will correct me if that is not the case—but why should it not be subject to the same rules and regulations as everyone else?
  Baroness Young of Old Scone: I hope that the Minister will take these amendments seriously because they do have merit. There are about 68 British Waterways reservoirs, of which 40 could be exempt from the provisions of the Bill if the amendments are not considered.
  Indeed, in the early discussion on Taking Water Responsibly, those reservoirs were included in the system that the Bill was intended to control, but they disappeared from the Bill itself. We can only speculate why. The amendment would bring those reservoirs back into the system of control under the Bill. I have a number of reasons for asking the Minister to consider the amendment. First, the whole system regulated under the Bill is in a state of change. I refer to changing environmental conditions and climate change. Many canals are being upgraded and restored and their use is changing dramatically. Indeed, some reservoirs are being expanded. It is important that reservoirs are included in the licensing system to enable them to be reviewed and reassessed in terms of their environmental impact and their impact on water for other users.
  Secondly, I refer to reservoirs discharging only to canals. The issue in terms of their water use is not where the water goes to, but where it comes from in terms of the catchment. All reservoirs impact on catchments. Negotiations are already under way with British Waterways on improving the control of some
  GC 80
  of the reservoirs which will remain outside licensing control under the Bill as presently drafted. However, that process is based on good will.
  Thirdly, if the Water Framework Directive has an integrated approach to catchments it is highly likely that abstractions that impact on catchments will need to be subject to the control system if we are to comply with the directive.
  Last but not least, I refer to a lack of equity. If the Bill is enacted in its present form, some reservoirs will be exempted from the measure but controlled by the canals Acts—some of the canals Acts are as aged as the hills—whereas others will be controlled by licences under the Bill. I believe that that signals a lack of equity, a two-tier approach and a lack of control with regard to some reservoirs which could impact on the environment and other users. I hope that the Minister will consider the amendment.
  6.45 p.m.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: It is a pleasure to be angling from the same bank as the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, and, indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer. I rather felt that on the previous group of amendments we had England and Scotland angling on opposite banks of the River Tyne and that they had their lines crossed.
  The amendment contains a serious point on which I believe there is general agreement. I hope that the Minister will give an encouraging response. In one sense British Waterways is not a water abstractor in that the water comes out of the system and goes back into it. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, said, for as long as British Waterways has that water it is not available for other use and there is an abstraction problem in that regard.
  The group of amendments that we are discussing merits serious consideration on the part of the Government. I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply.
  Lord Livsey of Talgarth: I was interested to hear the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Young. There is no doubt that problems exist in this regard. I am particularly interested in Amendment No. 12, which states:
  "A water system of the authority's with which that reservoir is connected".
  Some canals are fed directly from river systems via weirs. Obviously, to keep the canal system going, particularly during the summer, it has to be supplied with enough water. However, that undoubtedly has a serious impact on some rivers. A balance needs to be struck here—which can be achieved only by means of a licensing system—between the water requirements of the canals and the need for adequate flows in rivers.
  I believe I am right in saying that British Waterways sells water from its canals to industry and to other users, as it has every right to do. However, if that is to be deregulated, problems could arise as there may be competition for water which is required elsewhere in the system. On the other hand, canals have become

  GC 81
  extremely popular. The Brecon and Monmouth canal in my area has attracted much investment. I take off my hat to British Waterways for the work it has done on that canal. However, the issue we are discussing needs to be resolved in a fair and equitable fashion so that the water resource is properly managed. I question whether that part of the water resource to which I have referred should be outside the licensing system.
  Lord Whitty: There is misunderstanding about the provisions that we are discussing. I am not prepared to accept the arguments that have been put forward for the amendment. We are not talking about British Waterways and other navigation authorities being exempt from the main provisions. Their reservoirs that feed an ongoing system, which connects with the rest of the system, are part of the abstraction process. What we are talking about now is the proposed exemption in the Bill which is limited to reservoirs whose sole outlet is directly to a canal, and where there are no other waters which are dependent on the flows from those reservoirs; in other words, it is a closed system.
