Sitting of 31 March 2003

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

    Iraq
    Ross Cranston: If he will make a statement on the deployment of British armed forces to the Gulf region. [105447]
    David Taylor: If he will make a statement on the present involvement of British forces in Iraq. [105450]
    Mr. Graham Brady: If he will make a statement on military operations in the Gulf. [105452]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): I pay tribute to those who have lost their lives or suffered injuries in tragic accidents or through enemy action during the current military operations in Iraq. I also pay tribute to those who continue to put their lives at risk in often difficult conditions in pursuit of our objectives to disarm Saddam Hussein's regime of his weapons of mass destruction and to free the people of Iraq from his appalling behaviour.
    Major deployments of United Kingdom forces to the Gulf region were completed by 10 March in time for the commencement of military action on 20 March. Some 45,000 United Kingdom servicemen and servicewomen are now in theatre. United Kingdom armed forces have played a key role in the early stages of military action to disarm Saddam and remove his regime from power. Coalition forces are now engaged in a range of operations deep inside Iraq. The majority of southern Iraq is under coalition control and the leading elements are about 50 miles from Baghdad.
    Ross Cranston: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. He will have seen statements by commentators over the weekend that we should withdraw British troops from Iraq. Does he agree that we have undertaken the task of disarming Iraq pursuant to
    648
    resolution 1441 of the United Nations and that we have to continue with that commitment, consistent, of course, with our obligations under the laws of war?
    Mr. Hoon: I agree with my hon. and learned Friend. After 12 days, we are making steady progress in achieving our objectives in Iraq. As I indicated, the coalition now has effective control of southern and western Iraq, although pockets of resistance clearly remain. Coalition forces have secured the al-Faw peninsula and the Rumaylah oilfields, averting the danger of an environmental disaster caused by the Iraqi regime and thereby safeguarding the oil resources for the people of Iraq.
    David Taylor: British forces are largely deployed in southern Iraq, where UNICEF estimates that more than 1 million people lack access to safe water and therefore that already weak and malnourished children are particularly at risk. Will the Secretary of State assure the House that we will listen to the plight of the southern Shi'as, not act as we did in 1991, and move quickly to head off the looming humanitarian crisis?
    Mr. Hoon: I am pleased to be able to give my hon. Friend that assurance. The humanitarian catastrophe that we have seen over very many years in southern Iraq and indeed elsewhere in Iraq is entirely the responsibility of Saddam Hussein's regime and the brutal repression that it has caused to the people there, often denying them basic necessities. The coalition is now bringing security and humanitarian assistance. RFA Sir Galahad arrived in Umm Qasr last Friday, loaded with food, blankets and other basic provisions. British forces have also constructed a pipeline to bring water from Kuwait to Umm Qasr, which is now operating. We will obviously continue to provide such help and assistance when we are able to do so.
    Mr. Brady: British and American troops have rightly been doing everything possible to avoid civilian casualties in Iraq, but they are now facing a threat of suicide bombs and also of Iraqi troops dressed as civilians. What is being done to protect the safety of our troops in those circumstances?
    Mr. Hoon: Obviously, I have absolute concern for our forces faced with that kind of threat. Certainly, commanding officers are making it clear that extra vigilance will be necessary in dealing with apparent members of the public. I emphasise that the real victims of such a policy perpetrated by Saddam Hussein are ordinary Iraqis as it obviously makes it far more difficult for them to go about their lives normally in areas where they have been freed from his oppressive regime. That is obviously something to which our forces must have regard in dealing with Iraqi civilians.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: In expressing unqualified admiration and support for our forces, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will comment on the remarks of the Secretary of Defence over the weekend, in which he sought to distance himself from the accusations that the politicians and military were not in step? Will he

    649
    reassure the House that they are in fact in step? Will the Prime Minister be reporting tomorrow on his conversations in America?
    Mr. Hoon: I can give that reassurance. As I indicated, we are some 12 days into military operations. Much of the problem has been caused, frankly, by commentators suggesting that this would be a very short conflict in which there would be little or no resistance. As I indicated to the House in the very first statement that I made to it at the start of military operations, this was always likely to be a difficult, demanding and, indeed, dangerous conflict. I think that it is right that we should see it in that way.
    Mr. Ben Chapman: Has my right hon. Friend been able to make any estimate of the actuality of or propensity for disaffection, desertion or defection in Iraqi civil and military ranks, given that many will have been forcefully prevented from doing what they want to do and others will have simply merged back into local surroundings?
    Mr. Hoon: There have been, as yet, no defections by very senior politicians or military commanders, but that does not mean that there have not been significant surrenders. We currently hold about 8,000 prisoners of war, many of whom surrendered and were pleased to surrender, if I may put it that way.
    Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I join the Secretary of State in his tribute to our fallen heroes. In the first 12 days of the coalition military campaign, we should be proud of the role played by our armed forces. The overall advance has been termed, by the professor of war studies, Michael Clarke,
    "the fastest armoured thrust in history".
    Our forces have carried out spectacular actions, started a flow of aid and started to build a relationship with the people in their area of operations. Whatever difficulties may lie ahead, is that not a remarkable achievement? Given the heavy pressure on our armed forces in Iraq, does the Secretary of State still rule out sending reinforcements?
    Mr. Hoon: I agree with the hon. Gentleman about coalition forces' remarkable advance to very close to Baghdad. That is a great achievement and it is important to consolidate the supply and support lines and to continue to control an increased area of Iraq outside Baghdad. I have never ruled out sending reinforcements. It is important to replace units and individuals who have been in theatre for several months as and when that is necessary. I am ruling out—at this stage at any rate—the need for a substantial increase of the total number of our forces in theatre. We judged at the time—I made a series of announcements about this to the House—that around 45,000 members of our forces were likely to be sufficient for the job that we were required to undertake. Nothing has changed my assessment of that position.
    Mr. Jenkin: I would ask the Secretary of State to keep the matter under review because the intensity of the operations and the pressure on our troops may be a good deal greater than previously anticipated. The
    650
    language chosen by the Chief of the General Staff last week was interesting because in answer to a question on reinforcements, he said:
    "The Secretary of State has made it clear: there are no plans to send further forces over and above what we already have in theatre."
    Will the Secretary of State confirm that he will keep the matter under review and that if it becomes necessary to send additional troops, we will have the flexibility to do that and he will not hesitate to send them?
    Mr. Hoon: Those issues are always kept under review. The hon. Gentleman has simply asked me the same question in a different way. Individuals will be replaced as and when that is needed, but we judge that there is no need for a substantial increase to the total number of forces in theatre at present.
    Ms Diane Abbott: Is the Secretary of State aware of public concern that more British troops have been killed in tragic accidents than killed by the enemy? Will he assure the House that everything possible is being done to minimise the number of British soldiers who die because they have been shot at accidentally by American soldiers?
    Mr. Hoon: A great deal of effort has been made to reduce risks but as we have tragically seen from recent incidents, such accidents will sadly occur, especially during periods of high-intensity conflict. That is notwithstanding the use of additional equipment and the latest technology. Continuing efforts will be made to understand the nature of the accidents and to find, if possible, solutions to their causes.
    Mr. Paul Keetch: May I associate myself with the words of the Secretary of State and the shadow Secretary of State about our forces in theatre? I again ask the Secretary of State to join me in offering our condolences to the families of the Iraqi civilians who have died in the conflict.
    On rotation of troops, will the Secretary of State tell us whether it is likely that further members of the Territorial Army will be called up for action in the Gulf in the near future, and whether that will be necessary if the action is to be prolonged? He mentioned Sir Galahad. Will he assure the House that we are delivering smart aid and that aid has gone to Iraqi civilians, not the regime? What other ships are likely to follow to deliver aid? Will he also assure the House that we will fight this war in a way that minimises the number of civilian casualties? That might mean that the conflict will take longer, but it will certainly be beneficial in the long term, in that it will improve relations with Iraqi civilians and assist the wider middle east peace process.
    Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his observations about the role of reservists. They are playing a valuable role in operations in Iraq, particularly in a number of specialist areas. As and when those specialisms are required, I anticipate that the TA and other reservists will be called on to provide assistance. The hon. Gentleman is right about humanitarian aid. It is an indication to the ordinary people of Iraq that we are there not because we have any

    651
    quarrel with them, but because we have a serious difference with the regime that has oppressed their lives over so many years. Our efforts to supply humanitarian aid—specifically, in the short term, supplies of fresh water—will continue. However, that operation can be successful only if there is safety and security for the people delivering that aid. While elements of the regime continue to intimidate, harass and even kill people from their own population, the delivery of humanitarian assistance is made all the more difficult.

    Reservists (Gulf)
    Mike Gapes: How many reservists are deployed in the Gulf region. [105448]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): In total, 4,943 reservists have been accepted into service to support operations in Iraq. The majority of these have been deployed to the Gulf region.
    Mike Gapes: I am grateful for that reply. Is my hon. Friend aware that at least nine people living in my borough are serving in the Gulf as reservists, including 25-year-old Peter Wright, my constituent from Seven Kings? He is serving as a skilled mechanical electrical engineer with the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers in Kuwait, having left the Gordon road Territorial Army centre in Ilford to do so. Will my hon. Friend say to those reservists and their families that we will see this job through, that we will do it to create a safer and more secure middle east and to liberate the people of Iraq, and that we will not give in to those who are now calling for us to withdraw and allow Saddam to remain in power?
    Dr. Moonie: I am happy to pay tribute to the many skills that reservists are providing for us during this deployment, including those of my hon. Friend's constituent. We often forget that many of our specialist skill areas are dependent on our reserve forces. With regard to my hon. Friend's last remarks, I can only say that I agree with them entirely.
    Angus Robertson: The morale of both our reserve and full-time forces, and of their families back home, is undoubtedly critical at a time of conflict. I am sure that the Minister is aware of the disquiet of many members of the service community about the high cost of sending care packages to the Gulf. What moves is he backing to try to deal with that problem, which is important for both the full-time and reserve forces?
    Dr. Moonie: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are looking into this. The service that is being supplied at present is an airmail service. We are extremely short of capacity, as he can imagine, and I believe that the standard rate that is being charged, which is the internal postage rate, represents a reasonable deal for an air freight service. We will, however, see what additional help can be given as things develop.
    Mr. Peter Kilfoyle: Given the pressure on our reservists and regular units, and given the threats made over the weekend by Messrs Rumsfeld
    652
    and Powell against Syria and Iran, will the Government give the House some kind of assurance that we shall not become embroiled in a wider war involving those countries?
    Dr. Moonie: I can assure my hon. Friend that any threats or otherwise made to those countries will not be a matter for me to decide. He has to recognise that this was a unique situation.
    Mr. Andrew Mitchell: As the Secretary of State has said, we are all very proud of the contribution that the reserve forces are making in the Gulf at this time. We are also conscious, however, of the additional burdens that will be imposed on them, which will be highlighted when we come to discuss the civil contingency Bill. Is the Minister aware that many of us are concerned at the massive overstretch affecting our reserve forces? Will he seek, through the business managers, to give the House an early opportunity to discuss these matters, so that the Government can announce their intentions in respect of the strength of our reserve forces?
    Dr. Moonie: I would certainly dispute the fact that there is any overstretch in our reserve forces. They are doing the job that they are intended for, which is being called up to support operations. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the review is continuing, and I shall let the House know its results as soon as is practicable.
    Mr. Keith Simpson: I am sure that the whole House joins other Members in praising the role of all our reserve forces in the Gulf and elsewhere as well as the commitment that they make to their families and, indeed, their employers.
    To follow on from the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell), last year, the Secretary of State announced the formation of the civil contingency reaction force, manned by the TA for home defence to deal with terrorist attacks. I understand that some TA soldiers who will be sent to the Gulf in the next round of reservist call-ups are serving in those civil contingency reaction units. Will the Minister tell the House how many TA soldiers have a double liability—possible service in the Gulf and home defence—and whether he believes that that undermines the effectiveness of TA units that are being organised to deal with the heightened threat from terrorism within the United Kingdom?
    Dr. Moonie: If that information is available, I do not have it to hand. Of course, I am happy to provide it for the hon. Gentleman if it is available in a suitable form. I can say that every effort will be made to deconflict the two areas to ensure that we have adequate cover for both.

    Iraq
    Dr. Vincent Cable: If he will make a

    653
    statement on the dangers posed by weapons of mass destruction in the war in Iraq and the preparedness of British forces to meet those dangers. [105451]
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram): Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction pose a threat to his own people, the stability of the Gulf region and, potentially, the rest of the world. His grim record demonstrates that he is prepared to use them to kill many thousands of people.
    Planning and preparation for this operation have taken full account of the threat from those terrible weapons to our personnel, who are afforded a comprehensive defence against chemical and biological weapons, including detectors, warning and reporting systems, physical protection such as NBC suits, decontamination procedures and medical countermeasures.
    Dr. Cable: What independent verification has emerged over the past week of the various reported findings, from the capture of a chemical weapons plant to this morning's report in a leading daily that there is final proof of large-scale ricin manufacture? Does the Minister feel that there is a useful wartime role for the UN weapons inspectors in making an independent assessment of the various evidence and claims as they emerge?
    Mr. Ingram: I cannot confirm the newspaper report to which the hon. Gentleman refers. Clearly, when we get confirmation, that will be relayed through the normal channels. It may well be to the House in the first instance. The role of the UN inspectors is a matter for the UN.
    Rachel Squire: I join others in expressing my deep sympathy for the families and friends of those who have lost their lives in our armed forces so far, and I pay tribute to the exceptionally high standards shown by our armed forces in the past 12 days. What further evidence does the Minister have of Saddam Hussein's intent to use weapons of mass destruction, particularly in chemical and biological warfare, and does he think that the findings of training equipment made south of Basra yesterday by British troops add further proof of Saddam Hussein's willingness to use unconventional methods of warfare?
    Mr. Ingram: I share my hon. Friend's opening sentiments, and she makes some valuable points. The Secretary of State, in his statement of 20 March, issued the warning that
    "we should not underestimate the risks and difficulties that we may face against a regime that is the embodiment of absolute ruthlessness, with an utter disregard for human life."—[Official Report, 20 March 2003; Vol. 401, c. 1087.]
    Of course, we have seen examples of that over recent days, including some of Saddam Hussein's paramilitaries operating in civilian clothes and the abuse of prisoners of war. We have discovered stocks of chemical weapons, and other things related to nuclear, biological and chemical threats. A clear conclusion can be drawn—[Interruption.] Well, there is certainly evidence of chemical and biological threats because of the suits that were found.
    654
    Saddam has the capability: that is why we are there in the first place. It must remain our assessment that he has and intends to use the weapons.
    Chris Grayling: One of the anxieties expressed in the past few days is that Saddam might try to throw missiles at Israel, possibly containing weapons of mass destruction, in an attempt to broaden the conflict. I do not want to draw the Minister into talking about the operational side, but can he reassure us that our forces have been able to minimise that threat?
    Mr. Ingram: We have a range of objectives in seeking to minimise all the threats posed by Saddam Hussein's forces. That is obviously one of those threats, and we are taking appropriate action to minimise it.
    Mr. Neil Gerrard: How many sites that have been identified by US and UK intelligence as chemical weapons storage sites have so far been inspected, and what has been found?
    Mr. Ingram: I cannot give the figures, because, as I said earlier, such verification is not yet available to us. I only hope that my hon. Friend shares my view that Saddam Hussein has the capability, and has been developing it. That was Hans Blix's conclusion in the 173-page document that he produced on 7 March. It is only a matter of time before we find the weapons, and produce verification accordingly.

    NATO Reorganisation
    Mr. Peter Viggers: If he will make a statement on NATO reorganisation. [105454]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): At the NATO summit in Prague last November, alliance leaders agreed a comprehensive set of proposals to improve NATO's organisation. They include a streamlined command structure; the creation of the NATO response force; a new capabilities initiative; invitations to seven nations to join the alliance; and the modernisation of NATO's internal structures and processes. The United Kingdom has been working with our NATO allies to ensure that these initiatives are delivered.
    Mr. Viggers: Does the Secretary of State agree that the enlargement and restructuring of NATO will enable it to remain relevant and effective as a military alliance and, equally important, as a political forum enabling us to engage with the United States and other allies? Does he also agree that the European defence identity is increasingly being seen as at best irrelevant and at worst a serious threat that might undermine NATO?
    Mr. Hoon: I agree that it is clearly necessary for NATO to reform, not least to take account of a new military situation in the world, but also to take account of a much larger membership. The reason why we believe that it is essential for NATO to link itself with the European defence identity is the need to improve NATO's and Europe's military capabilities consistently. We aim to ensure that European nations can make a still

    655
    more effective contribution both to their own defence and to defence through NATO. That is the test that I am sure the United States wants to see met as it considers NATO and NATO's future development.
    David Cairns: Does my right hon. Friend know of any NATO member countries that want to withdraw from the alliance altogether? If not, what advice can he give to the people of Scotland, who will shortly face an election in which the principal Opposition party will advance just such a policy? In view of that, and given the loss of Scotland's permanent place on the Security Council, might not Scotland be left completely defenceless and irrelevant in the world?
    Mr. Hoon: Given the number of countries queuing up to join NATO, and the enthusiasm with which invitations to join are received by candidates for membership, I should be astonished if any part of the United Kingdom contemplated withdrawal, indeed, it seems to me that the people of Scotland, in particular, are far too sensible to fall for such a suggestion.
    Mr. Nicholas Soames: Does the Secretary of State agree that the United States-European common strategic policy has been of immense benefit to the security and defence of the west? Now that NATO no longer has to worry so much about east versus west, and more about a world of order rather than disorder, and is increasingly concerned with operations to the south rather than the north and the west, does the Secretary of State agree that, as those fundamental changes are approached, there should be no rush towards early decision making? As in the transatlantic relationship during the cold war, a serious amount of thought and time should go into thinking about the correct strategic composition of NATO, especially given the serious new challenges that it faces.
    Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman makes his observations with his customary expertise and thoughtfulness about the issues. The real issue for NATO is that it needs to reform its own internal structures and processes to deal with the changed military reality, as well as effectively to persuade its members—certainly those other than the United Kingdom and the United States—to reorganise their armed forces in order to deal with that new military reality. Unless both occur within a reasonable time frame, the danger is that the military capabilities available to Europe will not match the military realities that they have to confront. That is why NATO must reform internally as well as encouraging reform of its members' military capabilities.

    Aircraft Carriers
    Richard Ottaway: What progress is being made in developing the proposed new aircraft carriers. [105455]
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram): The two new aircraft carriers will represent a quantum step up in the UK's military capability when they enter service in 2012 and 2015. Design activity is continuing in parallel with our discussions with BAE
    656
    Systems and Thales UK on the structure of the alliance, which will take forward the programme. We expect to be in a position formally to commence the next phase of assessment work shortly and intend to award the main build contract for the carriers in spring 2004.
    Richard Ottaway: I refer to the decision to use French contractors for the construction of those ships. Does it occur to the Minister that, when those vessels are launched, if the French Government disagree with their deployment, they could pose all sorts of problems over the supply of equipment and logistical services? Under those circumstances, if the Minister insists that Britain is incapable of building those ships on its own, might it not be better to look around for more suitable partners?
    Mr. Ingram: I really think that the hon. Gentleman has not followed the detail of the matter. These ships will be designed and built within the United Kingdom. No final decision has been taken about the armaments that will go on board, but we have a highly capable UK defence sector, which will make a bid. The hon. Gentleman's question is based on a nonsensical premise. The answer is that those ships are part of the Royal Navy and will be deployed accordingly.
    John Robertson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that partnership is the most important consideration in the building of the carriers between BAE Systems and Thales? Does he agree that the sort of partnership that we are talking about is that put together between Vosper Thorneycroft and BAE Systems in the design office in my constituency in Scotstoun? The yard is an important part of the process and I hope that my right hon. Friend will help to send some of the design work there. Will he join me in congratulating the work force in the Scotstoun and Govan yards for cutting the first steel for the type 45 destroyers last Friday?
    Mr. Ingram: There are two good news messages in my hon. Friend's question. He is right—he has been a strong advocate of the Clyde yards in the whole process—that partnership is a key element. The Ministry of Defence is part of that partnership, so Thales UK, BAE Systems and the Ministry will work as a triumvirate on how best to take matters forward. Yes, I would congratulate the Scotstoun and Govan yards on their achievement in cutting the first steel, as announced last Friday.
    Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will the Minister accept the verdict of industry and commentators alike that this is a fudge, guaranteed to produce a turf war between the two major companies concerned? Can the Minister explain exactly what is the role of the Ministry of Defence? In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham), he said that it would be an alliance involving BAE Systems, Thales and the MOD. How much of the risk is his Department taking and is it not in danger of having to hold the ring in resolving disputes between Thales and BAE?

    657
    Furthermore, how realistic now is the intention declared by the Prime Minister and President Chirac at Le Touquet last month to harmonise activity cycles and training between British and French aircraft carriers?
    Mr. Ingram: On the latter point, I should have hoped that the hon. Gentleman would welcome the work that goes on between allies to ensure that we get the maximum benefit from capabilities. He may have missed part of this, but we are trying to lift capabilities right across NATO and within Europe. We are making up a very significant part of that, the French are doing likewise, and we encourage other nations to lift their capability levels as well.
    The hon. Gentleman mentioned people making comments about turf wars. In my previous answer I referred to the partnership nature of this action. The actual percentage make-up in terms of the precise level of MOD involvement has not yet been determined. That is part of the ongoing work.

    Cluster Bombs
    Norman Lamb: If he will make a statement on use of cluster bombs by the UK. [105456]
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram): The cluster bomb is a legal weapon that fulfils a legitimate military role that cannot be effectively performed by other means. We reserve the right to use the most suitable lawful weapon available in the proportionate manner required by international law.
    Norman Lamb: I thank the Minister for that answer, but may I ask him to confirm the extent of the use of cluster munitions, including ground-launch munitions, in Iraq? Given the absolute importance of protecting the civilian population from the deadly aftermath of the use of those weapons, can the Minister confirm that he will implement the proposals of Landmine Action and others concerning the user's paying for the clear-up of the aftermath of the use of such weapons and providing full information to the civilian population so as to avoid any risk to that population?
    Mr. Ingram: There is another imperative in the use of weapons, which is of course to try to minimise casualties among our own troops. That is the purpose of having the range of ammunition and equipment that is available to our troops in the Gulf. I would hope that the hon. Gentleman shares that objective, including the use of cluster bombs.
    We have a very good record on clear-up, and we will always seek to proceed on that basis. Wherever we have been involved in conflicts involving the use of weapons, we have sought to clear up after ourselves.
    Mr. Kevan Jones: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the UK forces deployed in the Gulf need the best possible weaponry for the job that
    658
    they are trying to do, and will he therefore pay tribute to the work force at Royal Ordnance Birtley in the north-east, who have done sterling work on Storm Shadow?
    Mr. Ingram: The answer is yes. Storm Shadow has already proved to be a highly effective armament, and the lessons learned in the aftermath of this conflict will prove that conclusively.
    Tony Baldry: Does not the question demonstrate the almost superhuman task that the armed forces are having to undertake in prosecuting a war with a range of weapons, while simultaneously having increasingly to deliver huge amounts of humanitarian aid? What estimate have Ministers made of the number of troops that will be required to deliver humanitarian aid, and how will it be delivered in disputed territory? The Sir Galahad carried 70,000 tonnes of grain as against a monthly requirement in Iraq of 460,000 tonnes. That is a welcome contribution, but not very much.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That is rather wide of the question before us.

    Private Security Companies
    Andrew Mackinlay: If he will make a statement on his policy on co-operation between UK armed forces and private security companies working overseas. [105457]
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram): All members of United Kingdom armed forces are required to notify their commanding officer of any contact with companies that supply, or offer to supply, military services, and to make a written record of any such contact.
    A copy of the detailed guidance covering contact between all Ministry of Defence employees and private military companies is available in the Library.
    Andrew Mackinlay: Yes—but what is the policy? The Government produced a Green Paper two years ago on the regulation of private military companies—companies that, to me, are mercenaries. The Green Paper has never been discussed in the House of Commons and I understand that other Government Departments—such as the Department for International Development and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, to which the Minister needs to talk—are contemplating hiring private mercenary companies. The Government have to consider this whole policy and bring it before the Chamber of the House of Commons so that we can decide whether we want to have any truck with outfits such as Sandline, which are not only bad performers but have caused acute embarrassment to the Government.
    Mr. Ingram: That question would more properly be addressed to the Departments that may be considering the matters that my hon. Friend mentions. There is a need for debate, and the Green Paper was published to allow consideration of the breadth of that debate. It did not lead to any conclusions, but the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs—which examined the issue following

    659
    the report of Sir Thomas Legg and Sir Robin Ibbs in 1998 on Sandline's involvement with arms in Sierra Leone—concluded that private military companies should not be banned.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: Has the Minister examined cases in which other private firms, and not only private security firms, have been mobilised to go overseas with their armed forces—from, for example, an RAF base in this country? Are their rules of engagement precisely set out in documentation? Is the Minister convinced that those rules of engagement are perfectly clear?
    Mr. Ingram: We never discuss rules of engagement in detail but, yes, we ensure that all such issues are perfectly clear to our forces if they are working alongside other nations—including the relationships that they may have with their rules of engagement.
    Harry Cohen: What does the Minister make of the United States' proposal to privatise the police in Iraq after the war? Surely even the Minister must know that that is a euphemism for death squads. What part is there for such a proposal in the reconstruction of Iraq?
    Mr. Ingram: What we will seek to do in Iraq is what we seek to do elsewhere in our peacekeeping role: we want to get a civil society together so that the Iraqi people can administer their society right across the range of responsibilities. At the end of the day, it will be for the Iraqis to decide how they want to run their society. Part of the reason that we are there is to ensure that Iraq is returned to the Iraqi people.

    Police Centre (Winterbourne Gunner)
    Mr. Robert Key: In what ways his Department supports the police national chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear centre at Winterbourne Gunner; and if he will make a statement. [105458]
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram): The Ministry of Defence provides training at the police chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear centre based at Winterbourne Gunner for their instructors. Office and educational accommodation and other administrative support are also provided. That support began in 2001 and has since evolved as the police developed their own training system and services.
    Mr. Key: The centre has been a great success, and locally we are very grateful for the relationship between the Ministry of Defence and the Home Office police forces. Nearly 3,000 police officers from all over the country have now passed through the centre at Winterbourne Gunner. A problem, however, is that police courses have to fit in with military courses and there is a shortage of domestic accommodation. The huts that people live in are world war one huts. Are there
    660
    proposals under project Allenby to upgrade the huts, because we hope that the throughput of civilian police forces through Winterbourne Gunner will double?
    Mr. Ingram: I welcome the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question and his recognition that the centre is a great success. We now have to deal with new problems, for which we will have to plan accordingly. Project Allenby is a major investment in infrastructure, much of which should have been made in previous years—perhaps even when the hon. Gentleman was in government.
    Mrs. Alice Mahon: May I offer my sympathies to all who have been killed or injured in the invasion—especially to those who have seen their children killed? On the subject of the gases and chemicals used at that establishment, which are available to the police, what exactly did a military spokesman mean today when he said in Iraq that non-lethal chemical weapons might be made available to US and UK—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That question is out of order.

    Territorial Army
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: How many members of the Territorial Army have been mobilised for the Iraq conflict. [105459]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): As at 25 March, 3,416 members of the Territorial Army have been mobilised for the Iraq conflict.
    Mr. Swayne: I have an interest as a Territorial Army officer.
    At about Christmas time, a number of TA personnel were advised that they would be mobilised, and they made the necessary personal arrangements. They were subsequently stood down, allegedly on the grounds that the administrative procedures for mobilising them would be too long and the units with which they habitually train needed immediately to begin work-up training in the Gulf. Once the war is over, will the Minister examine those administrative mobilisation procedures and, if and where necessary, overhaul them?
    Dr. Moonie: I entirely agree with what the hon. Gentleman says. It is clearly very important for us to learn any lesson that may occur. I recognise that, where people are called up but not used, it is extremely disturbing to them. We will certainly look at anything like that once the conflict has finished—and his letter will probably be in the post tomorrow.
    Mr. Andrew Mackay: Is the Minister aware that relatives of members of the Territorial Army and other members of the armed forces serving in the Iraq war will have been somewhat confused and disappointed by his earlier answer to the question asked by the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson), as they perceive that the Government have indicated that post and packaging will be sent free of charge to the

    661
    Gulf? In my constituency last Thursday, people were charged the full amount at post offices. They were also told that, on Government instructions, the weight limit had been reduced to 2 kg. Can that be right? Is that helping the morale of the relatives?
    Dr. Moonie: We have to make it clear that there was never any statement by a member of the Government that the entire postal service to the Gulf would be free. What we have said is that we are considering ways to institute a surface postal service, which can only come in later—it cannot come in at this moment because of the importance of getting supplies out there. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is considering the possibility of providing a free service in addition to the present service, not as a substitute.
    Mr. Mackay: What about the weight limit?
    Dr. Moonie: As far as I know, the weight limit remains unchanged. The weight limit for a mail package has always been, I think, 2.2 kg.

    Iraq
    Mr. Jim Cunningham: Whether he expects more UK troops to be deployed to Iraq. [105460]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): As I indicated to the House earlier, we have no current plans to announce significant additional deployments of United Kingdom forces to the Gulf region, but there are provisional plans for sub-units and individuals who have been in the middle east since late last year to be replaced shortly.
    Mr. Cunningham: May I offer my condolences to the families of all those who have lost their lives? Having said that, may I ask the Secretary of State whether he has sufficient troops to ensure that humanitarian aid will get through to the people of Iraq in the various centres outside the major cities? Will he also convey the fact that many British people are concerned about the welfare of the people of Iraq?
    Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his observations. In previous statements to the House, I have set out the deployment of a balanced and flexible force to the Gulf. Deploying and now sustaining that force is a very significant logistical achievement, not least because, as other right hon. and hon. Members have said, it is engaged not only in intense war fighting, but at the same time in supplying significant humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people.
    I specifically draw attention to the logistics contribution that has been made. I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the hard work of our logistics organisations. They do not always get the recognition that they deserve, and they are bearing the burden not only of deploying a substantial force, but of
    662
    sustaining it in theatre, as well as making a significant contribution to relieving a very difficult humanitarian situation in Iraq.
    Mr. Crispin Blunt: No plan survives contact with the enemy and, as the Secretary of State has just made clear, our troops are now engaged in conventional warfare, counter-insurgency operations and bringing humanitarian aid. It would appear from the outside that that is much more manpower intensive than one might have assumed before operations began. While keeping his options open for the reinforcement of British troops in theatre, will the Secretary of State assure the House that he will make the necessary notice-to-move decisions in order to trigger the necessary expenditure on, and preparation of, the units that might be sent? Will he undertake not to leave them sitting there on peacetime establishments and on peacetime processes before he makes that decision?
    Mr. Hoon: Those decisions are consequential upon an assessment that the extra forces are required. As I have indicated consistently to the House today, I do not judge that those forces are, at present, required. Should we reach that decision, the decisions that the hon. Gentleman calls for will certainly be made in time.
    Mr. John McFall: Will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State accept from us that humanitarian aspects of our troops' work are extremely important and that they could take place over a long period—years, in fact? Does he accept that proposition and that time and resources will be required? Will he assure us that the Government will not flinch from that?
    Mr. Hoon: The Government will take all the decisions that are necessary. I do not think that it is particularly helpful at this stage to put a limit on the amount of time that will be required. The Government's objective is to restore Iraq to its own people. The country has great resources of intelligence and education and natural resources of oil, which should allow it to be reconstructed and to play its rightful role in the international community. I see no reason why Iraq should not have that opportunity once Saddam Hussein's regime is removed.
    Dr. Julian Lewis: When our troops are deployed to a war zone, are they not entitled to believe that, if anything serious happens to them, their families will be the first to know? Does the Secretary of State recall that, on 22 March, the BBC announced the collision of two helicopters from HMS Ark Royal with a consequent loss of life? My constituent, Peter Scott, is the father of a helicopter pilot on HMS Ark Royal, and he has written to me as follows:
    "You cannot imagine the shock and anguish experienced by our family and friends until it was possible to ascertain the safety of our son."
    What steps can the Secretary of State take to ensure that reporters do not identify units or formations in such a way that this could ever happen again?
    Mr. Hoon: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. As I have said previously, we have indicated to our broadcasters, in particular, that they should approach those issues

    663
    with sensitivity and respect for the families of the armed forces here at home. However, a balance must be struck in terms of his question. For example, as a simple indication, if eight members of the armed forces had been killed, there is clearly a risk that every single family who has a member serving in the Gulf would be in the same position as that so rightly described by the hon. Gentleman on behalf of his constituent. The balance is a difficult one to strike, but we have appealed to the broadcasters to be sensitive and to have regard to the families. Because of modern technology and the way in which the conflict is often reported in real time back in the United Kingdom, people can often identify their loved ones from the material that is broadcast. Broadcasters should therefore exercise appropriate restraint.
    Jeremy Corbyn: What assessment he has made of the effects of the use of (a) cluster bombs and (b) depleted uranium weapons by UK forces in Iraq since the start of the current conflict. [105462]
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram): At this stage of the conflict in Iraq, it is not possible to make an accurate assessment of the effects of the use of cluster bombs or depleted uranium weapons. We recognise that unexploded cluster bombs and, indeed, all unexploded ordnance are a matter of humanitarian concern. As such, we are committed to working towards the clearance of explosive remnants of war as part of the renewal of Iraq.
    Many independent reports have been produced that consider the battlefield effects of using DU munitions, but none has found widespread DU contamination sufficient to impact on the health of the general population or deployed personnel. The Royal Society reports on "The Health Hazards of Depleted Uranium Munitions" of 2001 and 2002 support the Ministry of Defence's view that risks to the health of soldiers on the battlefield are minimal except for a small number of extreme cases.
    Jeremy Corbyn: In view of the record of the use of cluster bombs in other theatres of war and the fact that they remain in the ground for decades to come, maiming civilians and children, would the Minister support adding the use of cluster bombs to the Montreal convention on the banning of the use of land mines? The effect of a cluster bomb is very similar to that of a land mine.
    Two weeks ago, the Secretary of State told me that there was no evidence of any danger from the use of DU weapons. Does the Minister care to comment on why the World Health Organisation and others have undertaken a study of cancer clusters in southern Iraq following the use of DU 10 years ago? Although I recognise that the military is in love with DU, does not the Minister recognise that many eminent people around the world have a view totally at variance with that of the MOD, believing that DU weapons leave behind a cancerous residue that kills civilians in the future, if not the military using them at the time?
    Mr. Ingram: On the first part of my hon. Friend's question, we have no plans to so designate cluster
    664
    bombs. I hope that he heard my earlier answer on the efficacy of their use. It is about saving the lives of our serving troops, and I hope that my hon. Friend shares my sentiment on that point.
    On DU weapons, my hon. Friend did not name his source. He is usually quite well researched, so the fact that he did not do so could call into question the background of the research. There is still no reliable scientific or medical evidence to connect DU with ill health. More than 3,300 UK veterans of the 1990–91 Gulf conflict have been seen under the Gulf veterans medical assessment programme. Its physicians assess all those attending for signs of ill health that could be attributed to DU exposure. To date, no such evidence has been found.
    The US Government have carefully monitored the health of 33 of their soldiers who were exposed to DU in extreme circumstances when DU rounds accidentally hit their vehicles during the Gulf conflict. Seventeen of them have had DU shrapnel embedded in their bodies for the past 12 years, yet they do not show signs of health problems attributable to DU. The offspring of those highly exposed US veterans, amounting to some 60 children, are all healthy.
    Mr. Henry Bellingham: If cluster bombs were deployed, RAF Tornadoes would almost certainly deliver them. Does the Minister agree that it is vital to expedite the investigation of the tragic loss of a Tornado from RAF Marham to a Patriot missile? Does he agree that the accident is even more extraordinary given that not one Iraqi aircraft has left the ground during this conflict?
    Mr. Ingram: The RAF has played a magnificent role, using not only Tornadoes but the range of capabilities that it has put into theatre. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary visited Marham on Thursday to talk to the families. All Ministers are engaged in a round of visits to bases to thank the families and the personnel who are still there, and in recognition of the magnificent task that has been carried out in pursuit of the coalition's aims.

    Royal Navy/Royal Fleet Auxiliary (Gulf)
    Mr. David Heath: If he will make a statement on the role of the Royal Navy and the Royal Fleet Auxiliary in the Gulf region. [105466]
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram): The Royal Navy and the Royal Fleet Auxiliary have many years of experience of operating in the Gulf region. Since 1980, Armilla patrols, currently undertaken by HMS Richmond and her supporting tanker, RFA Brambleleaf, have maintained a presence in the region.
    The maritime presence currently in theatre consists of 30 Royal Navy and Royal Fleet Auxiliary ships and two Tomahawk cruise missile-capable submarines. Those are based around a carrier group led by HMS Ark Royal, an amphibious task group and associated air group, led by HMS Ocean, a mine countermeasures group led by HMS Brocklesby, and include the primary casualty receiving facility, RFA Argus.

    665
    Operation Telic has involved all units in the naval taskforce across the full spectrum of maritime operations, including force protection, naval gunfire support to the land contingent, tactical lift, search and rescue, medical evacuation, mine clearance, tanker and logistics support, and a float hospital treatment to allied and Iraqi casualties. In addition, RFA Sir Galahad is delivering humanitarian aid into the port of Umm Qasr—[HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] There is more.
    The Royal Marines, a significant part of the Royal Navy assets in theatre, continue to play a leading part in the campaign, and 3 Commando Brigade provides a vital force element to the land component. The capability of the commandos provides a high degree of operational flexibility, allied to significant firepower, which has proved overwhelmingly successful in the initial stages of this campaign—
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Heath: I thank the Minister for quite the most comprehensive reply that I have ever received. He will recognise that in my constituency our thoughts are with the men and women of the Fleet Air Arm and the Royal Navy service fleet, but may I ask a question about the Royal Fleet Auxiliary Service? It has been mentioned several times that RFA Sir Galahad has entered Umm Qasr; does he expect any ships of the RFAS, or merchant ships chartered to the Ministry of Defence, with greater carrying capacity to use those port facilities for humanitarian aid in the near future?
    Mr. Ingram: The hon. Gentleman should be aware that Australian grain ships are on the way. We shall continue to examine what other use can be made of RFA vessels, because humanitarian aid will build up. All of that is being considered.

Points of Order
3.31 pm
Sir Patrick Cormack: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During business questions on Thursday, the acting Leader of the House indicated that he was confident that the Prime Minister would want to make a statement to the House about his conversations in America with President Bush and the Secretary-General of the United Nations. I gave the Secretary of State for Defence an opportunity to confirm that when I questioned him this afternoon, but he ignored that part of my question. Do you know whether the Prime Minister intends to come to the House tomorrow? If there is some doubt about that, could the matter be clarified later today?
Mr. Speaker: I have no knowledge that the Prime Minister is to come here tomorrow.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You, with your eagle eye, will have noticed that 14 written statements from Ministers are listed on today's Order Paper. You will also be aware that we currently do not have a Leader of the House. Given that these are fraught and important times, am I, a trusting creature, wrong to suspect that large amounts of information are coming from the Executive to the House of Commons not in the form of statements, on which there can be questions, but increasingly via written ministerial statements? May we hope that the practice will be drawn to Ministers' attention as not being helpful?
Mr. Speaker: I will look into the matter and report back to the hon. Lady.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that you, like the rest of use, have noticed the current horse-trading over the future of Iraq and its people. It is daily reported that five large United States companies have been invited to reconstruct—indeed, one of them, Kellogg Brown & Root, a subsidiary of Halliburton, has already been given the port of Umm Qasr to oversee. Does that not expose the real reasons for this illegal and immoral invasion—that it is about oil and resources? Have you
668
had any indication from the Government that they will provide a debate so that we can discuss the real reasons for what is happening?
Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for me.
Harry Cohen: Further to the point of order raised by the distinguished hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack), Mr. Speaker. I agree with what I think he was suggesting, which is that the Prime Minister's not making a statement to the House today is rather poor form. A great deal has been happening that the House should be informed about—not only the war itself, but the Prime Minister's statements about British troops being executed and his meetings in the United States and at the United Nations. Will you ensure that, when he makes that statement—whenever he does so, whether tomorrow or the day after—you will allow every Member of Parliament who wants to question him to do so and not cut that process short?
Mr. Speaker: I think that the hon. Gentleman is still disappointed that I did not call him during the last Prime Minister's statement.
Jeremy Corbyn: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen) and by the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack), Mr. Speaker, will you indicate what the normal procedure is for the Prime Minister to make statements when he has had meetings with other Heads of Government or, in the case of the United States, Heads of State? The Prime Minister travels a great deal and sometimes makes a statement when he returns, and sometimes not. If he is meeting any other Head of Government or Head of State, can there not be an understanding that he should make a statement to the House on the nature of those discussions?
Mr. Speaker: I will not be drawn into that argument.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. On Thursday, we were given a clear indication by the acting Leader of the House when he said:
"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."—[Official Report, 27 March 2003; Vol. 402, c. 454.]
The Prime Minister may not have informed you, Mr. Speaker, but I think that following that comment we had the right to expect a statement from the Prime Minister.
Mr. Speaker: I did note what was said last Thursday.

Orders of the Day
  Railways and Transport Safety Bill
  As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
  Railways and Transport Safety Bill
    New Clause 6

      ANNUAL REPORT
      '(1) The Secretary of State shall make regulations requiring the Chief Inspector of Rail Accidents to produce once in each calendar year a report in connection with the activities of the Rail Accident Investigation Branch.
      (2) Regulations under subsection (1) may, in particular, make provision about—

      (a) timing of reports;

      (b) content of reports;

      (c) publication and other treatment of reports.'.—[Mr. Jamieson.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      3.36 pm
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: (b), at end insert—
      '(d) those bodies and individuals with whom the Railways Accident Investigation Branch must consult in the preparation of a report.'.
      (a), at end insert—
      '(3) Regulations under subsection (1) shall, in particular, make provision about the rail industry's progress in implementing the recommendations which the Rail Accident Investigation Branch makes.'.
      New clause 12—Rail Accident Investigation Branch: Subcontracting—
      '.—The Rail Accident Investigation Branch shall not use in an investigation contractors or subcontractors whose actions prior to that investigation could reasonably be expected to be referred to in the conclusions of that investigation.'.
      Government amendments Nos. 11 to 15.
      Amendment No.2, in
      page 3, line 5 [Clause 6], at end insert—
      '(1A) The Rail Accident Investigation Branch may investigate any railway situation which it judges to have the potential for fatality or injury.'.
      Mr. Jamieson: I am delighted that the House can return to considering the Bill. I see that some old friends from its consideration in Committee are in their places. I am sure that the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) will speak with her usual commendable economy of words, as I am sure will the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) and others.
      The new clauses and amendments refer to part 1, which would establish the rail accident investigation branch. New clause 6 would place a duty on the chief inspector of rail accidents to publish an annual report on the activities of the RAIB. The clause is being brought forward in response to concerns that were raised in Committee. A number of the amendments that stand in
      670
      the name of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State are responses to matters that were properly raised in Committee.
      The regulations will give details of what will be in the annual report and when it will be published. We intend that the RAIB's annual report will let everyone see what the branch has been doing in the previous year. Not only will it provide an overview of investigations made in the preceding year and give details of safety recommendations that have been made, but, crucially, regulations will also specify that the report should show industry progress towards implementation of recommendations made by the branch, so that it can be seen that lessons are being learned. I hope that that addresses some of the concerns of the hon. Member for Bath, as expressed in amendment (a).
      The rail industry will be responsible for the implementation of safety regulations in line with recommendations made by Lord Cullen. The rail safety and standards board will maintain a single record of recommendations made by the RAIB, as well as industry investigation recommendations, so that the state of industry progress towards implementation of each and every recommendation can be checked. The publication of annual reports by the branch will draw on that and place a discipline on everyone involved to ensure that recommendations are implemented.
      Government amendments Nos. 11 and 12 have been tabled to ensure that the RAIB's responsibilities in relation to the channel tunnel are clear and work well. Our intention has always been that the investigation of accidents and incidents in the channel tunnel would not automatically be for the RAIB. Such matters would be for the channel tunnel intergovernmental commission and the Channel Tunnel Safety Authority to decide.
      Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way so soon, but the matter that he has just raised is a very fraught one. He will be aware that the channel tunnel organisation does not always provide full and detailed information about its own workings, so it is extremely worrying that the matter may, rather unhelpfully, come under its aegis. Can he assure us that, as a result of the amendments, it will be made clear on the record that the available statistics will be printed clearly so that the general public and the House of Commons can have access to them?
      Mr. Jamieson: I am not sure whether the amendments will do so, but the new clause ensures that should the tunnel authorities call on the expertise of the rail accident investigation branch, it can be used. The authorities' information would, of course, be made public.
      Mr. John Bercow: Given that new clause 6(2) is strikingly broad in scope and lacking in specificity, can the hon. Gentleman tell the House whether we will at least have the benefit of advance sight of the draft regulations before the Bill's final passage? Irrespective of the answer to that question, can he advise

      671
      the House whether the regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure of the House or its negative counterpart?
      Mr. Jamieson: The regulations will be dealt with in the normal way, and their publication will be dealt with in the normal way in the House.
      Mr. Bercow: That answer was spectacularly uninformative. For the hon. Gentleman to say that the regulations will be dealt with in the normal way tells us everything and nothing that we need to know. The question is specific—given that there is normality about the use of both the negative and positive procedures, which are the Government opting for?
      Mr. Jamieson: There is never normality about what the hon. Gentleman raises in the House, but there is always predictability. In this case, the statutory instruments will be subject to negative resolution, but many other statutory instruments relating to the Bill will be subject to positive resolution. That was thrashed out very thoroughly by the hon. Member for Vale of York in Committee.
      Government amendments Nos. 13, 14 and 15 strengthen the wording describing the aims of the rail accident investigation branch. As Lord Cullen recommended, the fundamental aim of the rail accident investigation branch must be to improve the safety of railways and prevent railway accidents and incidents. The rail accident investigation branch will establish the root causes of railway accidents and incidents, and share safety lessons with the industry as quickly as possible so that safety can be improved and future accidents prevented. However, there may be circumstances in which the rail accident investigation branch could, for example, help a marine or air accident investigation by providing specialist assistance. For that reason, we do not want the aims of the rail accident investigation branch in clause 4 to be so narrow that it could only work on a rail accident investigation.
      Mr. Michael Clapham: Has the Minister given any thought to the question of whether the rail accident investigation branch will, in certain circumstances, be able to carry out surveys or studies of potential dangers? For example, he will be aware that at present the union ASLEF is pressing for a reduction in hours. Is that something that would come under the remit of the rail accident investigation branch? Would it carry out a survey and report back?
      Mr. Jamieson: I am not sure that that particular issue would come under the branch's remit, but certainly under the Bill there is an ability to look both at incidents that may lead to increased risks and risks that might lead to incidents. We want the branch to have freedom to investigate such things—they may not be actual events or incidents, but things that might lead to a serious event. I am sure that the branch's chief inspector will look at each issue, just as the marine accident investigation branch and the air accidents investigation branch look at each issue to see whether there is a risk that could cause danger.
      3.45 pm
      Mrs. Dunwoody: I apologise for intervening again, but the wording that my hon. Friend used implies that the rail accident investigation branch will intervene in the other accident branches. Would it not be sensible to follow one of my Committee's recommendations—that the Government should set up a truly independent safety authority capable of covering all forms of transport, using the expertise of the existing bodies but bringing them together in such a way that they would be independent of their individual industries and capable of delivering much better, much stronger and much more imperative results?
      Mr. Jamieson: My hon. Friend's argument has much merit. 'The air accidents investigation branch and the marine accident investigation branch have specific expertise and have proved to be singularly capable in their work. The counter-argument to my hon. Friend's suggestion is that because those branches of our Department operate as they do, with the expertise that they have, it is considered at present that they are better as separate branches operating with own their levels of expertise. However, we may return to the matter in the future. I should add that the Bill allows for a sharing of expertise between branches, should that be required. It is not expected that the branches would regularly investigate each other's cases, but they may have certain expertise that they can share with one another.
      David Cairns: I understand that the air accidents investigation branch occasionally helps in other countries where there has been an air crash and it uses its expertise there. Does my hon. Friend envisage that the rail accident investigation branch could fulfil a similar role? If so, I recognise that the House will not want to examine great reports on accidents that happened throughout the rest of the world, but if lessons can be drawn from incidents that happened elsewhere, will they be able to form part of the content of the report?
      Mr. Jamieson: My hon. Friend makes a sensible point. I do not think that it would happen frequently, but there may be cases in which the rail accident investigation branch would be asked to investigate, help investigate or provide expertise in respect of some incident that had happened outside the country. Should that happen, I would anticipate that if there were any lessons to be learned that were appropriate to our circumstances, we could benefit from such information. My hon. Friend's suggestion was not made in Committee and is a powerful point.
      Miss Anne McIntosh: I am delighted to see the Under-Secretary in his place and I am grateful to him for his kind words. I refer the House to my interests as declared on a number of occasions, most recently in Committee. I congratulate the Under-Secretary on tabling a number of new clauses and amendments. His sometimes harsh words in Committee were compensated for by his generous invitation to visit his constituency and have a journey on a chain ferry. I am sure that before Royal Assent is granted, we will have time to compare our diaries and find a suitable occasion.