  As the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said, British Waterways has about 40 reservoirs which would qualify for that exemption. All the other reservoirs of British Waterways and the other navigation authorities would be subject to all the requirements of the system. Many of the exempted reservoirs are small and most are close to the canals they serve. Some do not even have any catchment as they take excess canal water in wet weather in order to return it to the canal in dry weather. Therefore, there is no way in which that water could be used for other purposes. However, if the water from those reservoirs were to be sold at any point, it would become subject to abstraction licensing as it would become subject to the terms of the Water Resources Act.
  Further, if that water were needed in a drought, the water from those reservoirs or the canals which they serve could be requisitioned by a drought order. It is not as if the water that we are discussing is totally exempt. However, the same considerations do not apply to a closed system as apply to systems which are not closed; it is not a question of a lack of equity. We are talking here about reservoirs in the context of closed systems. However, as I say, if the water from such reservoirs—irrespective of whether they belong to British Waterways or to other navigation authorities—were to be sold, it would become subject to abstraction licensing and it could be requisitioned under the terms of a drought order.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I shall have to read carefully the Minister's reply. I believe that he mentioned a different sort of reservoir, but presumably it is still the same sort of water. If the Bill is to cover the very small reservoirs that farmers tend to construct on their land, I do not understand why British Waterways is able to keep its reservoirs outside the system. As I say, I shall read carefully the Minister's reply and take further advice on the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 12 to 14 not moved.]
  Clause 5 agreed to.
  Lord Sutherland of Houndwood Lord Sutherland of Houndwood moved Amendment No. 15:
  After Clause 5, insert the following new clause—
  "COMMENCEMENT AND EXPIRY OF LICENCES
  (1) A licence granted under this Chapter to abstract water to prevent interference with any mining, quarrying or engineering operations (whether underground or surface) or to prevent damage to works resulting from any such operations ("de-watering abstraction") shall be stated to take effect and to expire simultaneously with any planning permission or any extension or amendment to any planning permission granted for such mining, quarrying or engineering operations instead of a specific date, or dates, in the licence for the de-watering abstraction itself.
  (2) In all other respects, reference in this Chapter to the date on which a licence is stated to take effect and on which it expires is to be taken, insofar as a licence for de-watering abstraction is concerned, refers to the commencement and expiry dates comprised in any planning permission authorising the mining, quarrying or engineering operations relevant to the be-watering abstraction."
  The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 15, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 31 and 61 with which it is appropriately grouped. In so doing I declare an interest as the non-executive chairman of Quarry Products Association.
  All the amendments in the group relate to specific— but I should like to think unintended—inappropriate consequences of some of the provisions of the Bill for the efficiency of the quarrying industry. Without an effective quarrying industry many of the Government's policies cannot be carried through, not least the building of the 500,000 houses of which we have already taken note. Therefore, if the consequences I mentioned are unintended, it is important that we note them now.
  My basic contention is that the abstraction of water to enable mining and quarrying to continue below the level of the water table is not equivalent to the abstraction of water for any other purposes. The water in question is either stored or returned immediately to the same water catchment area without contamination. Therefore, the abstraction of the water is on a different footing from the abstraction of water for use or for sale or for other purposes. Basically, as the holes in the quarry fill up to the level of the water table, the water is pumped out, additional quarrying is carried out and the water is returned. There is no loss.
  I noted and welcomed the comments that the Minister made earlier; namely, that the Bill is essentially concerned with quantity of water. In the case of the quarrying industry, the quantity is not at issue. Should there be any minor sediment extracted at the same time as one gets to the lower levels of the abstraction process, the water is cleaned and then returned and the sediment taken out. Therefore, I believe that the provisions of the Bill should not apply to that form of abstraction. That is the point behind Amendment Nos. 186 and 187, which we are not discussing at the moment. However, it is a context within which the amendments we are discussing have

  GC 83
  to be seen because if the later amendments were to be accepted the earlier amendments would not have the same force or perhaps necessity.