      673
      On Government new clause 6, we welcome the provision for the chief inspector to report once in each calendar year on the branch's activities. What changed the Government's mind, after the Under-Secretary so forcefully rejected our version of the new clause in Committee? We requested that the rail accident investigation branch make an annual report of its proceedings to each House of Parliament, and that it publish and present its audited annual reports. We asked that the report be not merely presented and published but also debated by each House of Parliament.
      David Cairns: The hon. Lady is being uncharacteristically ungracious. It is my clear recollection that she withdrew her amendment after receiving assurances from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary that the Government would table amendments on Report to address the points in the amendment that she and the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) proposed in Committee. Is that not the case?
      Miss McIntosh: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the response of the Minister of State, Department for Transport on 4 February, in column 22 of the Standing Committee report. The Minister did not go quite as far as the hon. Gentleman suggests; in fact, the right hon. Gentleman was quite harsh in his rejection of our amendment. However, we are an open, enlightened party so we welcome the Government's change of heart. We question what prompted that change and request that the report be published and debated, not least by the Select Committee, and that each House should have the opportunity to discuss it.
      I hesitate to comment on the Liberal Democrat amendments as Liberal Democrat Members did not offer much support for our amendments in Committee.
      Mr. Foster rose—
      Miss McIntosh: We wait expectantly to hear the background.
      Mr. Foster: As the hon. Lady is so keen on studying the Hansard reports of the Committee debates, may I strenuously urge her to look at the numerous occasions on which she rightly referred to the growing alliance between our parties? That indicates that we were being supportive, as she rightly was of many of our amendments.
      Miss McIntosh: As the Under-Secretary invited me to be brief, I should hate to break his strictures so early on. However, speaking at considerable length in Committee has obviously paid rewards.
      I am delighted that, to some extent, Government amendment No. 11 answers our request about the actual designation of work on reporting accidents and that accidents in the channel tunnel will be investigated separately. It is important to record our gratitude to the Government; they appear to have listened to our concerns and to have found a way forward.
      674
      I support with greater enthusiasm our amendment No. 2, which states:
      "The Rail Accident Investigation Branch may investigate any railway situation which it judges to have the potential for fatality or injury."
      The Under-Secretary will recall the extensive background that we rehearsed in Committee. I repeat the welcome for the Cullen report and its recommendations given by my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) on Second Reading. The recommendations are timely. We are immensely proud of the air and marine accident investigation branches and hope that they will serve as models. However, during the extensive consultation, for which the Government have been commended, several bodies pointed out that the Government need to specify the circumstances in which the branch will conduct an investigation. At the very least, the branch should investigate a fatality or a serious injury.
      Mr. Michael Weir: Will the hon. Lady clarify something for me? Her amendment states that the branch should investigate "any railway situation", whereas the Bill refers to accidents and incidents. Will she explain what she means by "situation"? If a rail passenger committee or other representative body expressed concern about a particular safety issue, would she envisage them having the power to ask the branch to investigate that incident, or situation?
      Miss McIntosh: I most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point, which is obviously very significant. In Committee, we tried hard to establish circumstances relating to the terms "accident" and "incident". It must be said that we did so with some support from the Liberal Democrats—[Interruption.] The issue arose very early in the proceedings, so we were delighted to recognise their support at that stage.
      I would be happy with the terminology in relation to "accidents" and "incidents". However, it is important to record that, presumably, as the Under-Secretary has said that the Government want the railway accident investigation branch to lend assistance to the other boards in certain circumstances, we must be specific about the responsibilities of its inspectors and investigators. We believe that the potential for or occurrence of fatality or injury are the most specific circumstances in which inspectors and investigators would act.
      Having made those introductory remarks, it gives me great pleasure to commend amendment No. 2 to the House.
      John McDonnell: I wish to speak to the amendment that appears in my name—amendment (b) to the new clause. I should like to preface my remarks by saying that I was not a member of the Committee, although I am certainly a member of the coalition of the willing who want to see the Bill through the House as speedily as possible.
      My interest rests on these factors: Brian Cooper, my constituent, was one of the drivers killed in the Paddington disaster; the Southall disaster was literally one mile from my constituency and its victims included some of my constituents; and on the night of the King's

      675
      Cross fire, in my previous life as a local government officer, I was involved in dealing with some of the arrangements for those who were injured and killed. I therefore have a particular interest in rail safety, although I was not a member of the Committee.
      I welcome the new clause which is critical to the operation of the Bill and could set the annual benchmarking of progress regarding railway safety in this country. Amendment (b) seeks to make the point that when the regulations are introduced, we need to maximise the openness and transparency with which the critical annual report is prepared. The Bill is an attempt not only to deal with the practical matters of rail safety, but to restore the confidence of the British public in the rail industry and in a Government who are acting on their behalf to ensure their safety. That is why emphasis should be given to ensuring maximum transparency and openness in preparing the annual report.
      For that reason, amendment (b) suggests that the Secretary of State should be more directional in the preparation of the report. I look forward to seeing the regulations, although I would prefer it if the negative resolution procedure were not followed, as a positive discussion should take place in which the House can come to a decision on the detail of the regulations. In some instances, the negative resolution procedure does not afford the opportunity for such discussion.
      The amendment would provide the Secretary of State with directional powers to allow more openness in the preparation of the reports. It would do so by allowing him to designate
      "those bodies and individuals with whom the Railways Accident Investigation Branch would consult in the preparation of a report."
      It also covers some of the issues that have been raised in Liberal Democrat amendment (a) to the new clause, which deals with progress and implementation of recommendations arising from previous investigations. One of the groups that we would like to welcome in preparing the report and making observations is the individuals who served on or gave evidence to the inquiries that have accumulated in recent years.
      The amendment would also cover some of the aspects raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Transport, because it would allow bodies to comment on the information that would become available as a result of the publication of a report. In other words, they could say what statistics should be included in the report while it was being prepared.
      The amendment would also provide the opportunity for consultation with all the other individuals and organisations concerned about rail safety in recent years. In particular, I refer to employers and trade unions. Trade unions would be enabled to have an input in sections of the report that deal with such issues as ASLEF's concerns about hours of service and the reduction of the safety role of guards, which has been taken up by the RMT. Trade unions would have an input in the report at an earlier stage and thus it could address those issues. People would also be able to suggest what chapters of the report should cover. Such people would include victims' representative bodies, victims' legal representatives and representatives of
      676
      academic and safety bodies. We would be allowed to consult bodies that work internationally on safety so that the annual report could bring to bear evidence from not only the railway industry in this country, but throughout the world. That is why the simple amendment could strengthen the Secretary of State's powers to ensure that the annual reporting process was more effective, open and transparent and therefore more reassuring for the travelling public and those who work in the industry.
      4 pm
      I shall not press the amendment to a Division because I want the Bill to be enacted as soon as possible. However, I would welcome the Secretary of State using the regulations to examine the process through which the report is prepared so that it achieves all our objectives: to benchmark, to be open and transparent and to reassure the travelling public.
      Mr. Don Foster: Like the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) and the Under-Secretary, I am delighted that we are making further progress on this important Bill. I, too, welcome the fact that many members of the Standing Committee are in the Chamber but I am delighted to see several new faces, not least the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), the Chairman of the Transport Committee. I am sure that we will all benefit from her expertise during our proceedings.
      I am also delighted that the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) is in the Chamber. On Friday, I participated in a debate on a private Member's Bill on high hedges, during which I looked back at our previous debate on high hedges in March 2001. I noted that there were several exchanges between the hon. Gentleman and me in which he said that he enjoyed jousting with me and I said that he was extremely assiduous in his work. He has demonstrated that again today through his intervention on the Under-Secretary. He asked about two issues: the way in which the statutory instruments will come before us and, importantly, whether a draft of the regulations would be seen before the Bill has passed through both Houses. The hon. Gentleman did not receive an answer from the Under-Secretary and if he had, we would not have to raise several of our concerns.
      There are worries about aspects of the process, which are fleshed out in amendment (b), which was tabled by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and amendment (a). I wish to tease out more information about the nature of the report, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) will catch your eye later, Mr. Speaker, to speak to new clause 12.
      We are delighted that the rail accident investigation branch will be set up. We have supported all aspects of the Government's proposals on it although, on occasions, we have challenged them to go further and to clarify aspects of its work. We are genuinely delighted with Government new clause 6. As the hon. Member for Vale of York said, both Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members moved amendments in Committee that would have had a similar effect to the new clause. However, the Under-Secretary has failed to take

      677
      account of several worries expressed by the hon. Lady and me during the debates on those amendments. The Conservative amendments related to the need for the annual report to be made to each House of Parliament, which implied that there would be an opportunity for both Houses to debate it. It does not appear that that will necessarily occur, because the Minister's own new clause merely states that we shall have regulations making provision about
      "the publication and other treatment of reports"
      at a later date. Had the hon. Member for Buckingham received a clear answer to his question, we might have known that we could look at this matter a little later in the proceedings and be assured of it happening. I note that the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Vale of York at that time also talked about the need for the presentation of audited annual accounts to each House of Parliament. So far, it does not appear that we are going to see that either.
      Our amendment (a) raises a further point. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington talked about the vital importance of the report that will be produced as a result of new clause 6. He said that it could be an important annual benchmarking of rail safety progress. The problem is, however, that we still do not have a clear assurance from the Government that, in addition to the rail accident investigation branch telling us what it has done, we shall also receive information about the progress being made in response to recommendations that it has made following accident investigations. The Minister hinted earlier that that provision might now be included, but I hope that we can have an assurance that there will be a mechanism to provide the annual benchmarking of rail safety progress that the hon. Gentleman has rightly said that we need. That is why we have tabled amendment (a), although, as I have said, we very much welcome the Government's new clause 6.
      In regard to the other Government amendments and new clauses, new clause 13 strengthens the definition of the role of the rail accident investigation branch. The Minister was good enough to point out that some of those amendments resulted from suggestions made in Committee by the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives, and new clause 13 is just such a measure. We were very keen to have that strengthening of the role, and we therefore welcome the new clause. We are discussing the establishment of an important new body—the rail accident investigation branch—and we hope that the Minister will take on board some of the concerns that we continue to raise about it, particularly about its reporting function. No one should be in any doubt, however, of our full support for its introduction.
      Mrs. Dunwoody: Travel by rail is very safe. That would appear to be such an obvious thing to say that it should not be necessary to repeat it, but, because of the drama and excitement engendered by any rail industry accident, it is sometimes possible to believe that rail travel is as dangerous as any other form of transport. It is important, therefore, to remember that we kill 3,000 people on our roads every year, but sometimes only four or five on the trains. That is not to underestimate the agony and tremendous tragedy of any rail accident, but it is important to keep these things in perspective when
      678
      we are discussing these issues. I therefore welcome the Bill enormously because I believe that it will set out a way for us clearly to begin to put at rest the minds of the general public.
      My hon. Friend the Minister was kind and courteous enough—as he always is—to answer my questions earlier, but I would have hoped that the Government might have been a little more courageous. The Bill presented an opportunity to consider the recommendations that we make, right across the transport industries, and to identify the series of excellent groups of people whose professional job is to investigate accidents. They exist in marine and aviation affairs, and there are clear differences between how some of them work, but they have shown that their very independence, openness and tremendous love of detail produce reports that have consistently provided a set of rules and plans by which the individual industries can progress.
      That is why the Transport Committee suggested that this might be the moment to bring together all those different investigation branches. That is not in any way to underestimate the role that they play, but simply to say, "As that expertise exists, let us bring them into one independent free-standing agency." We should have given them the muscle to investigate and, indeed, to impose conditions while they are investigating the accident scene, as that would have been useful in working out what we must learn from individual incidents. I am sorry that that chance has not been taken. It seems slightly ungracious to say so, as my hon. Friend the Minister has introduced an amendment of which I approve, although I am sorry it does not go further, but he is long enough in the tooth in parliamentary terms to realise that that is frequently the norm.
      We should have a totally independent investigation branch, and it is not enough to go one step. We should make it clear that what is necessary in this country is access to information. The general public have enormous faith in the railway system and many aspects of safety regulations are built on the assumption that the railway industry has always been astonishingly careful, almost since its inception, to maintain rules and regulations that protect its passengers and, indeed, its staff. That is why some of us are concerned about the safety changes inherent in the suggestion that we can do away with the job of the guard.
      If I may digress for a moment, I travelled on a train on Saturday where a young man was threatening to commit suicide in a rather dramatic manner—by slitting his throat. It was the guard whose unenviable task it was to try to restrain him and at least find some way of getting to the point where British Transport police could deal with the situation. The guard was left in control. I know that Virgin trains are frequently over an hour late, but it seemed a rather excessive reaction to want to commit suicide. Nevertheless, that is a clear example of the fact that the guard has a specific role to play, and it was played with considerable expertise.
      We should have taken the chance to sort out a series of problems through the Bill. One is undoubtedly the control of the channel tunnel. My hon. Friend the Minister is aware that the joint action between the British and French Governments frequently throws up clear differences between the two legal systems and the

      679
      two systems of control. The channel tunnel authorities, on both sides, choose not to make public the facts of how they operate, or what happens on that track. Indeed, they limit many items of information to the minimum required by the company laws of both countries, which shows that we still face real difficulties.
      The habit in this country of producing annual reports and including in them a minimum number of items that make what is happening clear to any member of the general public who wants to acquire the information—not just to people with expertise in an industry—is one that should be treasured and expanded on every occasion. I regret deeply the fact that that is not the case in relation to much channel tunnel legislation. I had hoped that we would deal with that question in considerable detail, but I return to the point that we in this country value safety regulation.
      Those who moan about bureaucracy, form filling and the constant imposition of rules and regulations forget that in the safe passage of the people of the United Kingdom the transport industry has a role to play that is not only vital, but responsible. We have still not reached the end of the passage of the Bill—it has another House to go through and it has to come back here—so I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister looks carefully at what he is suggesting. He should say that the Bill is just an elementary and first step, and that we should be going a lot further.
      4.15 pm
      I look forward to the time when a clear infrastructure, an independent agency and a set of tough regulations are on the statute book, drawing together all accident investigation branches, marine, aviation and railway—and perhaps we should also seriously consider what is happening on our roads—into an effective unit. That will force the public to think carefully about how they behave on transport systems, regulate the behaviour of individual companies in all those sectors, and enable us as a Parliament to feel that we have carried out our duties correctly.
      Mr. Weir: I welcome the proposal for an annual report. As was pointed out by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), our rail system is safe; the problem is that confidence has been undermined by a number of high-profile accidents recently. The Cullen inquiry and the Bill that followed it constitute one way of trying to introduce a system that will help to restore that confidence, and I think that, once established, the annual report will begin to do that.
      I also support amendment No. 2, although the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) may wish to dissociate herself from my support when she has heard what I have to say. The wording of the amendment is significantly different from that of clause 6: while clause 6 refers specifically to accidents and incidents, the amendment refers to "any railway situation". That is an important difference. One problem with the Bill, which is to an extent inevitable, is that it deals with investigations of accidents that have already occurred. We should be thinking about how to prevent them from occurring.
      In January there was an accident on the London underground Central line, which led to the closure of the line for some time. The RMT claimed that safety was
      680
      being sacrificed to profit, and said that a driver on the Piccadilly line who had expressed concern about a banging noise had been told that if he refused to drive a train that was later found to be safe he would have to face the consequences. Today, as last week, railway guards are on strike, not over pay and conditions but over a safety issue. I feel that the investigation branch could look into specific railway safety issues. That may be beyond its power now, but I hope that in future a Government of whatever colour will consider it as a way of increasing both safety and confidence.
      Mrs. Dunwoody: My Select Committee will be examining what happened on the Central line tomorrow afternoon.
      Mr. Weir: I am delighted to hear it, but my point is that the branch should look not just at accidents that have already happened but at situations that may give rise to accidents, and at railway safety in general. If it can
      "investigate any railway situation which it judges to have the potential for fatality or injury",
      a rail passenger council, a rail union or anyone concerned about railway safety would at least have an opportunity to bring to the branch's attention incidents or situations that might give rise to safety concerns.
      David Cairns: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Does he agree that creating a special accident and investigation branch, which will focus tightly on investigating accidents and seeing what lessons can be drawn from them, could allow the Health and Safety Executive to fulfil the role that he mentions of looking into health and safety matters across the railways? It might also have time to do that more effectively. We should perhaps allow matters to move forward and see whether the Health and Safety Executive could fulfil the role that we both want carried out.
      Mr. Weir: The hon. Member makes a good point, with which I would not disagree. My point was that confidence has been undermined by a series of high-profile accidents. People who travel regularly on the railways, the unions and others are concerned about a range of factors that give rise to safety concerns. Health and safety has a role within that, but I would argue it may be outwith the scope of the clause, but it should be considered—that the remit of a specific rail accident investigation branch should be expanded so that the problems that could cause spectacular accidents could be investigated before they get to that dangerous stage. An independent group that could seriously investigate those matters might help us in cases where strikes over safety are taking place. I am not sure that that is what the hon. Member for Vale of York had in mind.
      Miss McIntosh: The hon. Gentleman's latest intervention touches on an important point, which we explored at length in Committee. Regrettably, the amendment that we tabled was not selected. Does he agree that the position of the Health and Safety Executive would have been much clearer if the Government had taken the opportunity to set out, either

      681
      in a code of practice or a memorandum of understanding, the precise relationship between the HSE and the new rail accident investigation branch?
      Mr. Weir: I was not present at the debate, so I cannot comment on the detail, but that is a fair point. My argument is that we must have some independent body—whether it be the HSE or the RAIB—to investigate complaints and concerns about safety on the railways before accidents occur.
      Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: I am pleased to support the Bill in broad terms and I was pleased to serve in Committee. However, in common with my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), I would like to see stronger legislation and hope that this Bill is a significant step towards what can ultimately be achieved.
      My concerns were raised by news in The Guardian today that the new rail safety and standards board will be established in a more independent role, having previously been based within the industry. The article says that the chief executive of the internal organisation, Mr. Rod Muttram, who assumed that he would be given the new job under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment)—TUPE—rules, has not been given the new chief executive post. I have made discreet investigations and inquiries today and I understand that he is a man of high calibre and a qualified electrical engineer, who has spent considerable time in the industry and has done a good job. At short notice, he was told that he need not apply for the new job, even though most other staff were transferred to the new organisation. There is a hint, I am afraid, that he was too good at his job, too independent and too strong in investigating safety and standards problems. When he was based inside the industry, it was perhaps easier for it to accept him, but it seems that he might be too much for a role in a body with an arm's length relationship with the industry.
      I refer hon. Members to today's article in The Guardian for greater detail, but there is a hint of concern inside the industry about the strength of independent safety organisations. I hope that commercial interests will not taint the new branch set up by the Bill. I am sure that they will not, and I do not want to cast aspersions on those who may be involved in it, but I hope that the Government will make absolutely certain that it has the necessary independence and strength to do its job properly.
      I very much welcome new clause 6. I am interested in its reference to the "content of reports". My hon. Friend the Minister said that the body will produce a report giving an overview of accident investigations. I hope that that will not be a bland hand-off of a true investigation, but have some meat and cutting edge. Full investigations into the Hatfield and Potters Bar accidents have not yet been published. Although there have been interim reports, we still, some time on, have not been told the truth as to what really happened in those accidents. There may be important lessons to learn from those accidents that could cost the industry a good deal of money.
      Mr. Bercow: Unfortunately, I must plead ignorance of the contents of today's edition of The Guardian, but
      682
      does the hon. Gentleman agree that the amendment tabled by my hon. Friends is so eminently reasonable that it is difficult to see why anyone should object to it? Does it not call for a form of pre-accident scrutiny, and is there not an analogy between that and pre-legislative scrutiny`?
      Mr. Hopkins: I intend to come to that in the course of my speech. I accept that there is a point to the amendment, but several bodies in the industry have responsibility for safety, and this matter specifically concerns the investigation of accidents rather than considering safety beforehand. If, however, it appears that we have no effective pre-accident safety scrutiny, we will need to legislate to strengthen the bodies that deal with that.
      I have some modest technical knowledge of railways, and this morning, at my local station—Luton, from where I travel every day—I saw from platform I that the outer track rail is very heavily worn. When rails are worn like that on a bend, derailments are possible. Other factors include broken rails, which are a major cause of accidents—we know that that was the case in one of the two examples that I just mentioned. Broken rails sometimes occur because track rail flexes, which happens because the ballast has not been re-tamped. Without getting too technical, the ballast underneath the track has to be tamped to ensure that it is stable, and when it has not been tamped properly the rails flex. I could draw hon. Members' attention to certain areas where I can see that track is flexing. My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) suggested that the unions should have a role. Indeed, drivers in particular can see track problems from their cabs, and it is absolutely right that they should be consulted and have a role in reporting on such safety and accident matters.
      Even I, as an amateur with some knowledge, can observe some trackside problems just by standing on a platform. We should have a mechanism whereby members of the public, those of us who are informed about such matters and, particularly, those who work in the industry can report problem areas beforehand so as to avoid any repetition of accidents of the kind that have occurred.
      Mr. Clapham: My hon. Friend alluded to the relationship between overlapping bodies—for example, the rail accident investigation branch, the Health and Safety Executive, the Health and Safety Commission, Her Majesty's rail inspectorate and the new rail safety and standards board. Does he agree that the role that the rail accident investigation branch will play, as an independent body, may act as a catalyst in pulling together the other bodies to facilitate greater co-operation in relation to the way in which their work overlaps?
      4.30 pm
      Mr. Hopkins: If the investigation branch discovers that those other organisations are perhaps not doing their job, I hope that it will be able to report to Government so that something can be done. From my own inquiries and discussions with many who work in the railway industry, I know that some of those

      683
      organisations are not doing the job as well as they should be. I do not want to go into detail on that, but I will report to my hon. Friend the Minister in due course.
      I do not think that my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) mentioned the transport police. The transport police do an excellent job. Hon. Members who saw the recent documentaries on the rail transport police will know that they are a first-class body that does a good job and should be listened to and supported. When the transport police find things that are not right, the Government ought to take them seriously and, if necessary, introduce further legislation to strengthen the existing arrangements.
      I have a number of other points to raise but I may be able to raise them later.
      Tom Brake: I want to speak in favour of new clause 12, which is in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster). The new clause relates to contacting or sub-contracting matters that were discussed in the Standing Committee. Hon. Members who were present will remember that we tabled a straightforward amendment, which was slightly shorter than the one that we are considering today. It said simply:
      "The Rail Accident Investigation branch may not use contractors or subcontractors to assist in their investigations."
      It is worth recalling why we tabled that amendment. We did so because Lord Cullen, for instance, thought that it was paramount that the RAIB should be independent; and because of the answer to a parliamentary question that my hon. Friend the Member for Bath asked about the role of contractors. That answer was:
      "The role of contractors or sub-contractors within RAIB would be as witnesses, when appropriate, during investigations."—[Official Report, 10 June 2002; Vol. 386, c. 781W.]
      It is only fair to point out that the Under-Secretary then went on to explain exactly what he meant. He said that the Government's view was that it would be appropriate to call as witnesses the maintenance companies in relation to a particular investigation. However, by that he did not mean that contractors could not be used as consultants if needed in a particular investigation.
      In Committee, the Under-Secretary gave us an example in relation to the marine accident investigation branch. He said that he received lots of reports about marine accidents after which salvage experts were used to lift wreckage from the sea bed. Clearly, it is entirely appropriate for salvage experts to be used in that capacity. However, did not give the example of a ship manufacturer working as a consultant in an inquiry into a vessel that had been split in half in bad weather but that had been manufactured by the same ship manufacturer. It is exactly that sort of conflict of interest that we want to avoid. That is the purpose of new clause 12.
      We heard the concerns of the Health and Safety Commission about various safety contractors who were involved in railway works and safety cases.
      Mr. Hopkins: I endorse the hon. Gentleman's concern about the plague of contracting that has overtaken the industry since privatisation. Does he accept that a problem has been that many people with skills are now
      684
      working with the sub-contractors, making it difficult to do anything without using sub-contractors in some fields? Would it not be a good idea to redevelop expertise in the core part of the industry and in the new bodies, so that those skilled people are genuinely public servants and are not compromised by commercial interests?
      Tom Brake: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Clearly, there is a role for contractors and sub-contractors—that will always be so—but I agree with the point that he makes. Indeed, Network Rail has recently announced that it is bringing back in-house some contracting work, to enable it to develop not only expertise, but a point of comparison with contractors working in the private sector so that it can find out whether the costs quoted are appropriate.
      As I have said, we have concerns about contractors who have a dual role in investigations and in carrying out work. Although the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) did not believe that sub-contractors would never be asked to work on investigations, he argued that they should not lead them and only assist in them.
      Under new clause 12, we seek to incorporate some of the views that hon. Members expressed in Committee, so it reads:
      "contractors or sub-contractors whose actions prior to that investigation could reasonably be expected to be referred to in the conclusions of that investigation"
      should not be used during that investigation, and I hope that hon. Members, including the Under-Secretary, would concur that that is very sensible. I hope that, if the Under-Secretary already thinks that that is covered by the certain clauses or regulations, he will confirm that fact and, therefore, it is an issue about which we should not be concerned. However, if that is not covered, it would be appropriate for him to take on board our compromise suggestion.
      I should like to give the Under-Secretary some time to consider our proposal—perhaps he will do so in the next few days—so we do not intend to press new clause 12 to a vote. We will listen carefully to his response, and I hope that he will recognise the need to do away with the possibility of any conflict of interest.
      Mr. Jamieson: May I thank the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) for the broad welcome that she gave the Bill? I shall not join the discussion between the Liberal Democrat and the Conservative parties about which was the most supportive, but I dare say that a reading of Hansard would indicate that to anyone who had an interest.
      If the hon. Lady wants to visit my constituency—to go on the chain ferry or otherwise—nothing that she has said so far now or in Committee has negated that invitation, and she is always very welcome. I saw the chain ferry in my constituency on Friday, and I can assure her that it is working well.

      685
      [Interruption]. I did not hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) said.
      Mr. Bercow: What about the workers?
      Mr. Jamieson: Yes, well, what about the workers indeed? My hon. Friend could come and see the people who are working very hard on the ferry and providing many services in that area.
      Mr. Don Foster: I am grateful to the Under-Secretary for giving way given that, from a sedentary position, the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) says, "What about the workers?"—[Interruption]—as did the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). The crucial thing is that I hope that the Under-Secretary will tell his hon. Friends that, in light of amendments proposed by the Liberal Democrats, the Government now intend to ensure that the workers are properly represented on the various bodies that we have discussed today.
      Mr. Jamieson: My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich has shown more interest in the workers over the years than the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) or the Liberal Democrats ever have.
      Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Jamieson: I have sparked the hon. Gentleman into action. Of course I will give way, so long as he wants to make a serious point.
      Mr. Bercow: I recognise the hon. Gentleman's instinct—indeed his thirst—for badinage, but may I simply advise him that, if he traduces my record on such matters in future, I will do my best, within order, to highlight that proportion of my 5,000 written questions that relate to the interests of the working people of this country.
      Mr. Jamieson: The hon. Gentleman always looks as if he has bags under his eyes. He must have been sitting with the bedclothes over his head and using a flash lamp to read past copies of Hansard. He has done that too often and, these days, he reads his own contributions. I strongly recommend against that. He should get a life, go out at night and do something else. That might be of great benefit to him and give him a broader perspective on life.
      The hon. Member for Vale of York suggested that we had changed our minds. However, when we concluded our debate in Committee on this part of the Bill, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Transport said that we would return to the issue. He said that we would take note of the debate in Committee, and that is why we have returned to the issue tonight.
      The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) and my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) raised important questions about the content of the annual report. I emphasise that it will show the progress of recommendations and take an overview of the
      686
      investigations that have taken place. It will provide detail of the safety recommendations and, most important, it will show the industry's progress towards the implementation of those recommendations. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend will accept that strong reassurance.
      Miss McIntosh: Can the Under-Secretary confirm that the report will be published and will be debated in the House?
      Mr. Jamieson: I can confirm that the report will be placed before the House. I am not in charge of debates but, if the Opposition wanted to use one of their days to debate the report, I am sure that the Government would be pleased to respond.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) tabled the important amendment (b) on the consultation involved in preparing the annual report. I should now make a distinction between the annual report and reports that will be produced as and when necessary on particular incidents or accidents. I do not think that it will be normal to consult others when preparing the annual report, and we do not see a particularly good reason to do that. The other two branches—the marine accident investigation branch and the air accidents investigation branch—do not consult on their reports.
      However, on my hon. Friend's concerns, I assure him that the important matter of particular investigations into particular incidents or accidents will be available to be commented upon by all bodies that wish to do so, including the trade unions that may have a particular interest in such issues. It will be a matter for the branch to keep all interested parties informed about the progress of individual accident investigations, and the latest draft of the European rail safety directive would require the branch to let interested parties see relevant parts of investigation reports before publication. I hope that that brings some consolation to my hon. Friend.
      The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) spoke to new clause 12. It would require that the rail accident investigation branch not use
      "contractors or sub-contractors whose actions prior to that investigation could reasonably be expected to be referred to in the conclusions of that investigation".
      He asked whether assurances were contained in the Bill. It is vital that the chief inspector of rail accidents retains the credibility of the industry and the travelling public. The branch would rapidly lose that credibility if it were required to use a contractor or sub-contractor whose work or actions it knew to be linked to an accident under investigation. However, the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that it is inevitable that there will be occasions when the branch will not have the necessary specialist expertise, such as on signalling technology, to conduct an in-house investigation thoroughly.
      4.45pm
      We therefore have to rely on common sense and on the chief inspector's ability to manage the situation, as we have done with the marine and air accident investigation branches. As I said, the operation of those two branches provides good examples. At the moment, I do not see why we should treat the rail accident

      687
      investigation branch differently. It will take all necessary measures to ensure that any potential conflicts of interest are managed appropriately. There will be a clear chain of command and control of all contractors or sub-contractors used by the rail accident investigation branch, which will go back to the chief inspector of rail accidents.
      I hope to show that we have taken into account what the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) and his colleagues seek to achieve in amendment No. 2. We agree that there is a need to define what accidents the rail accident investigation branch will be under a duty to investigate. The branch must also be given the discretion to investigate other incidents relevant to the operation of the railway, to see whether there are safety lessons that need to be learned. Clause 2(4) will allow the regulations defining an incident to make provision on events such as near misses and other precursors to accidents—a point on which my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North showed concern.
      The regulations will make it clear that incidents that could be subject to investigation by the rail accident investigation branch could include one that, under different circumstances, may have resulted in an accident, and a series of unplanned or uncontrolled events that, under different circumstances, may have resulted in an accident. That would include what the rail industry refers to as near misses or precursors.
      We must also ensure, however, that our domestic legislation complies with the forthcoming European legislation. The European Council and the European Parliament are currently debating a proposed railway safety directive, which will provide a framework for a consistent approach to independent accident investigation in all member states. We should all welcome that, but if we include definitions in the Bill, we risk having to amend it almost as soon as it receives Royal Assent, should it do so. Nevertheless, I can assure hon. Members that we intend to give the rail accident investigation branch the maximum flexibility to investigate any incident, which will include near misses or other precursors.
      Mrs. Dunwoody: I hope that my hon. Friend is not really enunciating the theory that it is only if the Europeans have thought deeply about these matters that we can change our railway legislation. Would not it be a better idea to set out a nice, precise definition that the European Parliament, in its wisdom, might catch up with?
      Mr. Jamieson: Indeed. That is why we have our own Bill. This is not European legislation that we are discussing tonight. We have to ensure that any definition that we set out matches any definition that may be used in the European context in the near future. It would be unwise to include definitions in the Bill and then to find that, in a few months, we had to alter them.
      Mr. John Randall: Does the Minister have a timetable for the introduction of the European
      688
      definition, so that we can have a definite idea, rather than "maybe", "possibly", "in a month or two" or "in a year or so"?
      Mr. Jamieson: I said that we might have to make the change as soon as the Bill is anticipated to receive Royal Assent because that is the expected time scale for the emergence of the new definitions.
      The hon. Member for Bath asked whether the annual report will be placed in the House. We have covered that point; it will be placed in the House. He asked about the annual accounts report. That will be available because the accounts will form part of my Department's accounts, which are laid before the House.
      Mr. Bercow: While the hon. Gentleman awaits enlightenment in respect of the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall), may I, as someone who did not serve on the Standing Committee, politely put it to him that his response to the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) was not altogether compelling? Given that new clause 6 is permissive in terms, rather than prescriptive, what is the cogent explanation for the refusal to include the terms of the hon. Gentleman's amendment in the Government's new clause? The Minister should not just stick to the brief; he should answer the question.
      Mr. Jamieson: That is kind advice from the hon. Gentleman, but if my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington has any difficulty with my response, he is more than capable of saying so.
      To return to serious matters, my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich made a powerful contribution, as always. She emphasised the need for safety on our railways, contrasting that position with that which pertains to our roads. It is an unfortunate fact that when an incident occurs on the railways, it receives a huge amount of public attention; that is inevitable and, I think, right, but it is sometimes disproportionate. Our railway system is actually very safe and operates extremely well. That said, my hon. Friend and I agree that although the railway system is safe, we can always do more to make it safer, and I totally endorse what she and her Committee have done to further that work.
      My hon. Friend restated the point about having one agency—one effective unit, as I think she described it. I assure her that the Government do not rule that out as a longer-term ambition, but the priority now is to get the RAIB set up. We shall encourage the three branches to work closely together, as the two existing branches do now.
      My hon. Friend mentioned the channel tunnel, which is an important matter. As she knows, the United Kingdom and France regulate the tunnel, and French agreement is needed if the type of information that she talked about is to be released. The Government will encourage greater release of information, but we have to work within the constraints of international law.
      The hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) and my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North asked whether the RAIB would examine general safety issues within the industry. That is not the RAIB's job. The rail safety and

      689
      standards board will have the lead in making the railways safe and the Health and Safety Executive remains the rail safety regulator. The RAIB will examine specific incidents, including near misses and precursors that might have led to an accident, but it will not consider rail safety in general.
      Mr. Weir: Will the Minister respond to the point made by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody)? In many ways, the perception of railway safety is a more difficult issue than the accidents that occur. Is there not an argument for the RAIB examining general safety as well as accidents, as a way to increase confidence in the railways?
      Mr. Jamieson: I do not think that it is the RAIB's job to do that. Its proper role is to investigate specific accidents or incidents that could have led to accidents, and the lessons learned will, I hope, lead to greater public confidence. However, it is for the rail safety and standards board to have general oversight of implementation and thereby to increase the travelling public's confidence in the rail system.
      Mr. Don Foster: The Minister is being most helpful and encouraging about the likely contents of the report, which is all the more reason why we should be given an absolute assurance that we will get draft copies of the regulations before the Bill completes its passage. As for the point he has just made, other bodies, such as the British Transport police, will examine incidents that could have led to an accident—for example, incidents of vandalism—and comment on them. Does he expect the RAIB's annual report to include reference to matters such as the BTP's comments on vandalism?
      Mr. Jamieson: That would be a matter for the chief inspector to put in his or her report. That is, those matters that were relevant to the task in hand. I do not think that issues relating to the British Transport police would routinely be included in the report. If lessons were to be learned from specific issues, perhaps inclusion would be the most appropriate course. In the end, that is a matter for the good sense of the chief inspector.
      I commend the Government's new clause and Government amendments Nos. 11 to 15. I hope that the other amendments will be withdrawn.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time.
      John McDonnell rose—
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Does the hon. Gentleman seek leave to move his amendment?
      John McDonnell: Perhaps I might state my reasons for withdrawing the amendment.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: No. The amendment is not moved, so the hon. Gentleman cannot set out his reasons for doing so.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause added to the Bill.

    New Clause 7

      CONDITIONS OF SERVICE: TRANSPORT POLICE CONFERENCE
      '(1) This section applies to action of any of the following kinds—

      (a) the making by the Authority of regulations under section 34, 35 or 36 about the conditions of service of constables, special constables or cadets,

      (b) the making by the Secretary of State of regulations under section 40 about the conditions of service of constables, special constables or cadets,

      (c) the issuing by the Secretary of State of a document under section 27,

      (d) the taking by the Authority of a decision about the conditions of service of constables, special constables or cadets, and

      (e) the taking by the Secretary of State of a decision about the conditions of service of constables, special constables or cadets.

      (2) Before taking action to which this section applies the Authority or the Secretary of State shall invite the British Transport Police Federation to nominate a number of individuals, not fewer than two nor more than five, to meet with an equal number of individuals nominated by the Authority to discuss the action proposed.
      (3) Where a group is nominated under subsection (2) the person proposing to act shall, before acting—

      (a) give the group an opportunity to make recommendations about the proposed action, and

      (b) have regard to any recommendation made.

      (4) Where the person proposing to act thinks that a group nominated under subsection (2) is unable to agree recommendations about the proposed action he shall, before acting—

      (a) give the group an opportunity to nominate an individual who is not part of the group to make recommendations about the proposed action,

      (b) give any person nominated by the group an opportunity to make recommendations about the proposed action, and

      (c) have regard to any recommendation made.

      (5) Where the person proposing to act thinks that a group nominated under subsection (2) is unable to agree a nomination under subsection (4)(a)—

      (a) the Secretary of State may nominate a person to make recommendations about the proposed action, and

      (b) the person proposing to act shall, before acting—

      (i) give any person nominated under paragraph (a) an opportunity to make recommendations about the proposed action, and

      (ii) have regard to any recommendation made.

      (6) In subsections (4) and (5) a reference to agreement of a group nominated under subsection (2) is a reference to the agreement of—

      (a) a majority of the individuals nominated by the British Transport Police Federation, and

      (b) a majority of the individuals nominated by the Authority.

      (7) In this section a reference to conditions of service includes a reference to any terms and conditions of employment (including pay and hours of duty).'.—[Mr. Spellar.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Mr. John Spellar): 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:
      New clause 1—Code of Practice: British Transport Police and others—
      'The Secretary of State shall issue a code of practice setting out the relationship between the British Transport Police, airport police, and Home Office police forces and security officers operating at airports and seaports.'.
      New clause 16—Reimbursements of costs—
      'The Secretary of State shall authorise the reimbursement of the costs arising from the extended jurisdiction for the British Transport Police provided in the AntiTerrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001.'.
      New clause 18—Contracting services—
      '.—The Secretary of State may permit the British Transport Police Authority to contract with transport operators to provide services in respect of nonrail transport modes, including airports and bus routes.'.
      Amendment No. 36, in page 8, line 33 [Clause 18], at end insert—
      '(g) to the Mayor of London's Transport Strategy'.
      Amendment No. 3, in page 9, line 6 [Clause 19], at end insert
      'and on direction by the Secretary of State other transport undertakings, including sea ports and airports.'.
      Government amendments Nos. 16 to 18.
      Amendment No. 39, in page 13, line 13 [Clause 29], at end add—
      '() and, on direction by the Secretary of State, on any other transport undertakings including sea ports and airports.'.
      Amendment No. 40, in page 13, line 13, at end add—
      '() anywhere within the United Kingdom in the absence of a constable of the territorial force;
      () in support of any other police officer.'.
      Amendment No. 37, in page 19, line 39 [Clause 47], at end insert—
      '(e) have regard to the Mayor of London's Transport Strategy.'.
      Government amendment No. 19.
      Amendment No. 5, in page 24, line 17 [Clause 59], at end add—
      '() other persons and bodies with an interest in the transport undertakings including sea ports and airports where the Secretary of State has issued a direction extending the jurisdiction of the British Transport Police.'.
      Amendment No. 34, in page 24, line 17, at end insert—
      '() trades unions representing employees of organisations providing railway services.'.
      Amendment No. 38, in page 24, line 17, at end insert—
      '(n) Transport for London'.
      Amendment No. 8, in page 60, line 34 [Schedule 4], at end insert:—
      '() a person nominated by Transport for London.'.
      Amendment No. 35, in page 60, line 34, at end insert—
      '() at least four persons who have a knowledge of and experience in relation to the interests of persons employed in the provision of railway services and who are members of a trade union.'.
      Amendment No. 1, in page 60, line 37, leave out 'four persons' and insert 'six persons'.
      692
      Government amendment No. 24.
      Amendment No. 6, in page 61, line 7 [Schedule 4], at end insert—
      '(g) a person with an association with, either by ownership or career experience, with the industry, transport undertaking, or port or airport where the Secretary of State has, by direction, extended the jurisdiction of the British Transport Police.'.
      Government amendment No. 25.
      Mr. Spellar: The new clauses and amendments all refer to the part of the Bill that concerns the British Transport police. New clause 7 would retain the existing BTP conference. The hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) raised this important issue in Committee, and I was happy to give her an assurance that the Government would bring forward an amendment to address the matter.
      We are not talking about the British Transport Police Federation conference, which is an excellent body that I addressed in Peterborough last week. We are talking about a meeting between management and the federation, and the conference has an important role. It allows discussions on conditions of service, such as pay and hours of duty, to take place between the Strategic Rail Authority, as the current employer of the force, and the British Transport Police Federation as representative of the federated ranks of the BTP. The new clause ensures that the conference will continue to meet to discuss issues relating to conditions of service of BTP constables with the Strategic Rail Authority's role replaced by the British Transport Police authority.
      We have already discussed these provisions with the BTP. Our officials have met and corresponded with the federation, senior management of the force and the BTP committee. They are all content that the provisions are both correct and allow the existing conference to continue to perform its role.
      Government amendments Nos. 16 to 18 reflect the fact that special constables with the BTP should not be classed as employees of the authority. They are, of course, volunteers and so should not be legally defined as employees. That is the existing position of special constables in both the BTP force and of local Home Office police forces as well. The amendments ensure that the British Transport police special constables remain in line with their Home Office counterparts. As hon. Members who served on Committee will be aware, it is to harmonise arrangements between British Transport police and the Home Office forces that we have introduced a number of provisions.
      5 pm
      Government amendments Nos. 19, 24 and 25 concern the make-up of the police authority and the organisations that it would have to consult. I would like to explain briefly the reasons for the amendments, which have all been tabled as a result of commitments made in Standing Committee in response to amendments or comments. Government amendment No. 24 will mean that the Secretary of State, when appointing members of the authority, will have to ensure that the membership includes someone who has "knowledge and experience" of employees of the railway industry. We have slightly embellished the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) in Committee. Paragraph 2(2) of

      693
      schedule 4 allows members to be appointed for more than one reason, so a member appointed to provide knowledge and experience of passengers may also be able to provide valuable knowledge of regional requirements. The criteria used in the appointment of a member with knowledge of those providing railway services could therefore overlap with the new criteria concerning those working in the railway industry. That could also work the other way round, which could obviously leave one side deeply unhappy, and defeat the intention of the provision and our discussion in Committee. We have therefore tabled Government amendment No. 25 to ensure that an employee representative cannot dilute the industry representation by being counted within their numbers. Neither can members appointed to represent the railway companies count as members who provide knowledge about the interests of railway employees.
      Government amendment No. 19 adds employees of railway companies and their representatives to the list of organisations that the authority shall consult about the policing of railways. The list of organisations in clause 59 is not exhaustive, and we expect the authority to consult widely and comprehensively on the arrangements for policing the railways. With that introduction, I commend the Government amendments and new clauses to the House.
      Miss McIntosh: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his gracious reference to our lengthy debate in Committee. He will be pleased to learn that I will not speak at such length today.
      Will the Minister comment on one aspect of the Bill that the Government have chosen not to amend? He will appreciate that we had a lengthy debate on jurisdiction in Committee, and I wish to place on record the fact that we welcome the provisions dealing with that. The Minister explained why the provisions are needed, and we support their main thrust. However, the Government have consistently omitted four little words, "in the vicinity of", from them. The British Transport police have strongly and vociferously argued that the omission of those words restricts the jurisdiction that they have traditionally enjoyed. That goes to the heart of this part of the Bill, and we regret that the Government have failed to address that point. We are seriously concerned that the British Transport police will not enjoy the jurisdiction that they have enjoyed in the past. Operating "in the vicinity of" means that they have the right to act in connection with railway lines, trains and railway stations. Perhaps the Minister would be good enough to share with the House the reason why the Government feel that it is inappropriate to use those words.
      I welcome new clause 7, and thank the Under-Secretary of State for Transport for his helpful letter of 10 March which, at five pages, vies with some of my remarks in Committee. I am sure that it will not have escaped the attention of the Minister of State that the British Transport police have serious concerns about pension provisions, which he and the Government have so far failed to address. As the Bill is about to leave the House, do they wish to address that later? I understand that some of the provisions may be addressed, for
      694
      example, by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority's police force. Are the Government minded to deal with these matters?
      I take this opportunity to speak to the new clauses and amendments tabled by my hon. Friends and me, specifically, new clause 1. Subject to the Minister's reply, we may decide not to press the motion to a Division. It has been argued forcefully to us that a code of practice is required, in which the Secretary of State could set out
      "the relationship between the British Transport police, airport police, and Home Office police forces and security officers operating at airports and seaports."
      In new clause 16 we request that the Secretary of State authorise the reimbursement of the costs arising from the extended jurisdiction of the British Transport police provided for in the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. Everyone accepts, as do we, that the provisions of the 2001 Act have been extended to the Home Office police force, and that the Bill will extend those provisions to the British Transport police. I believe that the provisions are already in operation, but this is our first opportunity to express the hope that the Government will be minded to reimburse the British Transport police for their costs. I gather that millions of pounds have been made available to the Home Office police to ensure that they can fulfil their obligations under the 2001 Act. Why have the Government not seen fit to increase the heavily utilised budget of the British Transport police, in light of their new responsibilities? I hope the Government and the House will support new clause 16.
      New clause 18, which is linked to new clause 1, calls for the Secretary of State to
      "permit the British Transport Police Authority to contract with transport operators to provide services in respect of non-rail transport modes, including airports and bus routes."
      We debated that in Committee. Each of the three main London airports is accessed primarily by rail, and each of the rail connections carries large numbers of people to the airports. There will be some crossover of suspects and offenders who have perpetrated a crime on the railway, at a station or on the train, and then seek to flee via the airport, and vice versa. That was recognised in the excellent report by the right hon. Sir John Wheeler, which was commissioned by the Government and which we commend to the House.
      Sir John was appointed in May 2002 by the Secretary of State for Transport, jointly with the Home Secretary, and submitted his report on 13 September last year. At paragraph 13, he refers to the fact that the powers available to police officers at airports under the Aviation Security Act 1982 should be simplified. We suggest not only that the powers should be simplified, but that there should be a crossover. The hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) probably sees a need for such a crossover at seaports as well.
      In preparation for the Committee and remaining stages, the point was fortified by notes from the British Transport police, which recognise that the Wheeler report successfully identifies shortcomings in the current security arrangements at airports throughout the United Kingdom. The report refers to the need for