  However, I now address the amendments before us, starting with Amendment No. 15. Amendments Nos. 15, 31 and 61 concern effectively time, money and location. The issue in Amendment No. 15 is time. It concerns the appropriateness of having a consonance of time periods between the licence granted to abstract water and the planning permission granted for mining and quarrying purposes. If such a consonance of time periods occurs, the industry will remain in good health because effective planning horizons for investments can be observed. But if the time period covered by the abstraction licence does not accord with that of the planning permission granted for the extraction of minerals, the industry faces a double hazard. The point behind Amendment No. 15 is that the licence to abstract water should run concurrently with the relevant planning permissions.
  Amendment No. 31 deals with the implications of that not being the case. It is effectively a request for compensation and eligibility for compensation to be written into the Bill.
  Amendment No. 61 deals with a slightly different but very specific point. It is an attempt to seek clarification. The clarification which is sought has to do with the expression in Clause 20(2)(a),
  "for abstraction from the same point as the abstraction licensed".
  I refer in particular to the phrase "from the same point". If a new licence is granted for abstraction from the same point, that should not be taken in a semi-Euclidean fashion but should apply to the whole footprint of the planning permission already granted. So it would effectively be a licence to abstract water within the same quarry and within the curtilage of the same planning permission.
  Those are the reasons for the amendments that I have tabled. I believe that they have real significance, particularly if the later amendments are not accepted. I beg to move.
  Baroness Byford: I support the amendments to which the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, has spoken. I declare an interest. I do not have a financial interest but I live opposite what I believe is the biggest granite quarry in Europe. It used to be owned by Mount Sorrel Granite, then by Redlands and it is now owned by La Farge. It is a huge quarry. Interestingly—as I am sure is the case with many quarries—it forms part of an SSSI. I hope that eventually it will be returned to nature. I place on record my thanks to those who manage the quarry—I do not always bless them when they are blasting away—for trying to preserve the environment for those who live in the vicinity. It has been a nightmare situation. Locals and the quarry company have investigated ways of giving local people a better insight into the working of the quarry. I am digressing somewhat from the amendments but it is important to place that on record.
  GC 84
  Water is, of course, hugely important to the quarry. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, I shall not discuss the matter in detail. He explained the matter very clearly. But it is impossible to work limestone and sandstone quarries without dewatering through pumping. It would be virtually impossible to blast the rock under water and it would, in any case, be impossible to retrieve the rock from the water after the blast. Like all other abstractors the quarrying industry does not consume the abstracted water in the accepted sense of the word, as the noble Lord, Lord explained, but simply returns it almost immediately to the acquifer in virtually the same volume and condition. It is important that Members of the Committee appreciate that as it is not commonly known. Some people just think that the water is wasted and not reused.
  The noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, rightly appealed to the Government that the planning permission and the abstraction licence should run concurrently. I am sure the Committee understands that. The licence life should be tailored to the life of planning permissions, which often in the case of rock quarries are 25 years or more. In the quarry near to where I live there is still in existence a licence going back to 1948. If that had not been activated, 50 years on the licence would have expired. No doubt many local people would think that a 50-year period is far too long but that is another matter. As was said earlier, one has to consider the practicalities and the costs of running quarries. We need the commodities that come from quarries irrespective of the wishes of those who live close to them.
  I am surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, did not mention a right of appeal. He mentioned compensation. I do not know whether he intended to mention a right of appeal but omitted to do so in error. I am not sure what kind of appeal system may already exist. The Minister may tell me that there is one already. I should be glad to hear that.
  I have been contacted by the Quarry Products Association which informed me that it had pressed its case—which it considers a special case—with both DEFRA and the Environment Agency over the past three to four years. Sadly, there has been no apparent recognition of the unique case with regard to quarry dewatering. If that is true, it is disturbing. Quarrying is a big industry, which we need. I should like the Minister or perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Young, to tell us why nothing has come of that situation.