      695
      improved co-ordination, consistency and role clarity. The briefing that we received on the subject from the British Transport police stated:
      "While there is very good co-operation between the British Transport Police who police the railways, and Home Office forces, who police the airports, a single force with overall responsibility would remove this boundary which has the potential for different response to threats in proximate geographical areas. The geographical boundaries themselves are often distinct with, for example, direct access to Heathrow, to the Heathrow Express and London Underground, and at Gatwick to the Gatwick Express."
      Furthermore, there is the connection between the Stansted express service and Stansted airport. I should not go as far as the joint force recommended by the British Transport police, but we warmly urge the Government to consider introducing either a code of conduct or specific guidance for the police, to allow them crossover in those circumstances.
      Our new clause 18 would provide that the British Transport police authority could
      "contract with transport operators to provide services in respect of non-rail transport modes, including airports and bus routes."
      Such a provision has been requested by train operators, especially London Underground.
      We hope that the British Transport police authority will have regard to the Mayor of London's transport strategy in exercising its functions. We await the Minister's comments on our amendment No. 36 which relates to that point. Similarly, our amendment No. 37 to clause 47 would provide that, when setting policy objectives, the authority would
      "have regard to the Mayor of London's Transport Strategy".
      Our amendment No. 1 refers to the constitution of the British Transport police authority. The authority currently has only four representatives of the railway industry. Our amendment recognises the fact that the rail industry—the transport operators, London Underground and others—actually pays for its policing, and proposes that six persons from that industry should be represented on the authority. We recognise that the industry benefits from the service provided by the BT police but believe that we should pay regard to the fact that it pays the lion's share for that service.
      Although we await the response of the Minister for Transport to our amendments, it is certainly our intention to press new clause 16 to a vote. We hope that the House will support us.
      Mrs. Dunwoody: I shall detain the House only briefly.
      The British Transport police are extremely efficient; the force has always been good but it is now very professional. I welcome the efforts of the new chief constable, who has wrought remarkable changes.
      In my constituency, I have recently been impressed not only with the work that the BT police are doing to deal with straightforward vandalism on the line and in stations but also by the way in which they have increasingly understood the connection between vandalism and groups of people who have no involvement in their environment. In particular areas, the BT police have done remarkable work in encouraging local authorities and like-minded officials to identify station properties or stores that might be at risk, and in ensuring that local schools understand the
      696
      direct complications that could arise if those properties were vandalised. That work is not being undertaken negatively; the BT police try—like all good mothers—to divert the attention of those who want to cause trouble to something else.
      I have a simple question for my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport. Is it possible for the new regulations to take account of the changing role of the transport police? Sometimes we get things disastrously wrong. I was recently at Crewe station when, owing to the operating companies' inability to work together and give one another coherent information, vast numbers of people, including football crowds, were rushing from one platform to another at considerable risk to the women and children who were going shopping. No one had any clear line of information for the police, and four officers were trying to deal with about 500 people.
      5.15 pm
      Mr. Hopkins: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that she is making a powerful case against the fragmentation arising from privatisation?
      Mrs. Dunwoody: There is no doubt about that, and I can use this incident to make the point. A train load of football supporters came from London. They were very noisy and had been drinking, although it was early in the afternoon. To be fair to them, they were not offensive in any way and were simply chanting and singing. There were so many of them, however, that their simple bulk constituted a frightening movement.
      I am not easily dismayed, but I was concerned that a number of people were already filling a sprinter train, and because of incompetence, the train operating company got the whole football crowd off one train and endeavoured to shove it on to a much smaller train that was already half full. The company then realised that it was in trouble and got everybody off that train and moved them to yet another platform. In the meantime, it tried to round the crowd up to the front of the station to get on buses. Not only the consequent chaos, but the distress of people on the platforms was very evident to me. Young girls were crying not because they had been physically challenged, but because of the feeling of oppression caused by being surrounded by large and very energetic crowds.
      Such situations have to be dealt with by the British Transport police, but the numbers and comparisons involved make one wonder whether we have got the formulae right. Four police officers—three men and one woman—were trying to deal with the situation without any proper information from the train operating companies. The signalmen and women were giving one set of information and the train operating companies were giving totally contradictory advice. That nearly resulted in a very bad situation, as the number of people pushing forward to the front of the platform could easily have resulted in a fatal accident. The police dealt with the incident as best they could, but it arose out of the sheer inability of the train operating companies to know what they were doing and to transmit that information to the officers on the platform who were trying to deal with it.
      I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will think seriously about the role of the British Transport police. In parenthesis, I may say that I was accused of

      697
      having organised one response by the operating companies, which turned around a train that I then boarded in order to go back to London. The accusation was that the train operating companies were so terrified of having me standing on Crewe station that they would do anything to get me away, but I do not think that that was true.
      When we frame terms of reference, we should remember that the British Transport police do not merely walk up and down trains dealing with drunks; their role is much more complex and far-reaching. When we give them those terms and operational instructions, we should remember that they need not only proper and clear leadership, which they are getting from their chief constable, but co-operation from the companies. The hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) said that those companies pay for them. They may pay for them, but they do not understand how to operate them. We should also insist that their role as full police officers be recognised in the community as a whole.
      Tom Brake: There are many helpful and pertinent amendments and new clauses in the group that we are now considering. Indeed, there is evidence that the Government have incorporated a number of amendments tabled by Opposition parties in Committee, which is welcome. I should like briefly to comment on a small number of those amendments and new clauses, and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) will seek to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, to speak to new clause 16.
      We tabled amendment No. 8 to provide that a person nominated by Transport for London should be appointed to the British Transport police authority. TFL plays an important strategic and statutory role on transport and it would be appropriate for it to have a designated member of the authority, especially because it provides 30 to 40 per cent. of the total funding of the British Transport police in support of policing London transport, including the London underground and other services on its system. I shall listen with interest to whether the Minister will consider that suggestion or whether we will return to it at a later date.
      We wholeheartedly support and welcome Government new clause 7 on conditions of service. New clause 1, which was tabled by Conservative Members and relates to the British Transport police's code of practice, is equally essential. We, and no doubt the Minister, are aware of at least one inquiry in which there is, to put it kindly, confusion about who has overall responsibility and access to evidence. A clear code of practice to show which body has overall control, access to evidence and the ability to dictate the order in which an inquiry progresses would be helpful.
      Amendment No. 36, which was tabled by Conservative Members and would provide that the British Transport police should have regard to the Mayor's transport strategy, is a sensible proposal. The hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) has tabled several amendments, and although they relate to matters that could be considered, given the attention that has been paid to the proposals so far, it would be better to return to them later. Several other amendments in the group are fairly minor or drafting amendments.
      698
      We support Government amendment No. 17, which relates to the employment of special constables by the British Transport police authority or other organisations. We welcome Connex's initiative to put special constables on its trains and hope that other train companies are actively considering doing that. We hope that more special constables will help to patrol the large network, because it is difficult for the BTP alone to cover it to any great extent. Conservative Members tabled amendment No. 47 to provide that the policing objectives of the British Transport police authority would have regard to the Mayor's transport strategy, and that is a sensible proposal.
      We wholeheartedly support Government amendment No. 19, which relates to consultation on policing and makes specific reference to employees of train companies and unions within the industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) pushed for such a measure in Committee. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) tabled similar amendments, although they would provide for the representation to be of a different order of magnitude. It would be appropriate to have one representative of the unions on the authority.
      John McDonnell: Why?
      Tom Brake: We should consider the membership of the authority as a whole. Conservative amendment No. 1 suggests that the authority should include six representatives of the industry, but that would skew its membership in one direction. The hon. Gentleman's proposal would skew the membership in another direction.
      John McDonnell: Why?
      Tom Brake: If the hon. Gentleman has the opportunity to speak to the group, he may set out why he thinks it appropriate to have four representatives of the unions on the authority.
      John McDonnell: I would like to ask the hon. Gentleman why my proposal would skew the membership in that way. What rationale lies behind his assessment?
      Tom Brake: We have to look at the membership of the authority as a whole. There will be representatives from different parts of the industry and from passenger groups. My preference would be that the consumer—the customer—should be the person or group with the largest representation on the body. That would be the appropriate balance, although the hon. Gentleman obviously thinks differently and will no doubt make his case to hon. Members as to why he thinks that his amendment is more appropriate.
      We support Government amendment No. 24. Government amendment No. 25—which we believe is sensible—states that it would not be possible to appoint someone to the authority who represented the industry as well as the employees, as that would clearly present a number of conflicts of interest that would be hard to explain away. There are some useful amendments in this group. We shall listen to the Minister's response and reserve judgment until he has spoken.
      Andrew Mackinlay: I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate and to put forward two propositions. The first is covered by amendments Nos. 3, 5 and 39. I welcome the creation of the British Transport police authority by the Bill, but I regret that the title of the Bill does not refer to the British Transport police. It would have been better to have primary legislation on this important matter, rather than incorporating it in this wider Bill because it deserves its own exclusive consideration by the House. A single British transport police Act would have made a better statute. I regret that that has not happened.
      In tabling amendments Nos. 3, 5 and 39, I want to draw the attention of the House to the parlous state of our homeland security in relation to seaports and ports, and to the absence of policing in them. If my amendments were accepted by the Government—I certainly hope that they will be picked up by the House of Lords and thought worthy of consideration—they would ensure adequate policing in those areas and that it would be provided by the British Transport police. There are obvious reasons for that, including the interface of means of transport that was mentioned by the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh). The British Transport police are experienced in all transport matters and, historically, used to operate in our seaports. They have been there before, so it makes sense that they should be there again.
      The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) kindly said—I paraphrase—that my amendments warranted some consideration but had not been adequately aired. I have to say to the House that I have tried to draw attention to the absence of policing in our ports—and, to some extent, airports; I shall illustrate that point in a moment—for some time. Short of streaking across Parliament square, I am not sure what more I can do to draw attention to this issue. I have certainly raised the matter in the House before. It is a very serious issue and should be addressed by the Government. In fairness to the Minister, I do not blame him for not doing so, but I blame the Government collectively because, if there was ever an example of a lack of joined-up government, it is to be found in the policing of our seaports and airports, particularly, although not exclusively, seen against the backdrop of the terrorist threat.
      Mention has been made of the Wheeler report on airport policing. I do not think that it has come out as a Command Paper; it seems that we have to know about its existence to have any knowledge of its contents. The Under-Secretary of State for Transport has left the Chamber, but I remember him telling me two years ago in a parliamentary reply that a working party on ports policing had been set up, yet still nothing has emerged. These issues ought to be dealt with all together and with some urgency.
      5.30 pm
      Why do I say that the British Transport police should be involved with the policing of ports? I represent the port of Tilbury, which has a small, dedicated and professional force of sworn constables that is owned and controlled by the port itself. That is a bit perverse, although I have to say that that has never interfered with
      700
      its professional jurisdiction and the port of Tilbury can be proud of that. Similar port police are peppered around the United Kingdom in, for example, Felixstowe, Tees and Hartlepool, Bristol, Merseyside and, of course, Dover, but I invite the House to consider this: if it is right for all those places to have a police force, what about all the other ports around the UK that do not have one?
      There are no port police in any of the Scottish ports, and the port of Tilbury is just one area in my constituency, which contains 14 miles of river frontage, where there are ships and wharves. Other areas have a port, but no police. It is crazy—breathtaking in the extreme—that we tolerate that at a time of high terrorist activity, growing international mafia-type crime, which is working through our seaports, and widespread human trafficking.
      At some other ports that I have alluded to, not only are there no police forces, but it would be a lucky man or woman who found Customs and Excise or a Home Office immigration officer. It is unbelievable that the UK is allowing its doors to be open in such a way. This is a question of joined-up government: the Home Secretary says that he has sorted out Sangatte and all that business over there, but there are open ports all round the UK, which is breathtaking.
      Of course, criminals and human traffickers know that, and although I hesitate to say it, I suppose that some people who wish us ill also know it in terms of terrorism. The Government are not doing anything about that. Some of the small police forces that I mentioned do a good job, but they are at their limits because they do not have critical mass. If we had a national police force, which should be provided by British Transport police, or a national ports police, which is the alternative, we would have sufficient numbers for proper training, mobility, recruitment, a career structure and so on, but that is just not happening. It is time that we spelled it out that the Government have to address the issue in a matter of weeks, not months.
      People might say, "What about airports?" I want to deal with that. In fact, new clause 1, which has been tabled by the Conservatives, refers to airport police. I do not criticise them for that, but the only airport police in the UK are at Belfast International airport. There are no airport police anywhere else, although the situation is equally crazy in terms of jurisdiction and funding.
      Officers at the three principal London airports—Heathrow, Stansted and Gatwick—are provided by the Metropolitan, Essex and Sussex forces respectively for which the airport operators, whose airports are described as designated and which I usually knock in this place as I do not hold a high brief for BAA, pay a substantial bill to the police. However, I am told that Luton and Cardiff airports do not.
      I am open to correction and I am sure that I will get some stiff letters from the directors of those airports tomorrow if I am wrong, but I know that operators at some substantial UK airports make no contribution to such costs. That is reflected in the policing. There is no coherent plan or funding.
      I am pleased that the House is interested in the matter. The situation is wrong in terms of competition policy, but it also means that policing is patchy rather than consistent throughout UK airports. That needs to be

      701
      addressed, and the best way to do it is to put British Transport police in place at non-designated airports. I am not arguing this afternoon that we should remove the Metropolitan, Essex and Sussex forces from those designated airports, although that needs to be looked at.
      Miss McIntosh: The term used in the Wheeler report is "police officers at airports", but the hon. Gentleman made an important point about the need to co-operate with the police in the case of all modes of transport.
      Andrew Mackinlay: I thank the hon. Lady for that.
      Mr. Don Foster: Luton airport, for instance, is not designated in this way, so the Bedfordshire force must carry out policing. That force is only 1,000 strong, and cannot possibly have the necessary range of expertise. Do we not desperately need a review of designation, as the Wheeler report suggests? Should not designation be based on a multi-agency assessment of the risks encountered by each airport?
      Andrew Mackinlay: Absolutely. The House should certainly consider what was suggested by Wheeler as one of the options. I hope that in any such debate we will also explore the whole question of the integrity of our borders. We need either a national borders police force—which I think should be provided by the British Transport police—or a national airports police force. So far the Government do not seem to have thought about this, but they should do so with some dispatch.
      The hon. Gentleman's intervention underlines my point. He says that Luton is policed by the Bedfordshire force, which is small. The lack of designation may lead to a fear that, because of all the other pressures on the chief constable, there is inadequate policing of an airport which, given such factors as expanding industries, is critical to our economy. There are, indeed, airports of comparable size in the same position. I want the Minister to know that I am no longer prepared to acquiesce through my silence.
      Mr. Foster: The hon. Gentleman may gain some comfort from the knowledge that, in the last few days, I have tabled a parliamentary question to both the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Transport asking for a clear public indication of their intentions in respect of meeting the Wheeler report's recommendations. I hope that we shall receive a positive response. The Minister is smiling benignly, so let us be optimistic.
      Andrew Mackinlay: Let us indeed be optimistic, but I do not want the Wheeler report to be accepted like tablets of stone. I want a debate, because I do not think that Wheeler deals with the idea of a national border police. I note that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) seems interested in that.
      Wheeler refers exclusively to airports. We should take account of all our borders, which are indivisible and interrelated. I include Northern Ireland in that. Belfast International airport has a dedicated airport police force, and very good they are too, but the city
      702
      airport—which is now almost as large, and is a major traffic centre—has no policing apart from that of the Police Service of Northern Ireland. Parliamentary questions tabled by me have revealed a very low level of policing in what could be described as a major airport and a growing enterprise.
      I may not have persuaded the House sufficiently on that point, but let me now remind Members—especially those who sat on the Committee, and are walking encyclopaedias where the Bill is concerned—that clause 75, in part 4, addresses the important issue of drug and alcohol abuse by staff ranging from masters of ships to ordinary seamen. It deals with the offences, and also with the remedies. Clause 82 deals with arrests, and the breathalysing of those in charge of ships. It is bonkers to include such measures without being sure that police officers will be available to do the breathalysing and arresting. I know what will happen: when there is a tragedy people will he breathalysed and brought in and so on, but there will be none of the normal policing that takes place on our highways.
      I invite Members to go to any seaport, including the big seaport at Tilbury in my constituency. All of them, including the smaller ones, are like the Mary Celeste. One cannot see anyone around—certainly not any policemen, because they are not in our ports. That is another reason for policemen doing the ordinary traditional job of ensuring compliance with law and safety: the Bill relates to safety in respect of drug and alcohol abuse. If the Minister feels unable to look into the problem again with some dispatch, it might well be picked up in the other place. I believe that concern will be expressed there about some of the problems that I have had to share with the House this afternoon.
      My second point relates to amendment No. 40, which deals with the jurisdiction of the British Transport police constable. I have been a Member of Parliament for 11 years, and this is the third or fourth time that I have raised the point that good police officers—sworn in, and often given training comparable to or the same as that of police constables from a Home Office force—in many instances have no more powers than any other member of the public out in the street if they see something requiring the attendance or assistance of a police officer. An amendment in recent legislation slightly altered the position, but I contend that a British Transport police officer, who is out in the street and not in the vicinity of a railway, should have two powers made available to him, whether on or off duty.
      First, if an officer from the Home Office police force—the Metropolitan police or a county constabulary—is absent, the British Transport police officer should have the full powers of a constable. Secondly, when acting in support of a Home Office or Metropolitan police officer—one who falls under the terms of the Police Act 1996—the British Transport police officer should also have the full powers of a police constable.
      What is wrong with that proposition? It is blindingly obvious and sensible that that should happen, particularly when the explanatory notes say that the provisions on the British Transport police should mirror the Police Act 1996, which is the cornerstone legislation for the Home Office police. It is amazing that neither the Conservative Government nor the Labour Government have taken any notice of that point. I recall mentioning

      703
      it when the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) was Home Secretary.
      Mr. Weir: I do not necessarily disagree with what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but I want to draw one potential problem to his attention. He keeps referring to Home Office police, but the police in Scotland are covered not by the Home Office, but the Scottish Executive. Policing in Scotland is substantially different from policing in England, but the British Transport police are a UK-wide force. The first part of his proposals could cause confusion in Scotland if the British Transport police were operating among the general public given the role of the Scottish police, which might not apply in England.
      Andrew Mackinlay: That is a valid point, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept my retort that that matter can be dealt with in the detail of legislation. "Home Office police" is not my choice of term, but is the jargon in the field, and often used by politicians. The English Home Office uses the term to refer to police authorities operating under the 1996 Act. If the principle were accepted, it could cover England and Wales and it would be a matter for the Scottish Executive and the Scottish Parliament to extend comparable powers under their statutes to the British Transport police. In the nature of things, I am canvassing an idea in shorthand, but he is right to make the jurisdictional and constitutional point, which I fully accept and understand. If the Government were persuaded that my proposal was meritorious, doubtless the Executive and Parliament in Edinburgh could reflect on it, too. It is sensible that in extremis—in the absence of a police officer, whether from London or Lothian—someone who is sworn and trained should be able to exercise the power of arrest rather than relying on the common law power that each and every one of us has. That is not an obscure point, because it concerns the whole question of insurance, liability and so on.
      In parenthesis, my point would also relate to the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority police. Going down Whitehall, one might pass a police constable and think—unless one is an anorak such as myself who looks at hat badges—that he is a Metropolitan police officer, but in fact he is a Ministry of Defence police officer with the limitations to which I referred. It is time that the House addressed the fact that people who are trained at Hendon and other police colleges should have exactly the same status. It is in our naked self-interest that that should happen. I hope that the Minister will reflect on that and discuss with colleagues at the Home Office whether the matter cart be dealt with through an amendment in the other place.
      5.45 pm
      Mr. David Heath: It is a pleasure to be able to make a few remarks about the Bill—with which I have not been involved before—in an attempt to demonstrate joined-up opposition. I normally speak for my party on home affairs and police matters, and this part of the Bill is of paramount interest to me.
      I am most grateful to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) for his comments. He has been vociferous in the cause of the non-territorial police
      704
      forces for as long as I have been in the House, and he has asked many pertinent questions about their role. He raised two important points, the first of which concerned jurisdiction in the context of an individual sworn constable. In the past, there have been endless problems about what is and is not railway land and where the jurisdiction of a British Transport police constable ends. The hon. Gentleman may be slightly out of date in respect of the Ministry of Defence police, because I believe that a year or two ago legislation gave them the right to act with the powers of a constable away from Ministry of Defence property in a way that has not yet been afforded to the British Transport police, and will not be so afforded by the Bill. That is a deficiency, and he is right to point that out.
      The hon. Gentleman is also right about the deficiencies in the policing of ports of entry. I do not want to dilate on the subject of airports today, but a great deal of difficulty arises in understanding the differentiation between airport services that fall within the designation of the Aviation Security Act 1982 and those that do not. Why, for instance, are major ports of entry in the form of airports policed by territorial forces, to the great detriment both of the policing at the airport and the policing of the local areas from which those officers are abstracted with no recompense from the airport authority? Even if there were no terrorist threat and we were without any such present danger, there are a million reasons, under the aegis of effectively fighting international crime, why ports of entry should be better policed. The Government are not slow in introducing legislation. Indeed, tomorrow we will debate the Crime (International Co-operation) Bill, which deals with ways of extending co-operation between police forces at ports of entry, yet at many ports the concept of a police officer being available to undertake acts of surveillance or to make a challenge or arrest is negligible.
      Mr. Robert Syms: The hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew MacKinlay) put his finger on it when he talked about associated immigration services and Customs and Excise. Poole will have no full-time Customs and Excise officers in the very near future because they are all being concentrated on dealing with cigarette and alcohol imports at ports such as Dover instead of on homeland security.
      Mr. Heath: The hon. Gentleman is right and he knows that many of us share his concerns about the adequacy of the cover offered by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise. However, were I to pursue that thought, I would fall outside the scope of the amendments that we are discussing.
      I want to talk about new clauses 1 and 16, from the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh). I agree with her entirely on new clause 1. We need clear areas of co-operation among the territorial forces, British Transport police, other non-territorial forces and other law enforcement agencies such as the Customs and Excise and the immigration authorities. I am not yet convinced that that co-ordination exists. I agree that codes of practice could help.
      New clause 16 deals with added resources for British Transport police to address the particular issue of terrorism. There is no doubt that our transport system is a potential target for terrorists. It may be the railway

      705
      system or, particularly, the London underground. We should ensure that resources are available to the British Transport police so that they can fully carry out their functions in that respect. Their functions fall into three broad areas. The first is in intelligence and in cooperating with the special branch of the Metropolitan police, or with the territorial forces, or with the National Criminal Intelligence Service, to ensure that we have proper dissemination and collation of intelligence.
      The second function of the British Transport police is to act as the eyes and ears of the community on our transport system. With the present increased risk of threat, we should see a lot more officers on patrol on the London underground, let alone on the railway and light railway systems around the country. Those officers could act as eyes and ears, alert for suspicious behaviour and potential risk. The third function—which, sadly, has to be included—is to be the contingency response to incidents. They need training to detect the potential for a serious terrorism incident and training to respond accordingly.
      There is a clear disparity between the funds that the Home Office has made available to the territorial domestic police forces—especially the Metropolitan police, who we would all agree need a lot of extra resources—and the funds that have been made available to the British Transport police for performing a similar function but in the particular environment in which they are expert. That disparity cannot be allowed to continue.
      If I have a criticism of new clause 16, it is simply that it is too tightly drawn. Asking for reimbursement with reference only to the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 is unnecessarily restrictive. The hon. Lady may care to reflect on that. There are actions that we would expect the British Transport police to take that have nothing to do with an extension of jurisdiction but are simply to do with an extension of the threat and the response to that threat.
      We do not see a mechanism by which the Government will respond to threats by providing resources—a mechanism that will allow for abstraction from normal duties for training purposes and that will allow for enhanced presence on patrols. To respond adequately to a threat, we have to allow all policing functions to be at a much higher level than the base level.
      I hope that the hon. Lady will press new clause 16 to a Division. If she does, she will have the support of my hon. and right hon. Friends on the Liberal Democrat Benches.
      John McDonnell: I want to talk briefly about the amendments in my name—amendments Nos. 34 and 35—and to comment on the debate so far on aviation security. With amendments Nos. 34 and 35, I have sought to ensure that when the British Transport police authority is consulting about policing policy, there is adequate consultation with the work force. I have also sought to ensure that the police authority has adequate representation from the trade unions.
      It is a sad comment on a Government who call themselves a Labour Government that consideration of
      706
      the representation of, and consultation with, the workers in an industry should come as an afterthought. That may be a subject for another debate. The Government have introduced an amendment that will at least ensure that the employees' representatives are consulted. There is also an amendment on representation on the police authority. As I understand it, the recommended representation on the police authority is a single representative of employees' interests. My view is that employees' interests are best represented by their trade unions. That, again, may be a subject for another debate with the Government.
      I want to consider schedule 4 as it stands and explain why amendment No. 35 calls for four representatives of employees' interests. The schedule recommends that there be
      "four persons who have knowledge of and experience in relation to the interests of people travelling".
      So the travelling public are represented by four people. The schedule also recommends that there be
      "four persons who have knowledge of and experience in relation to the interests of persons providing railway services".
      I take it that that refers to the employers, or the representatives of companies. Then there is
      "a person nominated by the Strategic Rail Authority".
      We are told now that there will also be one representative of employees.
      The reason that I am recommending that there be greater balance, with four representatives of employees, is that it is the workers who bear the brunt of much of the criminal activity in the industry. They are often the victims. They are often the people who have to deal with those who are violently drunk on trains. They are the people who have to deal with crimes such as theft. They are the people who have to deal with members of the travelling public who have been the victims of crime. For those reasons, they have detailed knowledge of the problems and, yes, of some of the policies that should be pursued to tackle those problems. Giving the employees, as an afterthought, one representative on the police authority does not reflect the experience that they could bring to bear on these matters.
      As a matter of interest, I would welcome an explanation of who, in paragraph 2(1)(f) of schedule 4, is
      "a person who has knowledge of the interests of persons in England."
      What will be the criteria for assessing that person? I have never before seen such a description in a Bill. Perhaps it is an extrapolation of another Bill. However, unless some clarification is forthcoming, we may all qualify as
      "a person who has knowledge of the interests of persons in England."
      I may nominate my mum.
      I would welcome an explanation of how the balance of interests of the membership of the police authority was arrived at. Why are there four representatives from all the other interested parties and not four representatives of workers in the industry?
      As the subject has been raised, I want to discuss aviation. I had intended to raise the issue on Third Reading, but I will do so now as there has been discussion of the amendments that my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) has kindly presented to us. I am grateful to him for doing so, as he has stimulated debate.

      707
      My constituency includes Heathrow. Over the past four or five years, many of us have been raising in the Chamber a range of aviation security issues. Month by month, we have discussed issues such as terrorist threats, or thefts from Heathrow or other airports, that have revealed security problems. The Government should not, in this Bill, do anything precipitate. They should come up with a considered view on aviation security. There should perhaps be a debate in this Chamber so that the Government can report on some of the measures that they have taken. There has been considerable progress in certain areas. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock said, funding and co-ordination are issues to be considered. At Heathrow, I deal with the Metropolitan police and, obviously, British Transport police, who deal with the travelling public. I also deal with a range of immigration authorities, with local authority officers, and with the private security industry—in particular, through the British Airports Authority. That mêlée of organisations dealing with security at airports presents a number of problems, one of which is that of co-ordination, but there are also issues over who has what power to deal with particular incidents.
      I woke up six weeks ago to find that a number of tanks and a large number of troops had entered my constituency—I thought that it was because of something personal that I had said against the Prime Minister.
      6 pm
      We need to deal with a range of co-ordination issues, and the Government have acted on some of them and on a number of the recommendations in the Wheeler report. It would be helpful if we were to expose the progress that we have made, so that we can identify what to do next because, clearly, as a result of the invasion of Iraq, there will be a period in which we come under heightened threat, as has been reported in the papers over the weekend.
      One of the key issues for most of us relates not just to policing the aviation sector and Heathrow, but security clearance policies, especially those in the power of the BAA, and vetting the private security industry. I would welcome a further debate that ranged across those responsibilities. If legislation is required, let us introduce it urgently, as this is a matter is of considerable national and local importance.
      I would not like the powers of the Metropolitan police to be diminished in relation to Heathrow. I have considerable confidence in the work that they have done and their recommendations—some of which have not been acted on—are sound, sensible and readily implemented, especially with regard to their input into the Wheeler review. We therefore need to rush—no t to legislate, but to hold an urgent debate on the way forward and what action needs to be taken, by investment, legislation or enhanced co-ordination.
      I will not press my amendments to a vote, but I would welcome an explanation of why the balance on the police authority has been set as it is and what the definition is of the phrase
      "a person who has knowledge of the interests of persons in England."
      Mr. Spellar: I shall start by referring to the generous
      708
      comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) regarding not only the work undertaken by the British Transport police, but the evolution of their role, particularly under their relatively new chief constable, whom I first got to know when he was working with the Metropolitan police. He did a good job then, and he is doing an excellent job with the British Transport police.
      The British Transport police are regularly appearing right at the top of the figures for police forces in England in relation to a number of initiatives, particularly in tackling robbery. They are evolving their role, by undertaking a lot of work with schools to try to deal with the problems of crime, vandalism and, in particular, trespass right at the roots, and by getting across the message of how dangerous that is to individuals, let alone how disruptive of the transport system it is.
      The problems with football crowds at Crewe that my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich outlined may have been due to lack of information or communication between various train companies and the police, but probably one of the roles that I should be undertaking as Minister is to ensure that the sporting calendar is conveyed to everyone working in the rail industry. I find the inability of a number of train operators to notice that sporting events are taking place, even when they are part of the scheduled programme, quite remarkable. Just take a simple example: they could run longer trains or, perhaps, not run shorter trains, when those events are about to take place. If my hon. Friend lets me have a note about which sporting event those problems related to, I should be more than happy to take them up as part of an ongoing campaign that I am running on such irritations.
      The hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) asked about British Transport police pensions. The Bill will have no major effect on the current arrangements for providing retirement benefits to police officers and civilian support staff. When the proposed police authority is set up, the Strategic Rail Authority will cease to be the employer of BTP officers and support staff, so some changes to the existing pension arrangements are being proposed to recognise the altered relationship between the Department for Transport and the new police authority when the SRA is no longer the relevant employer.
      As hon. Members will know, a working group was set up recently. It is made up of representatives of all the interested parties, and I understand that they are broadly content with the proposals as outlined. A few issues remain to be resolved, including the trustee structure and the investment of assets. Again, I emphasise that those issues are not a direct result of setting up the new police authority; they are a result of proposed changes to the current pensions legislation, as highlighted in the recent pensions Green Paper. Setting up the new BTP authority provides an ideal opportunity to consider those issues.
      Miss McIntosh: Is the Minister aware that precisely that coalition of events has caused the British Transport police such consternation? Possibly, that could have

      709
      been avoided if consultation had taken place earlier, but it would be most helpful if he would agree to monitor those points avidly.
      Mr. Spellar: There is no way other than avidly. I stress that no action will be taken until the working group has discussed the relevant options, but it is useful to take the opportunity to convey to those involved in the schemes the fact that establishing the new authority will have no detrimental impact on the members of both pension schemes and will not cause the BTP's budget to be diverted into pension funds. There will be no undue interference by the Secretary of State in running the schemes, as his powers in relation to the schemes are limited. There are no proposals to change the structure of the existing BTP pension schemes along the lines of the Home Office pension scheme.
      The hon. Member for Vale of York also asked why the BTP are not reimbursed when acting under the Antiterrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. The BTP provisions on jurisdiction under the 2001 Act were given a statutory basis only in relation to situations in which the BTP were expected to act previously. They act under the 2001 legislation in cases involving non-rail jurisdiction in very much a minority of overall events.
      I turn now to the non-Government amendments, a number of which would extend the BTP's jurisdiction, and I understand the concerns that have been expressed. Amendment No. 40, for example, would give the BTP powers to act anywhere in the United Kingdom, including off the railways, first, in the absence of another constable and, secondly, in support of another police officer. Anxiety was expressed in Committee about the BTP's continuing ability to act outside their railways jurisdiction.
      As I explained in Committee—I am happy to reiterate it now—we believe that a proposal such as amendment No. 40 is unnecessary, as the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 already allows a BTP constable to act in all circumstances when it would be appropriate for a police constable to act and the public would expect a BTP officer to act.
      Andrew Mackinlay rose—
      Mr. Spellar: If my hon. Friend waits a moment, this may answer his question: the House will also be aware that the 2001 Act is subject to so-called sunset provisions—a review of the Act by the Privy Council. A review was felt necessary because the 2001 Act was introduced at some speed, and one is currently in progress. I stress that it is a one-off review.
      The Privy Council's report could specify that certain provisions should cease to have effect six months after the report is laid before Parliament. In principle, that could include the sections of the 2001 Act that extend the BTP's jurisdiction. Of course, even if that were so, Parliament could reject the Privy Council's recommendations and vote to retain the provisions.
      So far the House's deliberations on the Bill have indicated that there is much support for the BTP being able to act outside the railways in urgent situations and, no doubt, that would be reflected in any vote. However,
      710
      the review and our reaction to any of those proposals will take place in the future, and it is right and proper to allow the Privy Council's review to run its course.
      Andrew Mackinlay: My right hon. Friend misses the point. I did not raise the issue in the context of national security, but was referring to the availability of police officers. He will recall that, in the poll tax riots, a police car in Trafalgar square had a piece of metal thrown through it. It was a British Transport police car, but the officers in it had no more competence or jurisdiction in Trafalgar square than my right hon. Friend or I would. One might find a British Transport police officer in uniform outside St. Stephen's entrance, but he has no competence there. However, if there were an incident, Joe Public would rightly want him to respond. The public do not examine the badges on helmets to find out whether they have the right man or whether they need to find a Metropolitan police officer. That would be absurd. The public want officers available in extremis.
      Mr. Spellar: That was a rousing contribution, but it did not take account of what I said about the Antiterrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, which provides such extended jurisdiction. Given the fact that the Act is covered by sunset clauses, the real question is whether we should on this occasion seek to enshrine such principles in this Bill. I hope that I have outlined the way in which the review will be conducted and taken account of the mood of the House in showing how we would respond were such a review—we cannot presume that it would—to seek to remove such jurisdiction.
      Mr. Heath: I do not disagree with the Minister's reasoning except to say that the Bill sets out the powers of British Transport police constables. It therefore seems the obvious place to set down the powers that he is saying are conferred by other legislation and that he hopes would be conferred by new legislation should the other legislation cease to have effect. With all due respect, that seems to be a silly position.
      Andrew Mackinlay: I have all due respect too.
      Mr. Spellar: We are such a respectable body. Despite all these theological convolutions, it seems to me that we end up at the same point. We believe that the powers are of value. It is worth pointing out that British Transport police officers have already assisted in more than 1,600 incidents outside their railways jurisdiction. As I have said, the new clauses pre-empt the review. We believe that it would be imprudent to circumvent it in that way.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock highlighted another aspect of amendment No. 40. It seeks to provide the BTP with jurisdiction anywhere in the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland. The BTP have only ever operated in Great Britain and not in Northern Ireland. We have no plans to extend their jurisdiction or operations to Northern Ireland, and we have never, in any of the stages of these proposals, advocated such a change. The BTP have no experience of working in Northern Ireland, and we think that it would be inappropriate to advocate such a change now in this Bill.
      New clause 18 and amendments Nos. 3 and 39 would extend the BTP's area of authority to other forms of transport, particularly by air and sea. Although my hon.

      711
      Friend was right to say that they used to have jurisdictions in ports, they have not policed them for 15 years and have no current expertise in ports or airport policing. Furthermore, they do not have the facilities and manpower to do that. We have considered the issue, as have the Wheeler report and the ports review.
      Although it is true that seven ports have specialist police forces, it is worth pointing out that there are 500 ports in Great Britain. It might be more appropriate for those ports to be covered by local forces given the manpower implications, if nothing else. It is also worthwhile pointing out that many operations at ports are not particularly directed by static policing but by intelligence-led policing. Therefore, the location of staff could be a difficult issue. It is also true that at all ports, including those with their own forces, responsibility for tackling serious crime still rests with the Home Office and—it is the appropriate phrase in this case—Home Office police forces.
      Andrew Mackinlay: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for providing me with a figure of which I was not fully aware. Five hundred ports around the United Kingdom do not have a dedicated police force. I invite him to visit some of them with me. He will find that not only are there no policemen, but no immigration officers and no Customs and Excise officers. The bandits know that. If we had a proper ports police or involved the BTP, the force would have critical mass, mobility, technology and its own dedicated criminal investigation department. We could stop crime rather than allowing it to happen. We are acquiescing in it by our inaction.
      6.15 pm
      Mr. Spellar: We are not acquiescing in that. Given the number of ports, the issue needs to be addressed appropriately by the relevant county forces.
      We dealt in debate with what happens about funding at airports. It is right to say that the BTP does not police transport undertakings other than the railways. When we went out to consultation on these issues, we emphasised that the focus on the railways should be maintained. We made no mention of extending the primary policing duties beyond the railways. Given that point, it would not be appropriate for the Bill to extend the jurisdiction of the BTP to other transport modes and interchanges. However, I take my hon. Friend's point that circumstances have evolved and that it is a matter that we need to keep under review.
      On new clause 1, hon. Members may be interested to know that, following the extension last year of the BTP's jurisdiction outside the railways, the Government issued a co-ordinating policing protocol between the BTP and Home Office forces. A similar code was issued soon after regarding the BTP and Scottish police forces. The protocols were issued after full consultation between the Government, the BTP, the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Scottish Executive. A whole range of policing issues is covered in the protocols. They confirm the areas of responsibility and accountability between the BTP and other police forces. They provide a full framework for the relationships between the forces.
      A further code concerning airports and seaports would be an unnecessary duplication of the existing protocols and provide little additional benefit. Indeed, it
      712
      could even be confusing. When enhanced policing co-ordination is needed, the protocols and statutory provisions of the Police Act 1997 provide the necessary framework for enhanced local arrangements. I hope that that has convinced hon. Members that it would be inappropriate to extend the BTP's policing role at this stage to transport undertakings other than the railways. I also hope that it reassures them that further amendments on the BTP's jurisdictions outside the railways are not necessary.
      New clause 16 is related to the amendments on jurisdiction. It seeks to require the Secretary of State to authorise the reimbursement of the BTP's costs when acting outside its railways jurisdiction. I recognise that there may be concern that the BTP, which is funded by the industry, may end up subsidising the local force. However, the problem needs to be put in perspective. The BTP's actions outside its railways jurisdiction account for around 1 per cent. of its activity. That is not worth creating a complex billing system for.
      Other non-Government amendments concern the make-up of the British Transport police authority. The aim of the authority is to
      "ensure the efficient and effective"
      policing of the railways. When appointing members to the authority, the Secretary of State shall have regard to appointing persons who have
      "capacity in relation to matters relevant to the policing of the railways".
      The British Transport police authority must effectively represent and balance the interests of all those involved in the railways. That includes the travelling public, the railway industry in all its forms and the rail community at large. The authority must be able to understand and meet the various needs of those whom the BTP serve. The Secretary of State will appoint people with experience relevant to the policing of the railways, and they will not be representatives or lobbyists of their own interest group or employer. Their collective wisdom will enable the authority to reach balanced, well-informed, decisions about the policing of the railways.
      Amendment No. 1 raises the issue of industry representation. Hon. Members have proposed increasing the number of industry representatives so that they could have a dominant role on the authority. There is a case for the industry to be represented, not only because of its skills but because of its financial contribution. The force also has a wide public policing role, which impacts directly on rail passengers and the wider community, not just the industry. The Bill will rightly close the accountability gap. Interestingly, the BTP, and its committee, supported our membership proposals during the consultation period.
      In amendment No. 8, the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) suggests that the Bill should be amended so that it specifies that Transport for London has a member on the authority. However, schedule 4 already requires that the Secretary of State appoints at least four members who have knowledge and experience of providing railway services. They will, in effect, be the representatives from the railways industry.
      At the moment London Underground provides around 25 per cent. of the police force's budget. While the BTP remains responsible for policing the underground it is inconceivable that the organisation

      713
      running the tube will not have a member on the BTP authority. The authority itself might otherwise lack the knowledge, experience and expertise that that member could bring to the provision of police services to the underground. However, if we begin to specify individual organisations in the Bill, we would remove the flexibility for appointing individual members, and we would create a demand for other, similar amendments.
      Mr. Don Foster: The Minister says that it is inconceivable that Transport for London would not be represented, so how he can go on to say that specifying that fact would remove flexibility? That implies that there might be circumstances in which Transport for London is not represented.
      Mr. Spellar: As I said, such an amendment would lead to demands for other areas to be covered. It would also imply that individuals were on the board to represent a narrow sectional view, rather than as part of their broad role as representatives of those providing railway services.
      Amendment No. 6 would add to the authority members representing non-railway forms of transport. As I have explained, the Government do not support the idea of extending the BTP's jurisdiction, so there is no need to add to the authority's membership in the way suggested by the amendment. Similar considerations apply to amendment No. 5.
      Turning to amendment No. 35, I am afraid that on this occasion I shall have to disappoint my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). I accept that railways employees should be represented on the authority, and as he knows, the Government have tabled an amendment to that effect. However, we do not believe that there should he four such members. The fact that the industry will have four members on the authority reflects the responsibility for funding the BTP. We do not want to keep expanding the authority.
      Mrs. Dunwoody: I was following my right hon. Friend until he said that the industry funds the BTP. May I point out to him that the taxpayer funds the industry? Is that a good reason for not having industry representatives on the board?
      Mr. Spellar: The Strategic Rail Authority will also be represented. The taxpayer may fund the industry, or companies within it, but other companies may even be paying into the system.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington also tabled amendments that specify that the authority should consult trade unions representing railway workers. Government amendment No. 19 specifies that the authority should consult organisations representing railway employees. Those organisations would inevitably, and rightly, include trade unions, and I hope that that reassures my hon. Friend.
      Amendments Nos. 36 and 37 would add the Mayor of London's transport strategy to the items to which the authority must have regard in performing its functions and setting policing objectives. We have discussed the
      714
      fact that Transport for London will have a significant role on the authority. It is a major contributor of funds and recipient of services. However, we must remember that the authority will be a national body concerned with the policing of the railways throughout Great Britain, not just London. When consulting on these proposals the main concern raised in this area was not that London would be overlooked, but that it would dominate the authority at the expense of the regions.
      If we accepted those amendments, it would only be fair for other bodies also to have similar requirements on the authority, and soon the authority would be required to look at every transport plan that relates to the railways. That would clearly be impossible. It is more sensible that the authority should continue, as required by the Bill, to perform its duties and set objectives that are compatible with the national policing strategies set by the Secretary of State. Rather than place statutory requirements on a national police authority to make those considerations, the adoption and interpretation of local transport strategies within the BTP's objectives are best left to the force's area level commander, where local considerations are best taken into account. There could be local solutions to local problems—something that should appeal to the hon. Member for Bath.
      The suggestion that Transport for London should be specified as an organisation that the authority shall consult about railways policing is unnecessary. Transport for London is already included in the category defined in clause 59(c); that is persons providing railway services.
      I hope that my assurances mean that hon. Members will agree not to press their amendments and new clauses. I commend new clause 7 to the House.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 8

      INTERPRETATION: ENACTMENT
      'In this Act "enactment" includes—

      (a) an Act of the Scottish Parliament,

      (b) an instrument made under an Act of the Scottish Parliament, and

      (c) Northern Ireland legislation:.—[Mr. Spellar.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Spellar: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 20, 27, 21, 22, 23 and 26.
      Mr. Spellar: The amendments ensure that the Bill recognises legislation made in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Some of the provisions that refer to the word "enactment" already provide that it shall include an Act of the Scottish Parliament or Northern Ireland legislation. One example is clause 106(6), which concerns shipping legislation. Others, however, such as clause 29(4), concerning the powers of the BTP, do not.

      715
      The amendments will ensure that the same meaning applies to the word "enactment" wherever it appears in the Bill.
      New clause 8 provides that references to the word "enactment" in the Bill will include Acts of the Scottish Parliament and secondary legislation made under such Acts, as well as Northern Ireland legislation. Amendments Nos. 21 to 23 are a necessary consequence of the new clause, as they will remove existing specific references to Scottish and/or Northern Ireland legislation in clauses 88, 99 and 106. Those will be rendered superfluous by the broader provision in the new clause.
      Government amendment No. 26 will repeal paragraphs 7 to 10 of schedule 18 to the Transport Act 2000. The repeal of paragraph 9 is already provided for, but the other paragraphs were overlooked. Those paragraphs amend sections 132 and 133 and schedule 10 of the Railways Act 1993, which provide for the organisation, terms and conditions of employment of the British Transport Police. As those provisions will be repealed by schedule 7 to this Bill, the relevant paragraphs of schedule 18 to the Transport Act which amend them should also be repealed. This is, in effect, a tidying exercise.
      Amendments Nos. 20 and 27 require very little explanation. Clause 73 provides an index of the terms and expressions used in this part. The index identifies where the definitions of those terms can be found. The index would be improved if the terms "Railway property" and "Railway vehicle" were added. The amendments achieve that and should assist those who use the Bill at a later stage. I commend the new clause to the House.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 9

      PART 4: CROWN APPLICATION, &C.
      '(1) This Part shall not apply to a member of Her Majesty's naval forces, military forces or air forces, within the meaning given by section 225(1) of the Army Act 1955 (c.18), while acting in the course of his duties.

      (2) Subject to subsection (1), this Part shall apply to a person in the service of the Crown.

      (3) But section 81 shall not have effect in relation to a ship which—

      (a) is being used for a purpose of Her Majesty's forces, or

      (b) forms part of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary Service.