  7 p.m.
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I understand that where a Member of the Committee is a member of another body or chairs another body, they may not comment on that body's policy in this House. Only the Minister can reply to the point.
  Baroness Byford: I am grateful for that clarification. I hope that the Minister will reply to the point. I believe that this is a critical issue. If it is not addressed properly, it puts the future of the industry at serious

  GC 85
  risk. As I said earlier, the industry is of national importance. It is extremely important that this strategic aggregate supply is not put at risk.
  As was suggested, the proposed legislation will require that, for the first time, previously exempted quarrying dewatering abstraction will be covered by the transfer licence system. Indeed, as has been said, although no time limit is laid down, it is suggested that a 12-year cycle would be involved. That is not ideal. The Quarry Products Association holds the view that any legislation, subordinate legislation or policy guidance should provide for quarry dewatering abstraction transfer licences to be limited to the life of planning permissions. I am happy to support the noble Lord's amendments.
  Lord Livsey of Talgarth: I, too, support the amendments. Quarrying is a controversial matter in some areas but where planning permission has been given it often provides excellent employment opportunities in areas which often do not have alternative employment. I refer to certain remote areas. It makes sense to have the planning permission contiguous with the abstraction licence. That seems eminently sensible. I support the amendment.
  Baroness Young of Old Scone: I speak briefly to the amendment which has parallels with Amendments Nos. 5 and 55 where we discussed linking licences to the life of an asset. The argument against the amendment we are discussing is the same as that against those other amendments. In the case of quarries, planning permissions are often lengthy and sometimes not time limited at all. Indeed, some quarries operate under mineral permissions that are so aged that everyone has forgotten their origins.
  Many of the environmental challenges posed by the dewatering of quarries are due to the lengthy timescales involved. For example, hard rock quarries generally work down to deeper phases and it is difficult initially to assess what the impact will be, particularly in fissured limestone. In the case of gravel quarries, it is also difficult to predict what will happen if the quarry is extended. There is a need to bring the dewatering permissions within the control system. if they have little impact on the environment, quarry operators have nothing to worry about. I query with the Minister whether the Water Framework Directive requires these kind of abstractions to be covered by the licensing system. Therefore, we would need to implement that if that is not the case.
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I begin by saying to the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, that if a specific problem has arisen, we should be delighted to receive a letter setting out the details of what approvals have been sought. We could investigate such a case.
  As the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, said, the amendments seek to introduce specific measures that would apply to this particular group of abstractors. The intention to remove the current exemption for abstracting water for dewatering purposes will affect the mining, quarrying and engineering construction industries. The current regime applies generally to all
  GC 86
  abstractors within its scope and it is right that there is equity of treatment for all. Special provisions for one group would be divisive. However, we recognise that that dewatering is not the same as other abstractions. That point was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford.
  Amendment No. 15 would, in effect, completely remove from the 'Environment Agency the responsibility for determining the time limit to apply to all licences granted for these activities.
  The position of mining and quarrying companies will be no different from that of any other industrial abstractor: the time limit on the licence is not linked to any end date for the operation concerned. We are not persuaded that there is justification to adopt a different approach simply on the grounds that it is subject to some other time-related restriction.
  However, I can reassure the noble Lord that quarry and mine operators will have the same opportunities as all other abstractors to submit to the Environment Agency a business case in support of their applications. This can address issues relating to the proposed life of the licence to be granted. The time restriction on the operation would form part of such a submission, and the agency will have proper regard to it.
  Mineral planning permissions can be very long. They are distinctive, even planning terms, and we believe that to peg an abstraction licence to such a permission could limit the agency's powers to protect water, the very point of time limiting. However, we recognise the importance of there being—this was a specific question that was put—a right of appeal against refusal or conditional grant of an abstraction licence. There is a presumption of renewal on consideration of the time-limited licence.