      (4) This Part shall not apply to—

      (a) a member of a visiting force, within the meaning which that expression has in section 3 of the Visiting Forces Act 1952 (c.67) by virtue of section 12(1) of that Act, while acting in the course of his duties, or

      (b) a member of a civilian component of a visiting force, within that meaning, while acting in the course of his duties.'.—[Mr. Jamieson.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Jamieson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 28, 29 and 30.
      Mr. Jamieson: We seem to be making progress.
      716
      The amendments have arisen as a consequence of deliberations in Committee. The Government agreed to consider further the position of military personnel, both UK and visiting from abroad. On consideration, we consider it right to except members of Her Majesty's military forces and visiting forces, as defined in the relevant legislation, when they are acting in the course of their duties. Those forces are already subject to their own disciplinary legislation and procedures and it would be undesirable for the two regimes to overlap. On the other hand, we want the provisions to apply to military personnel, including visiting forces, at times when they are off duty. At such times, they are acting in a private capacity—for example, if they have hired a powerboat entirely as private individuals in the course of their leisure activities.
      6.30 pm
      The Government are keen to ensure that their civilian operations are also seen to be beyond reproach. It would send out the wrong message if government officials such as Maritime and Coastguard Agency personnel operating agency vessels were excepted from the alcohol and drugs provisions of the Bill. We want to ensure that the provisions catch anyone who is in the service of the Crown other than military personnel acting in the course of their duties. In short, any mariner will be subject to sanctions in respect of alcohol and drugs—subject to the regulations—either as a civilian, in which case they will be covered by this legislation, or as a member of the armed forces, in which case they will be subject to military discipline under other legislation.
      Finally, so as not to risk compromising the operational efficiency of ships being used for a military purpose by Her Majesty's forces, as well as ships forming part of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary Service, we do not wish them to be subject to possible detention by marine officials pending the arrival of the police. The Royal Fleet Auxiliary Service is mentioned specifically because such vessels are manned by civilian Merchant Navy crews who would in all other respects be subject to the offences created in part 4. Such vessels are therefore specifically excepted from the provisions of clause 81.
      Government amendment No. 29 is a technical amendment pursuant to amendment No. 30 and new clause 9, on Crown application. Amendment No. 29 removes the term "Government ship" from the Bill. There is therefore no need for it to be included in clause 86, which interprets the various terms used in part 4 of the Bill.
      In Committee, the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) proposed an amendment similar to Government amendment No. 28, although she did not press it. Throughout the Bill's passage the Government have given careful consideration to all the points made and we have therefore tabled our own amendment, which I hope will bring some joy to the hon. Lady and her colleagues.
      The Government do not think it necessary to extend to mariners on duty as a whole the medical defence currently available to those on board fishing vessels. However, in the event of an emergency, a seaman who would otherwise be off duty may be required by the terms of his engagement or employment to take action to protect the safety of passengers even when

      717
      undergoing medical treatment on a ship. In such a situation, it might not be possible for his duties to be taken over by another crew member, and it seems unfair not to provide the medical defence in those circumstances. On other commercial vessels, whose time at sea is comparable to that of deep sea fishing vessels, it should be possible for anyone who might be affected by a medicinal drug to have his or her duties taken over by another crew member. On shorter voyages, when a commercial vessel may operate with a smaller crew, those who are unwell but still working should wait until they go ashore before taking medication that they know will impair performance.
      Miss McIntosh: The Minister has not lost face or favour with me by accepting that new clause 9 is necessary: despite his comments in Committee, it was a clear omission. I am grateful for his graciousness in accepting that Committee proceedings do matter and that the Opposition have contributed to the Bill.
      The Minister described Government amendment No. 28 as similar to amendment No. 49, which was discussed in Committee on 27 February in a debate starting at column 370. I assure the House that the Government amendment is not merely similar, but exactly the same as our amendment—word for word, punctuation marks and all. We are deeply grateful to the Minister for recognising the Opposition's drafting skills, despite the fact that we do not have a large body of men and women on whom to draw. He made one or two churlish remarks in Committee, but having invited me to his constituency, he has now thought better of them.
      On a serious note, we appreciate that the Government have seen fit to add the medical defence, although we still do not understand why it applies only to mariners on fishing vessels and is not deemed worthy of being applied to all mariners. Misunderstandings in that respect could have been avoided had the Government seen fit to introduce a proper definition of what constitutes standby. We were minded to table a modest amendment—I thought that we had and I am not sure what happened to it, but perhaps there is an equivalent Government amendment—to define a non-professional mariner.
      May I take this opportunity to press the Minister to confirm and assure us that it will be the driver of a boat who is open to prosecution if he is found to have exceeded the alcohol limit or to be in breach of any drugs provisions, not others aboard the vessel? The industry, especially the boating industry, feels that that issue was not cleared up during the Committee debate on amendment No. 74. Our aim is to define a nonprofessional mariner as an individual driving a vessel used for sport or leisure purposes and to confirm that it would be that individual who was prosecuted, not someone who happened to be having a good time on the board, was not performing any safety-critical function, was not qualified and would not be expected to drive the board at any stage.
      To test the Minister's patience a jot, he will recall our interesting discussion about the taking of an oral swab. Now that some time has elapsed since Committee stage, I wonder whether the Department has considered
      718
      providing that evidence taken by oral swab may be taken alongside evidence provided by breathalyser, blood and urine tests.
      I end with a message of optimism for other right hon. and hon. Members. Never let it be said that Committee proceedings are unimportant. Even in our humble capacity, we have managed to write a part of the Bill.
      Mr. Jamieson: I am delighted that the hon. Lady and her hon. Friends have been able to participate in writing a piece of legislation. It may well be the last time that they do so, but in a genuine spirit of conciliation, we, as a listening Government, accepted that it was right to insert the provision.
      The hon. Lady said that our amendment was similar to the Opposition's, but it is clearly not the same. Above our amendment is the name of the Secretary of State for Transport, not the names of the hon. Lady and her hon. Friends. I hope that she noticed that.
      Miss McIntosh: As they are not great, perhaps the Minister can explain to the House what the precise differences are?
      Mr. Jamieson: As I just said, there is a different name above our amendment. The hon. Lady's arguments in Committee were deeply persuasive and, on careful reflection, we decided to table the Government amendment. We are delighted to have been able to do so.
      The hon. Lady made a serious point about the driver of the boat. Probably one person would be in charge of a recreational vessel, and we want this part of the Bill to catch that person. I do not think that we would want others on board the vessel—people having a good time and playing no part in the navigation or steerage of the boat—to be similarly included. However, there may be occasions when more than one person is responsible for the safe passage of the vessel. Those other people would be held responsible.
      I have not as yet had the opportunity to consider in more detail the issue of oral swabs. However, I am sure that it is a matter that will detain some of the officials in my Department as they give it further consideration. With that, and on a note of cross-party accord, 1 commend the new clause.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 10

      SNOW AND ICE
      'After section 41(1) of the Highways Act 1980 (c. 66) (duty of highway authority to maintain highway) insert—
      "(IA) In particular, a highway authority is under a duty to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that safe passage along a highway is not endangered by snow or ice."'.—[Mr. Jamieson.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Jamieson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

      719
      New clause 3—Clearance of snow and ice—
      'Highways authorities shall take such steps as they consider reasonable to prevent snow and ice endangering the safe passage of pedestrians and vehicles over public roads.'.
      New clause 11—Annual report on road safety statistics—
      '.—(1) The Secretary of State shall prepare and lay before Parliament an annual report on the incidence and causes of major road traffic accidents that have occurred in the preceding 12 months.
      (2) For the purposes of this section "major road traffic accident" shall mean any road traffic accident involving a fatality or a serious injury likely to lead to permanent disability.
      (3) A report under subsection (1) shall include—

      (a) a summary and analysis of the statistics collected by the relevant bodies responsible for road safety or for investigating road traffic accidents, and

      (b) an assessment of those statistics for improving the safety of road design.'.

      Mr. Jamieson: This is a small but important amendment. The Government have made it clear for some time that we are minded to introduce a duty for highways authorities to remove snow and ice so as to ensure safe passage on our highways. We welcome the principle behind the Opposition new clause. However, on this occasion we think that our clause is better than theirs, and I urge the House to support it.
      The Opposition's new clause mirrors the current duty in Scotland that is contained in section 34 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984. It would not properly fit the legislative framework in England and Wales. I hope that the Opposition will agree that the Government new clause deals satisfactorily with the matter and will see fit to withdraw new clause 3.
      6.45 pm
      Miss McIntosh: I was bowled over by our success with new clause 9 and now we move on to snow and grit. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) for raising the issue by means of a parliamentary question some time ago. She asked the Secretary of State whether he would list the authorities in England that have direct responsibility for gritting trunk roads and set out the new responsibilities of the authorities for gritting. The Under-Secretary assured the hon. Lady that such gritting is the responsibility of the Highways Agency. In England, there is no statutory duty on a highway authority to remove ice, but he added that such a duty would be introduced at a "suitable legislative opportunity." Here we have it. Indeed, we had the first legislative opportunity in Committee.
      At first, the Under-Secretary and the Minister of State were loth to consider any aspect of road transport despite the temptations put before them by us and the Liberal Democrats—not in alliance, but acting independently. I pay tribute to the sterling work of my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray), who introduced the same provision in clause 1 of the Road Transport Bill of 2001, which was defeated at the hands of the Government. That was extremely disappointing. About 1,000 people are killed or seriously injured on icy or snow-covered roads, and it is clear that snow and ice clearance is essential to prevent that toll. As recently as July 2000, the House of Lords ruled in the case of Goodes v. East Sussex county council
      720
      that there is no duty on highway authorities to pre-salt any roads. However, it is worthy of note—I am sure that the House would expect me to note it—that, based on Scots law, new clause 3 would invite highway authorities to take such steps as they consider reasonable.
      As I have said, we have modest resources at our disposal. Only four of us were involved in these matters. I am delighted to see my hon. Friends the Members for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon) and for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall), who gave me sterling support throughout our proceedings in Committee. We were hugely dedicated to the task of amending the Bill. The Department can draw on much greater resources—we pay our respectful compliments to it—and it is proper that we withdraw new clause 3 in favour of the Government's new clause.
      Clearly, many county councils take their responsibilities extremely seriously. North Yorkshire county council, for example, is particularly mindful that there are a number of highways in its area on which more snow and ice is to be found than elsewhere. That approach can be contrasted with that of the Highways Agency. I think that the excuse was used that its equipment was defective. Perhaps it did not give sufficient notice to enable those responsible to get out their ploughs. Early this year, in January or February, we saw dreadful events on the M11 and on most roads leaving London one Thursday evening. That re-emphasises the need for responsibility to be enshrined in law.
      I hope that the Minister will be mindful that on both sides of the Pennines we have high ground and inclement weather. I believe that the de-trunking of roads has been postponed for a year, but I hope also that sufficient provision will be made for highways authorities—those that are county councils—to ensure that they will have the means at their disposal to fulfil their responsibility.
      I am sure that the Minister will share my concern that liability will be strictly interpreted and that there will not be a flood of cases where highway authorities were seen to have fulfilled their obligations but accidents occurred. I hope that he will join me in ensuring that the proposed provisions are interpreted strictly.
      Mr. James Gray: I shall speak briefly in support of new clause 10 and new clause 3, which the Opposition intend to withdraw. I rise from the same place in the Chamber that I spoke three years ago to propose precisely the measures that are now before us.
      It is extremely important that we do something about road gritting. About 1,000 people a year are injured or killed as a result of icy and snowy conditions. Until the Goodes v. East Sussex case of 1999, or thereabouts, there was a requirement on local authorities to grit their roads to a satisfactory standard. That is why, backed by the Automobile Association, Age Concern and other organisations, I chose to introduce precisely these proposals in my private Member's Bill.
      I understood to begin with, and throughout most of the debate, that my proposals had the general support of Her Majesty's Government. I was told informally that that was indeed the case. My surprise can be imagined when people whom one could only describe as the usual suspects who are here every Friday—the hon. Members for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle), who has now moved on to greater things

      721
      as the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) and for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner)—went to great trouble to talk out my Bill, ably assisted by the hon. Member for Streatham (Keith Hill), who was then a Transport Minister but is now the deputy Chief Whip of the Labour party. He was on his feet when the Bill was finally talked out that morning.
      That was a strange situation, as gritting is demonstrably worth while. At the moment, thanks to the case in the House of Lords, there is no requirement on local authorities to grit the roads, but there should be. The Government talked out my Bill, but they have now changed their mind. That is not due to the eloquence of my speech two years ago nor, I regret, is it due to the powers of persuasion that my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh), to whom I pay tribute, demonstrated in Committee. At the beginning of January this year, I was asked on to a host of radio and television programmes to talk about gritting, and the Government were suddenly terribly interested in the matter because the M11 had seized up and there were problems across England.
      In those radio and TV stations, I did not find myself up against the Secretary of State or even the Under-Secretary, who were noticeable by their absence. There was no comment by them in the media of any kind whatever in the aftermath of the M11 crisis in January. The people who were put up to speak included the chief executive of the Highways Agency, an unfortunate civil servant who was forced in to the front line to try and defend the indefensible and explain why people were stuck on the M11 for several hours.
      Only one other person made some sort of comment—a nameless official in the Department for Transport. Official sources, it was said, whether someone close to Ministers or a person from the Department for Transport said that, in view of the problem on the M11, the Department intended to introduce legislative proposals on gritting. Ministers did not have the guts to go on television and say that they had talked out my Bill three years ago and, as a result, there had been deaths and injuries on the road in the meantime. They did not admit that they had killed the Bill off, but put up a nameless official from the Department to say that they intended to introduce legislation soon.
      Mr. Richard Bacon: I was stuck on the M11 for about eight hours on the way to my constituency, where I was due to address a meeting of Equitable Life policy holders who have suffered because of the Government's actions. Unfortunately, I was not able to make that meeting because of the failure to grit the roads.
      Bob Russell: A double whammy.
      Mr. Bacon: Indeed.
      Does my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) agree that his sad and painful story is clear evidence that there would be better legislation if Governments did less and Members did more through private Members' Bills?
      Mr. Gray: My hon. Friend makes a good point. If only the Government, instead of their knee-jerk reaction
      722
      to private Members' Bills, had listened carefully to what was said in the Chamber two or three years ago, they would already have the relevant legislation on the statute book. They would not have to turn around now and introduce a measure as a result of a little snow and ice on the M11.
      Before the Under-Secretary says that in fact the Government may possibly have allowed my Bill to be discussed in Committee and go through, may I tell him that I have come across a letter written by the then Leader of the House, who is now Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs? She wrote about my Bill to the hon. Member for Streatham, who was then responsible, and said:
      "the Government remain neutral on Second Reading".
      She continued:
      "If the Bill proceeds to Committee, then we would make it clear to James Gray that it would be blocked on Report unless all the provisions apart from those on seatbelts were removed."
      She went on:
      "You should develop a robust handling strategy in the event that we do have to block the Bill, as the Government will be challenged as to why it cannot support it"
      The Government would indeed be challenged about why they could not support my Bill. They are now being challenged about why they failed to support it three years ago, and they will be challenged about why there have been countless accidents throughout England in the meantime. They will be challenged to explain why they are now coming to the House with a similar provision as the result of one little episode on the M11, seeking to justify it in that way. I entirely support new clause 3, which is a good measure. I am glad that its spirit will be included in the Bill, and that the Under-Secretary has seen the error of his ways and accepts the sense of what I was saying two or three years ago. However, he owes it to the House and the nation to explain why he has taken two and a half years to do so.
      Mr. Don Foster: I congratulate the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) on his speech and the passion with which he made it. He challenged the Minister to give answers on the Government's response to his Bill three years ago, and the whole House will be fascinated to hear the reply from the Minister who, we know, is prepared to listen and respond. Fascinatingly, the Opposition parties are each attempting to keep a tally of their successes over the Government so far. My calculation is that it is Liberal Democrats 3, Conservatives 2. However, the Conservatives will be on the verge of scoring an additional success when we come to vote on new clause 10. If that new clause is agreed, I ant prepared to accept that we will have a three-all draw.
      It is interesting to consider where the credit for that provision lies. As the hon. Member for North Wiltshire pointed out, the disaster and chaos on 30 January on the M 11 led to a number of interesting and remarkable responses from various people. He has already referred to the poor official—the operations director, I think—from the Highways Agency who said on the BBC
      "I would like to apologise to people who have had to put up with these atrocious conditions".
      Action was promised, and an interesting comment appeared in a BBC press report on the following day, 31 January, which stated:

      723
      "Transport Secretary Alistair Darling responded to the chaos by demanding the road, rail and local authorities explain why they had not been prepared for freezing weather in the middle of winter."
      The Secretary of State demanded to know why gritting had not been done, but others were demanding that action be taken. Given that we are in the business of scoring minor points off each other, it is worth reflecting that in another place on 10 February, at column WA 72, my noble Friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill, using the different linguistic formulation that they appear able to get away with in another place, asked Her Majesty's Government
      "Whether they will introduce legislation requiring local authorities in England and Wales to grit the road promptly where adverse weather conditions so require; and if not, why not"?
      I wish that we were allowed such blunt speaking more often in the Commons. As a result of my noble Friend's question, the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Lord Macdonald of Tradeston said, as the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) has already noted:
      "We shall introduce a duty for a highway authority to remove ice when a suitable legislative opportunity presents itself."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 10 February 2003; Vol. 644, c. WA 72.]
      As we have heard, the Government were prompt in finding that opportunity. We welcome that, and believe that new clause 10 is preferable to the Conservatives' formulation, although the spirit is the same. We certainly support it, but we have an additional concern about the growing number of reports from local councils throughout the land that, because of financial pressures on their budgets, are cutting or planning to cut road-gritting activities. For example, Durham county council proposes a £400,000 cut in its gritting budget.
      Mr. Gray: Is the hon. Gentleman concerned that every outing of a gritting lorry costs about £25,000? If they are going to go out as often as the provision requires, the Government will surely have to fund local authorities properly?
      Mr. Foster: The hon. Gentleman is right. I am sure that you would rule me out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if we had a detailed debate about the nature of local government funding. However, I accept the hon. Gentleman's hint that the Government often tell us that they are going to allow something to happen, but they turn out only to be allowing the local authority to spend money that it is responsible for raising.
      Bob Russell: The cost to local authorities of gritting vehicles was mentioned. Will my hon. Friend bring into the equation the cost to the public purse of a fatal road crash, a serious injury and a slight injury resulting from a less serious accident? Does he agree that £1 million spent on preventing 10 fatal accidents is money well spent?
      7 pm
      Mr. Foster: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point, with which the hon. Member for North Wiltshire and many others would no doubt concur. One of the concerns echoed in all parts of the Committee was that so little attention had been given in the Bill to road accidents and road deaths. That is why,
      724
      for example, we proposed in Committee the establishment of a road accident investigation branch to mirror the rail accident investigation branch and the branches that cover aviation and shipping.
      The hon. Member for Vale of York introduced new clause 11, which goes nowhere near as far as we would like in regard to the establishment of such a body, but nevertheless proposes an annual report. She probably recalls the statistics that were cited several times in Committee. For example, it is worth reflecting that, since the present Government came to power in 1997, about 150 people have died on our railways and a staggering 17,000 on our roads. The focus on roads is crucial. Much that would be published under new clause 11 will already be contained in the annual publication "Road Accidents in Great Britain", but because it focuses on the issue. and perhaps elicits some additional information that could be used to improve road safety, we support new clause 11, just as we support new clause 10.
      Mr. Tim Collins: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) for his party's support for new clause 11. As he rightly said, there are already a number of documents that bring together statistics relating to road accidents in Great Britain, not least the document with that title. Nevertheless, the new clause would require the Secretary of State personally to express his views in such a report, so that it would be not merely a gathering together of statistics, but an expression of conclusions that the Secretary of State draws from those statistics—lessons that he believes need to be learned and policies that will be pursued.
      At an early stage in our proceedings, the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) rightly pointed out that far more lives are lost on the roads than on rail; rail is a basically safe way of travelling, whereas the motor car, sadly, involves a greater degree of risk. That is not the widespread public perception. It is our view, expressed on Second Reading, that we should take any and every opportunity to raise the level of road safety, and in particular do so on the basis of proper, adequate, continuous and comparative research. Although some such work is being done, it is our belief that more could be done.
      We have received representations from, among others, the Royal National Institute of the Blind, which reported that its members have serious concerns about the present design of level crossings and how that may have an impact on the likelihood of accidents taking place. Mr. Edmund King of the RAC Foundation stated that he believes that certain aspects of road design can contribute towards accidents, in particular the design and the approach that motorists take towards road junctions. When the House chooses from time to time to introduce safety measures, whether in relation to speed cameras, alcohol restrictions or other factors, it is important that motorists should understand that the House is doing so on the basis of the best research and for no other reason than to save lives and improve the prospects of reducing the tragically large number of deaths and serious injuries on our roads.
      We therefore are strongly in favour of new clause 11. We hope that the Minister will address the reasons why the Government may not be able to support it at this

      725
      stage, but if he cannot support it, we give him advance notice that we propose to press it to a Division. We also hope that even if, as is always possible, especially in the present House of Commons, the Government happen to squeak by in such a vote, they will reflect carefully on the importance of the matter—I do not imagine for a moment that they have anything other than a serious and personal commitment to improving road safety—and that they look carefully at the present range of statistical compilations that is available, and consider whether it might be a good idea for the Secretary of State to have a duty every year to publish his policies for Improving road safety. With that, we commend new clause 11 to the House.
      Mr. Jamieson: I am glad that new clause 10 has received such widespread support. It brings the necessary clarity to the law. The hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) spoke with passion about the number of people killed and injured on our roads each year, and some of them are killed or injured as a result of snow and ice that was not removed at an appropriate time.
      With reference to the Highways Agency, no one can make apologies for what happened in January this year on the M11. Mistakes were made. We were clear about that at the time. It was quite proper that the chief executive of the Highways Agency should answer for those. He is initially responsible for operational matters and it is proper that he answered on that occasion. However, I should say that all highways authorities and the Highways Agency realise that proper attention to ice and snow on our roads is far from an exact science. Weather is unpredictable, and sometimes a decision has to be made whether to grit too early, thereby losing the effect of the gritting, or too late or too often. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that there are also environmental issues involved, as a result of salt and grit entering the watercourses. A careful balance must be struck.
      Mr. Gray: Does the Under-Secretary agree, none the less, that the curious thing is that there is already a statutory duty on the Highways Agency to grit on motorways? The new clause deals not with the M11, but with county councils and A roads.
      Mr. Jamieson: Indeed. That is why we announced back in October 2002 that our view was that we should introduce legislation at the earliest opportunity. We now have that opportunity, and the measures for which the hon. Gentleman called have been introduced.
      In his intervention, the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon) said that Governments should do less and private Members should do more. Perhaps he should have a chat with the shadow Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), who seems to think that private Members should not introduce any legislation in this place. There is many a Member on the Government Benches and a few on the Opposition Benches whose Bills have been lost, thanks to the right hon. Gentleman and his cohorts.
      726
      The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) essentially accused us of doing the right thing, although I accept his support for what we propose. I am always happy to be accused of doing the right thing, not least by the hon. Gentleman. In response to one of his points, I can tell him that an independent survey of 29 shire counties in 2002 found that not one of them intended cutting back on gritting. Durham is an exception. That is a matter that the council must square with its electorate and with the legislation. Once the measure is on the statute book, all authorities will have to give careful consideration to the matter.
      I turn to new clause 11 and the annual reporting of road accidents. New clause 11 seems to disregard the fact that sound arrangements already exist for the investigation of road accidents, for monitoring the associated circumstances and for disseminating the valuable information that is obtained. There is already a well-established investigation process for fatal road accidents, which was improved last year with the introduction of the police national road death investigation manual. I assure the h on. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) that the police investigate such accidents thoroughly, not least because in some cases a prosecution could be brought against a driver. Such investigations sometimes take several weeks.
      My Department maintains a national database of road accident statistics and uses those data to inform research studies and, through those, policy development. I assure hon. Members that such information is central to our policy thinking. It also enables us to check that we are delivering our targets to improve road safety by reducing deaths and injuries.
      Several research studies are under way to consider the contributory factors in accidents. The studies include detailed on-the-spot investigations of a sample of accidents as soon as they occur and in-depth analysis of detailed police files. By analysing data from a large number of accidents and looking for common threads, that research is much more likely to lead to improved safety measures.
      Individual police forces and their respective local authorities share information that helps them to improve their local roads to reduce the risk of accidents. For many years, such data have proved especially helpful to highway authorities for design purposes. Furthermore, analysing the total number of accidents, including slight injuries, provides a far better indicator for remedial action than focusing only on fatal and serious accidents. When an accident is under investigation it would not be apparent to the police officer concerned that a serious injury could lead to permanent disability. That could give rise to issues of confidentiality. I think, therefore, that subsection (2) of new clause 11 is unworkable.
      Mr. Clapham: My hon. Friend will be aware that many road accidents befall people who are working. It is not often appreciated that the road is a workplace for many people. Has he considered whether the Health and Safety Executive should be involved in investigating accidents where it is proved that the person was actually at work?
      Mr. Jamieson: Indeed, we have. It is an important and complicated matter. Between 20 and 25 per cent. of all

      727
      injury accidents take place while people are working. We are concerned that a minority of companies may have unrealistic expectations of their drivers and may require them to meet certain targets too rapidly, which involves them in injury or accidents. Good companies, of which there are many, do the opposite: they ensure that drivers have realistic targets. For example, they do not expect drivers to answer mobile phones while they are driving.
      I assure my hon. Friend that my Department is giving careful consideration to the point that he raised, but the matter is complex. We are dealing with tens of thousands of companies and the issue cannot he resolved simply and easily, but we are working on it actively at present.
      Mr. Gray: Does the Minister realise that another of the proposals in my private Member's Bill was that the use of mobile phones while driving should be outlawed?
      Mr. Jamieson: I assure the hon. Gentleman that at the earliest possible legislative opportunity we shall introduce measures on that and look forward to his support. As he knows, we have just held wide consultations on the issue. That was important because we learned a great deal from the process—as we always do. We are analysing the results and will announce some proposals shortly. One of my hon. Friends also tried to introduce a private Members' Bill to deal with the problem, so I hope that our proposals will bring joy to both hon. Members.
      I commend the Government new clause, but ask hon. Members to resist new clause 11, not least because if we introduced the measures proposed by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale, they would set up a new layer of bureaucracy and extra paperwork that would not bring many extra benefits in road safety.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
      7.15 pm