  Licences for quarry operations should be subject to the same opportunities for review within the catchment abstraction management strategy process, as any other time limited licence in the catchment, particularly as they will have variable effects over time, as the workings develop, move, change depth and those need to be able to be reviewed.
  We recognise the concerns that have given rise to Amendment No. 31 and in light of that we believe that this amendment is unnecessary. We propose to make, and Clause 95 provides for, transitional measures to ensure that compensation would be available in the circumstances described in the amendment. That is where a mine, quarry or engineering works operator is refused a licence or granted a conditional licence and as a result cannot take full advantage of any planning permission granted for the operation. This is already publicly stated government policy—in Taking Water Responsibly—paragraph 3.17, and there is an availability of appeal to the Secretary of State.
  We also think the special treatment in respect of variation of licence conditions provided by Amendment No. 61 is not appropriate. The existence of planning permission has no relevance in the context of the limited extension of a licence, neither does it have any bearing on the environmental effects of

  GC 87
  abstraction or water resources. I hope that with those wide-ranging reassurances, the noble Lord will not press the amendment.
  Lord Sutherland of Houndwood: I thank the noble Baroness for the reassurance she has given, particularly of right of appeal and on the presumption of renewal and on compensation under transitional measures. I shall read Hansard carefully tomorrow. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, and the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, for their support on the matters. As they said, this is an important sector and it is absolutely critical to the economy that it functions efficiently and well.
  I note the point made about fairness of treatment across different industries. I simply underline the point that if the Bill is intended to protect quantity of water at a certain level of quality, that should not really be an issue because of the processes used in the mining business as the water is returned at equivalent quality. Therefore, the need to protect volume does not arise. That being said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  7.15 p.m.
  Clause 6 [Rights to abstract small quantities]:
  Baroness Byford Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 16:
  Page 7. line 39, leave out first "the"
  The noble Baroness said: The four amendments in this group raise an important point, especially as the Government are encouraging ever greater diversification on farms. It is possible that the holding might have the occupier's house and household on it, but in addition there could be one or more tied cottages. Assuming that gardening, for example, is a domestic purpose, the water abstracted could well be used by more than just the occupier's household.
  Looking at the Bill, subsection (3)(a) specifies that the abstraction is for use on contiguous and other land held by the same person. My question to the Minister is: what is the point in confining its use to the occupier? I beg to move.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: I support the amendment. The practice is normal in more remote rural areas. Essex is not rural but when I was a boy it was certainly more remote than it is today. We used to supply water from our well and we pumped it up into a header tank. It supplied our house and all the stock on the farm. It also supplied a number of cottages. Therefore, the restriction in the clause is too narrow because it specifies "the occupier's household". In areas where there is not easy access to the mains and so forth, where there is a reasonable water supply it would be normal for one well or one borehole to supply a number of households. It might be three, four or five, one does not know.
  My noble friend raised the diversification point. As drafted, the Bill is too narrow. One can accept the quantum of water hut to tie it to the occupier's
  GC 88
  household is too narrow. Using the water for domestic purposes is practical and if the domestic purposes happen to include a herd of cows, I do not see that as a problem. If one lives in a remote area where that is the situation, provided you are in the quantum of water, why worry about it?
  Lord Whitty: There is a certain amount of misunderstanding. There is the issue of exemption and the issue of protected rights. The protected rights relate back to the Water Resources Act and the rights which existed prior to the 1963 Act. Those had to be taken into account in every future licence and no such licences are allowed to derogate from those protected rights. That deals with the historic issue.
  However, Clause 6 extends the exemption for small abstractions so that small abstractions can be made for any purpose, not just those which are agricultural or domestic. Therefore, Clauses 6 and 17 limit protected rights under the new regime to those that existed under the old regime—pre-1963 rights.
  The effect of the amendments—the concern behind me is slightly different from that expressed by both noble Lords who have spoken—would not extend the exemption. They attempt to deal with the historic situation. The extension of the exemption is already achieved by Clause 6 because any abstraction of up to 20 cubic metres per day for domestic purposes, regardless of whether the occupier uses the water, will be exempt.
  The amendments deal with the protected rights situation. They would extend what was trying to protect grandfather rights to the new situation. I do not believe that it was the intention of Members of the Committee to make that extension and we do not want any proliferation of rights which dealt with an historic situation.
  There is a little confusion and it might be helpful if I write to the noble Baroness about the matter. If certain aspects are not dealt with, and if that lies behind their concern, they will not be dealt with by these amendments. On the other hand, there may be ways of dealing with them.
  Baroness Byford: I am grateful to the Minister. I suspect that he did not expect us to say what we said in moving our amendment and I can only apologise.
  Lord Whitty: I thought that the noble Baroness was going to talk about caravan parks and related matters. There we go.
  Baroness Byford: I shall do that in a moment. Our concern related to cases in which the borehole supplies other buildings. I shall read Hansard carefully and perhaps we can talk about the matter before proceeding much further. If there is a misunderstanding or a loophole, I shall be happy to come back to the Minister. I am grateful for his help and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 17 to 19 not moved.]
  Baroness Byford Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 20:
  Page 8, line 10, at end insert "provided that such well or borehole does not impinge upon pre-existing licensed abstraction producing potable water"
  The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 20 deals with the question of one borehole impinging on a preexisting licensed abstraction. It has been brought to my attention in particular by the British Soft Drinks Association. It is most concerned that Clause 6 sets out provision for exempting small abstractions from licensing requirements. Its water bottling members do not oppose licensing exemptions for small abstractions, but have concerns that exemptions can be made purely on the grounds of size without recourse to any notification or environmental impact assessment. Even small abstractions from the ground water require boreholes to be drilled and that activity could damage both rock strata and the supply and quality in the related aquifers. A BSDA member is currently confronted with just such an activity and has serious concerns for the future of his business if his water supply is affected. That is the reason for moving the amendment. I beg to move.
  Lord Whitty: Once again, the explanation of the motivation behind the amendment is not what I anticipated. The effect of the amendment is that if a person puts down a borehole to take advantage of the exemption provided by the clause, he can find himself in breach of the exemption if the construction impinges on another extraction producing potable water.
  It is not the borehole but the extraction that would be the issue. If the intention of the amendment is to provide protection to other bottling suppliers, the issue is whether the level of deregulation is appropriate in the circumstances; in other words, whether the small exemption could cause a problem for the soft drinks industry or the mineral water bottling industry.
  It is inconsistent with the general objective of deregulating small abstracters if in this case we provide for the protection of other rights against that small exemption. The new regulatory scheme will have the flexibility for raising, or lowering, by order the threshold in local areas. It will therefore be for the Environment Agency when applying for such an order, and the Secretary of State in deciding whether to grant it, to consider whether any local threshold could vary from the general threshold in order to avoid interference with another abstraction. Clearly, that could arise in the circumstances which the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, suggests.
  If we were to have a complete exclusion and to base it on the borehole rather than the abstraction, we would, first, roll back a degree of deregulation and, secondly, fail to deal with the specific problem. I will need to consider the issue raised by the water bottlers because in certain circumstances they have a specific concern. We may be able to deal with that in a different way. Certainly as written it would undermine the intention of deregulation in this area.
  Baroness Byford: I am grateful to the Minister. This is a technical area and he will have gathered that I am not expert in it. Nor do I have any financial or other tie with the British Soft Drinks Association. Quality bottled water has become a large industry. I would like to see it grow. I would rather we all bought UK water than water from abroad. I would also like it if we all drank more milk, hut that is another matter. My noble friend says that it is not as good for me.
  The bottled water industry is a growing one and it is dependent on having a good, ready supply of water. If the industry is opened up and the supplies are affected, that will have a hearing on the industry. I am grateful to the Minister for what he has said. I hope that before Report stage we can arrive at a solution. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer moved Amendment No. 21:
  Page 8, line 27, at end insert—
  "( ) Any such intention on the part of the Secretary of State shall be advertised in the appropriate places and he made no sooner than six months after the placing of such an advertisement."
  The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 21, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 21A. Amendment No. 21 seeks to address the situation in which the Secretary of State has decided to make an order to vary the small quantity threshold. There may be good reasons for that—there should be if he is to vary the order. He can do so for a small geographical area or for a class of water and so on. It may produce a confusing situation to small abstractors. They may not be aware of the variations and so be in breach of them. So Amendment No. 21 seeks to ensure that the Secretary of State's intention is well publicised.
  Amendment No. 21A deals with small abstractions that could significantly damage the environment, not by themselves, but in a combination. The intention of subsections (c) and (d) is to ask the Minister what provisions have been made for small abstractors. In one area of the country they may not have a particularly great effect, but in another they may. In particular subsection (d) addresses that situation. I do not understand how the agency is required to construct a register of small abstractors. When the Secretary of State considers making an order, on what information would he make it? The purpose of the amendment is to find out how that information will be gathered so that the Secretary of State can make an order based on real information. I beg to move.
  7.30 p.m.
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: We understand that Amendment No. 21 is intended to increase the period of notice that abstractors will have of any change to the local threshold for licence control. I reassure the noble Baroness that that is unnecessary.
  Any order amending the threshold for abstraction licence control will be subject to the Schedule 6 procedure. That already requires notice of the draft order to be published and provides the opportunity for

  GC 91
  representations or objections to be made. If necessary, the Secretary of State may hold a local inquiry into those objections. If approved, the order itself must then also be advertised. That process could take a substantial time—rightly so, given the potential complexities and complications. Any such order could also take effect from a date that would recognise any further period of notice deemed necessary for the change of threshold to come into force.
  We therefore believe that abstractors will be given sufficient notice of any changes that may affect them and the opportunity to participate fully in the adoption of any such order. Having put that on record, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel satisfied that we have met her concerns.
  Turning to Amendment No. 21A. we recognise the intention behind the amendment. The first paragraph, would enable the agency, in setting a new threshold for small abstractions which would be exempt from licensing, to make different provisions for different areas, water or underground strata if cumulative small abstractions were giving rise to significant environmental damage. The agency would already have power to make such provision. The purpose of the provision includes the ability to anticipate precisely the circumstances covered by the amendment. I can therefore reassure the noble
  GC 92
  Baroness that in just such circumstances, the agency would act. The Bill already permits it to do so. I hope that I have reassured the noble Baroness.
  As for the register, we are more wary. I reassure the noble Baroness that the agency will know the conditions of water resources in any area, as its duty is to monitor carefully and frequently. A function of the small quantity threshold is to reduce bureaucracy; we think it unnecessary for the agency to establish such a register. I hope that that reassures the noble Baroness. If not, I am sure that she will respond on the issue.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I thank the Minister for her reply. Having said what I said earlier, I certainly would not want to be seen to be trying to increase bureaucracy, so I shall rest on her assurance that all those matters will be taken into account. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 21A not moved.]
  Clause 6 agreed to.
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: This may be a convenient moment for the Committee to adjourn until Tuesday 1st April at 3.30 p.m.
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): The Committee stands adjourned until Tuesday next.
  The Committee adjourned at twenty-seven minutes before eight o'clock.

  Northern Ireland: North/South Implementation Bodies
  Northern Ireland: North/South Implementation Bodies
  Public Appointments: Vacancies Website
  Public Appointments: Vacancies Website
  GCSE Results in Hull
  GCSE Results in Hull
  European Social Fund Objective 3 Co-financing
  European Social Fund Objective 3 Co-financing
  Improvement Grants: Small Hotels and Boarding Houses
  Improvement Grants: Small Hotels and Boarding Houses
  Objective 1 Status and Funding
  Objective 1 Status and Funding