    New Clause 2

      PRESCRIBED LIMITS
      '() The Road Traffic Act 1988 (c.52) shall be amended as follows—

      (a) In section 11(2):

      (i) in (a) leave out "35" and insert "22";

      (ii) in (b) leave out "80" and insert "50"

      (iii) in (c) leave out "107" and insert "67";

      (b) In section 8(2) leave out "50" and insert "35";.—[Mr. Don Foster.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Don Foster: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      After a discussion about the death of so many people on our roads due to snow and ice, it is appropriate to turn to another cause of death on our roads: drink-driving. I preface my remarks by making recognition of the work carried out by Governments past and present, by Departments, local authorities, the police and the media—through publicity—to reduce the number of
      728
      deaths and serious injuries caused by drink-driving. It would be wrong not to acknowledge the work that is already being done.
      I realise that setting a limit is one thing, but that without proper advertising and, more important, appropriate enforcement, the exercise would be fruitless. In the UK, we have more advertising and stricter enforcement than in many other countries and, as a result, fewer casualties. None the less, there are several worrying trends, especially involving persistent drink-drivers. During Committee, there was considerable debate about the various medical and other interventions that might tackle the problem of persistent drink-drivers. We referred to work being done in this country and in Sweden, where punishments for persistent offenders include the option of medical treatment programmes.
      I appreciate entirely that an amendment that merely referred to changes in the drink-driving limit would be inadequate by itself; we also need to continue advertising and enforcement at their present levels. However, that should not inhibit us from considering and discussing appropriate limits. As I pointed out in Committee, when Barbara Castle introduced the breathalyser legislation in 1967 she said that the 80 mg limit for blood alcohol was "overgenerous". Much more recently, before the 1997 general election and the creation of the Labour Government, the then transport spokesman for the Labour party, the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson), made it clear, in a speech on 30 November 1996, that, in office, Labour would introduce legislation to reduce the drink-driving limit from 80 mg to 50 mg. The day before the hon. Lady made that speech, she issued a press release that stated:
      "The new Labour Government will show no leniency to those who wilfully put their desire for a pint before the life of a person. The pain and misery of drink driving lasts for life, not just for Christmas."
      So the Labour party gave a very clear commitment before it became the Labour Government.
      Subsequently, in 1998, the Government started a detailed consultation on the issue. In February that year, they published a report entitled "Combating Drink Driving: Next Steps", which stated:
      "For drivers in the 50–80mg range, the risk of a non-fatal accident is around 2 to 2.5 times as high as for a sober driver: for a fatal accident the risk is about 6 times as high."
      The new clause deals with that 50 to 80 mg category. All the evidence gathered for that report indicated that there would be real benefits in a reduction of the drink-driving limit from 80 to 50 mg.
      It was anticipated that the Labour Government would act, but they did not do so. A little later, in March 2000, they told us in a subsequent document that because there was a possibility that European legislation would require EU-wide harmonisation, it would be preferable to wait until that requirement came forward. Well, it did not do so, and although no specific legislation was proposed by the EU, the Commission made a clear recommendation that all countries should move to a harmonised limit of 50 mg.
      Despite that, on 20 March last year, the Under-Secretary made it clear that the Government had decided that there would be no change after all. In a written answer, he said:

      729
      "The limit will stay at 80 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood."—[Official Report, 20 March 2302; Vol. 382, c. 360W.]
      A clear statement was made that the Government were not prepared to move on the issue, despite all the clear evidence that was before them about the benefits and the lives that would be saved. It is worth reflecting that this country, Ireland and Luxembourg are the only ones in the European Union that continue to have an 80 mg limit. All the other countries have already reduced their limits to 50 mg and some did so a considerable time ago. Indeed, every single European country that is seeking to join the EU in the relatively near future already has a limit of 50 mg or less. We remain one of the very few countries that have not heeded all the research evidence showing that a change such as the one that I propose in the new clause will save lives.
      How many lives would such a change save? Clearly, it is difficult to be precise. As I said, the issue will depend not only on the limit, but on advertising and enforcement. Nevertheless, the research is pretty clear that the minimum number of lives that would be saved each year is 50, and it is almost certain that more would be saved. Indeed, a very significant number of serious accidents running into many hundreds would be avoided as a result of introducing such a measure. Sadly, despite all that evidence, the Government have decided not to move.
      Given the very large number of deaths that occur on our roads, 50 may not seem many, but it is worth reflecting that we have today spent the vast majority of our time discussing issues relating to the railways, the rail accident investigation branch and the establishment of new structures for the British Transport police, predominantly in relation to their work on railways. Yet, as I said, 150 lives have been lost on our railways since 1997. Set against that level, 50 lives a year seems a very significant number. We should be working hard to save those lives, and that is what the new clause would do.
      I am delighted that an early-day motion dealing with the issue has attracted a large number of Labour Back-Bench supporters. I therefore hope very much that, even if the Under-Secretary is not prepared to be moved in the light of all the prevailing evidence suggesting that he has got it wrong so far, a large number of his hon. Friends will be doing what they have indicated they will do by signing the early-day motion and supporting the new clause.
      Mr. Hopkins: I rise to speak very briefly in support of everything that the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) has said, and not only because he is wearing what looks suspiciously like a Labour party tie.
      I have felt for a very long time that we must bring the limits down to a level that is seen as sensible in other countries. We are better drivers and we have a lower death rate on our roads, and that is an admirable quality in our fellow citizens, but there is inevitably a downward curve when alcohol consumption is plotted against driving deaths—lower alcohol means that fewer people die.
      I also believe that our Government will introduce the legislation at some point in the not-too-distant future; they simply need to be pressed a little harder. I hope that
      730
      they might introduce it at the same time as legislation to outlaw the use of mobile phones while driving. There is another aspect of our character: as well as being good drivers, we are always reluctant to make such changes. We resisted introducing legislation on seat belts for too long, but have saved thousands of lives in the years since they were made compulsory. We have just heard about the gritting of roads. We hold off, but eventually give in. I ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary seriously to consider giving in on this one too and introducing the lower limits forthwith.
      Miss McIntosh: The Opposition recognise that drink-driving is a very serious offence that is well established on the statute book with widespread popular support. For a number of reasons, we wish to keep under review the specified level of alcohol in the blood, but we recognise that the existing limits enjoy widespread support and are concerned about the introduction of any measure that might break that popular consensus without a longer consultation period than has been allowed and without compelling evidence.
      We are aware that a number of studies and research projects are under way and we would like them to have time to reach their natural conclusions. Personally, I recognise that alcohol exists naturally in the blood, I think in the form of ethanol, and that it can be contained in certain legally prescribed medication. For that reason, we have reservations about considering making a reduction at this stage. However, we would like to keep an open mind on the matter, to which we would like to return at a later date.
      Mr. David Kidney: I have to declare a non-pecuniary interest as a co-chairman of PACTS, the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety, which is a registered charity and an associate parliamentary group whose charitable objective is to promote transport safety to save lives through research-based solutions. I should like to explain to the House that PACTS strongly supports reduction of the blood alcohol concentration limit in this country, partly because of research that has shown the need for such a reduction.
      As the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) pointed out, 10 deaths a week on our roads are attributable to drinking and driving. Adding together deaths and serious injuries produces an average of about 10 incidents a day, so the problem is very serious. Who are the drink-drivers? The research tells us that they are overwhelmingly male; only 8 per cent. are female. Almost half of all drink drivers are over 33, and, surprisingly, 40 per cent. have a criminal history in addition to their propensity to drink and drive. That suggests that the offence rewards attention by the police in tracking down other sorts of crime. It also saves us from thinking, as we might be tempted to do, "There but for the grace of God go I." Clearly, we in this House do not have a propensity to commit criminal offences generally.
      7.30 pm
      A lot of the pressure to lower the limit comes from hon. Members, safety organisations, people who have been injured in road accidents that involved drinking

      731
      and driving and, not least, those who have been bereaved due to such accidents. That is a powerful electorate to which we should pay attention. Research from the Grand Rapids study shows that 50 mg alcohol in 100 ml blood is the concentration at which a person's inability to drive becomes more seriously impaired. There is a scientific basis for a limit of 50 mg, and the hon. Member for Bath pointed out that 11 EU member states have such a limit. Sweden's limit is 20 mg and two other countries have the same limit as ours. Although there is no EU directive to set a standard limit throughout Europe, there is a directive about the mutual recognition of driving disqualifications throughout states. That creates an obvious pressure because if we are to recognise other states' disqualification due to drink-driving offences, it makes sense for all countries to have the same alcohol limit.
      A lower limit will save lives although, as the hon. Member for Bath said, it is difficult to know how many until after the measure has been implemented. He said that estimates show that about 50 lives a year would be saved due to a lower limit, and most people predict that between 50 and 100 lives a year would be saved. That is a valuable prize at which to aim. Like the hon. Gentleman, I agree that this country's media campaigning, enforcement and prosecution policy has been so successful that we have made drinking and driving beyond the current limit socially unacceptable. We must not disturb that position and I understand why the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) said that we must be careful to carry the public with us—I totally agree.
      I am not convinced that lowering the limit would be unhelpful. There is a common misconception among the public that the legal limit represents about two drinks. That attitude is out of date in these days of larger measures and drinks with stronger alcohol content. People would definitely be below the proposed 50 mg limit if we said, "One drink and no more." That would be a simple message, although we and the police would want to say, "If you are the driver of a vehicle, please do not drink at all", because any alcohol impairs one's ability to drive.
      Tom Brake: Will the hon. Gentleman explain the Government's somewhat confusing position? They say that they are unwilling to support reducing the limit to 50 mg, but they have a policy that people should not drink at all. Their position is not consistent.
      Mr. Kidney: That is not the Government's problem but a problem for all of us. People want to drink and then drive, and our responsible advice must be that drivers should not drink. That brings me to the nub of my point about opposition to reducing the limit: it is not Government-led opposition, it is more general. However, to conclude my answer to the hon. Gentleman's question, the written answer on 20 March 2002 at column 360W that the hon. Member for Bath cited does not give us a clue why the Government will not go for the reduction.
      Objection to a change comes from people who make money from selling drink, such as those who run public houses. There is a lot of concern in rural areas that a reduction in the limit would affect such people's businesses. Those people are a powerful lobby group
      732
      because they have many customers who would not want politicians to tell them how to behave in their private lives. The answer is to have a more public promotion of the concept of a nominated driver. Public houses and similar places of fun, relaxation and entertainment should promote the idea that designated drivers deserve a decent range of reasonably priced drinks and other items when they go to such places because that would persuade them that they are doing the responsible thing by not drinking. That would give public recognition to the good deed that is done by being a driver who lays off alcohol. That is how the Minister should persuade people that doing that is right.
      I suspect that the Minister will mention the 400 or so deaths a year that are not caused by drink-drivers and cite the unquantified deaths caused by people who are miles over the legal limit and who persistently drink to excess: the high-risk offenders. However, if we continued to define high-risk offenders as people who are two and a half times over the limit, reducing the legal limit for everyone would reduce the limit for high-risk offenders. Consequently, we would catch more high-risk offenders and more people would be subject to more intensive treatments and punishments that would be required before they might get their licences back.
      We could consider going further and reducing the multiplier to define high-risk offenders to twice the legal limit in order to catch more people. We would tell such people that they pose a greater risk to people who behave lawfully and innocently on our roads and that we do not want their behaviour to kill such people. However, we would not want to keep them off the road for ever provided that we could correct their behaviour. We try to give high-risk offenders treatment and ask them to take tests to prove that their attitude has changed and that they are competent and safe drivers. If people drive more safely after going through the process, what is wrong with catching more people and putting them through it? I hope that the Minister will give a more sympathetic hearing to the proposal this year than his Department did last year.
      Sir Brian Mawhinney: The last time I addressed the House, I said that there was no point in it expressing its will if it was not prepared to support the means necessary to meet that will. The debate is all about willing means and willing ends. We will the end of achieving road safety, but for a strange reason that I do not understand, we baulk at willing the means to that end.
      The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) reminded us that the new Labour Government were committed in 1996 to introducing legislation to reduce the legal limit from 80 to 50 mg of alcohol. However, given that the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson) made the commitment, I have my doubts. That was not the first lime that such a change was contemplated because I know of a Secretary of State for Transport who thought seriously about reducing the limit. However, before he had time to do anything about his thoughts, he was moved to another Department, so I was.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) made the perfectly valid point that it is important not to lose public support for whatever limit might be set, and we would all agree with that. However,

      733
      that has echoes of debates long gone. Some of my hon. and right hon. Friends and, indeed, some Labour Members had a problem with the principle of whether we should interfere with people's lives. We have had the same debates about seat belts, crash helmets and alcohol limits. Perhaps the House will one day have the same debate about the effect of drugs on people's ability to drive. However, a principle has been established from those debates. We are in an unusual, yet interesting, situation of saying that reducing the limit would be to the advantage of many people because they would be enabled to live, but that we must not lose public support. It is kind of hard to believe that the public could not be encouraged to support reducing the limit to save lives.
      I understand the point that the hon. Member for Bath made on this issue; indeed, I agree with him. Road safety is at least as much about messages, promotion, guidance, encouragement and setting good examples as anything else. In my time, I have done the Christmas drink and drive message, as has the Minister. We have all been there and done that, and we have all given our support to fairly robust measures, so far as the courts are concerned. The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) made that point eloquently.
      The issue is whether there would be a genuine benefit in this reduction. I am not desperately impressed by the fact that it has been done elsewhere, although that is an argument that can be put forward. The question is whether we should do it here, and I shall listen with great interest to the Minister's arguments as to why we should not. I hope that he will not take us down the "We need more consultation" route. We have consulted, then we have consulted on the consultations. We have researched, then we have researched the research. We have then consulted on the research and researched the consultations. We know what the nets are. The problem is that the House has difficulty in willing the means to achieving the laudable end.
      Having said all that, this is a matter for the Government. I find it extremely difficult to be supportive of the Liberal Democrat party on anything.
      Mr. Paul Tyler: You will be all right.
      Sir Brian Mawhinney: I am grateful for the support of the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) for that view.
      I hope that the hon. Member for Bath will not push this amendment to a vote. I hope that he will understand that the importance of this little debate is the message that it sends to the Government, because unless and until the Government honour that 1996 pledge, this reduction is not going to happen. That is the reality. I do not wish to be overly melodramatic, but the Minister needs to understand that, with every year that passes without the limit being reduced, people die who would not otherwise do so.
      Mr. Tyler: I had not intended to contribute to this debate, but this is an issue on which I feel strongly, and I was moved to speak by the weasel words of the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh). I am
      734
      grateful, too, for having had the opportunity to listen to the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir Brian Mawhinney), because he has confirmed me in my view.
      Before I come to the issues that have already been addressed, I would like to respond to the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) on the issue of rural licensed premises. There are a great many in my constituency. and the Cornishman is capable of taking his drink, just like the best of them. I hope that the Minister will agree that nominated drivers are becoming increasingly popular and that taxis are now doing very good business in this regard. In rural areas, there is an increasingly responsible attitude to the problem of drinking and driving. I do not know the exact figures for Cornwall—I have not had the opportunity to check them—although I should perhaps declare an interest, in that my wife is a magistrate and therefore takes a particular interest in these matters. I did not, however, manage to check the latest figures with her last night. It is true, though, that in rural areas, as in urban areas, people are becoming more and more responsible. I have not noticed any more pressure being brought to bear by rural licensed premises than by urban ones.
      Mr. Kidney: The licensing industry produces its own newsletter, called The Bullet-Inn, which it sends to Members of Parliament. It regularly states that the industry opposes this reduction from 80 mg to 50 mg. I am not saying that it refers specifically to rural premises, but the point is that the industry represents a strong body of opposition.
      7.45pm
      Mr. Tyler: I understand that point, but I was trying to suggest that it is not merely rural licensed premises that take the view that I have outlined. Indeed, based on my own private, local experience, I believe that the rural community in Cornwall would address this issue with the same seriousness of approach that has been demonstrated by a number of hon. Members tonight—not only my hon. Friend the Member for Bath, but the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) and the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire.
      I want to spend a moment on the issue of public support. Many attempts have been made to improve the quality of the safety that we accept as a natural discipline—through the introduction of safety belts and drink-drive legislation, for example—and I am sure that the same will apply to the use of mobile phones; I hope that the Minister will respond to the point made earlier by the hon. Member for Luton, North on that. I am also sure that people now recognise that death and injury on our roads are such serious issues that the House constantly has to lead on these matters, rather than coming in from behind with endless consultation and research.
      I disagree with the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire on only one point. I believe that we should take into account the experience of other countries. That evidence might not be conclusive, but we should add it to the body of research and consultation carried out in this country. We cannot just ignore it. The evidence that has been placed before the House this evening has been placed before successive Secretaries of State, and Ministers should take it very seriously indeed.

      735
      I would like to pay tribute to the work of Brake on road safety—I am not referring to my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), although he happens to be a distinguished member of that pressure group—which has been absolutely outstanding. I know that the Minister agrees with that, because he said so to some of its members just the other day when I was there. I hope that he will therefore support its efforts, and those of other organisations, to bring this issue to the top of the agenda again. I do not recall precisely when the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire was—no doubt undeservedly—moved from his position as Secretary of State for Transport, but it was many years ago. I believe, that sufficient time has elapsed since then, and that we now need to make a decision.
      Mr. Jamieson: I well recall a debate taking place in the students union during my college years—that was quite a long time ago, although not quite as long as for the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir Brian Mawhinney)—in which the motion before the house was that drink-driving laws were an affront to personal liberty. If my memory serves me correctly, the motion was narrowly carried. If such a motion went before even a body of students these days, I believe that it would be well and truly defeated. That is an indication of how attitudes to drink-driving have changed substantially over time, just as they have changed in relation to the use of seat belts and crash helmets. Who knows?—they might even change in relation to using a mobile phone while driving.
      We have a good record on road safety in this country. Indeed, it probably compares with the best in the world. For the amount of traffic that we have on our roads, we have the lowest number of casualties. Anecdotally, one can say that our roads are generally safe places to be. However, we still have a substantial number of casualties and we can never be complacent. We have to carry on driving down those figures. We have to focus on what is important in this debate, which—as hon. Members have mentioned—is not lowering a limit or reducing a speed but getting rid of the casualties. We need to get to the issue that really affects people's lives. Road accidents create a great deal of misery for the people involved and, when there are deaths, for their families. Account must also be taken of the enormous economic cost of those casualties, which the country has to bear.
      The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) spoke with sincerity on this issue, and we are agreed that we need to reduce the number of casualties, not only from drink-driving but across the board. I know that he and I share that aspiration. I also accept his argument that measures other than reducing the limit need to be taken—that is right and proper—but I would not necessarily want European harmonisation, nor would I want to say that that would benefit this country, as most other European countries have a much worse record on road casualties. Some have lower limits, but they have lower penalties. Some are very low indeed, at the 50 mg level, and they can hardly be called a deterrent. Were we to go down that road, we could find ourselves being pressured to have lower levels of punishment for lower blood-alcohol levels.
      736
      Furthermore, as the hon. Gentleman knows, many other European countries have much lower levels of enforcement. He mentioned some accession countries. They may have drink-driving laws on their statute books and limits lower than 80 mg, but in some of those countries enforcement is not just low, but zero. In this country, enforcement is very strict indeed.
      Mr. Hopkins: I snake the simple point to my hon. Friend that it is not a sufficient condition to have lower limits, but a necessary one. Other factors are equally important.
      Mr. Jamieson: I accept that, and I shall move on to those points.
      Miss McIntosh: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Jamieson: In a moment, when I have dealt with the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins), who spoke with great sincerity. If lower limits were introduced, would that have the effect that we wanted it to have? That is the genuine question. I say to him that if the evidence for that being the route forward were overwhelming and compelling, perhaps in the future that is the road that we would go down, but. I have yet to be convinced.
      Miss McIntosh: I thank the Minister for allowing me to interrupt him. Do the figures not speak for themselves? Alcohol-induced accidents involve significantly fewer casualties, fatalities, serious injuries and slight injuries than those caused by speed. If anything, there is more pressure on him to act against speed rather than alcohol as a cause of road accidents.
      Mr. Jamieson: Yes, and the two issues are sometimes closely related: people who are speeding are over the alcohol limit as well. The simple answer is that we must tackle all three issues that are involved here. Alcohol is important, as are speed and issues such as people facing unwarranted and unreasonable expectations at work, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham).
      My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney), who is a doughty campaigner on road safety issues, raised some good points, such as the important matter of having a designated driver. That is probably prevalent among younger people, the vast majority of whom are extremely responsible—perhaps, I might say, more responsible than the older generation. They have a "des", or designated driver, who elects not to drink alcohol and takes the rest of the group home. I say that as one who has had teenagers, who are now in their twenties. I have seen that system in operation and younger people are very responsible in that respect, but it is also true that a small minority, particularly younger men, are not. I shall come to that in a moment.
      The right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire made a powerful and compelling speech, but I am not going to allow him to chide me for anything that we may or may not be doing. He was Secretary of State—he left the job in 1995, the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) may be interested to know—but, although I was not a Member of the House at the time, I do not recall him

      737
      campaigning on that particular issue. I accept, however, that he may have changed his position, and we are pleased about that.
      The hon. Member for North Cornwall made the point that the vast majority of people in rural areas are responsible. That is the case, as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford, but unfortunately a small minority are not responsible. I shall move on to those people in a moment.
      The merits of introducing a blood-alcohol content limit of 50 mg or even lower have been extensively examined and debated over a long period. Much research has been done and the experiences of other countries have been taken into account. In our 1998 consultation paper, "Combating Drink Driving: Next Steps", the Government acknowledged that many drivers experience some impairment below the 80 mg level, but the potential injury savings from lowering the limit to 50 mg depend very much on assumptions and estimates.
      The extent of driving impairment below 80 mg in individual drivers is less certain than at over 80 mg. We would probably all accept that. We know that the results of research based on experience in other countries where legal limits have been reduced to below 80 mg are likely to have been affected by the influence of other anti-drink-driving measures. In most cases, it seems that the underlying trends and concurrent factors such as publicity and enforcement policies were not always measured in relation to the reduction of the blood-alcohol level limit. That makes it difficult to apportion the beneficial effects of the whole package of measures to each contributory factor, including a reduction in the limit.
      Another factor that needs to be taken into account is the penalty regime for road traffic offences, which is a key element in the enforcement of drink-driving laws. Penalties in this country are far more severe for exceeding the 80 mg limit than in most other European countries with a limit of 50 mg or lower. There is, for example, a mandatory minimum disqualification of 12 months for any drink-driving offence, which can be combined with up to six months' imprisonment and a £5,000 fine. Most countries with a lower legal limit impose only minor penalties at the lower alcohol levels, and imprisonment and licence removal are not generally available below alcohol levels of 100 mg or more.
      Applying our penalties at 50 mg would put us further out of line with Europe in terms of sanctions. It is also likely that that would be regarded as unduly harsh. Critically, it would be unlikely to command as much respect from the motoring public at large. The alternative of adopting a system of lesser penalties at the lower alcohol level would create the unfortunate impression that the Government were willing to regard some levels of drink driving as more acceptable than others. We also have concerns about whether the lower-level penalties would have any real effect on offending rates.
      The vast majority of those involved in incidents that cause serious casualties on our roads are well over the 80 mg level, so we must give our time to those people who are probably not even aware of the limits; nor do they
      738
      care. We have to turn our attention to those people because they are causing the death and injuries on our roads. For those reasons, it is right to be cautious about reducing the prescribed limit.
      Sir Brian Mawhinney: I have listened carefully to the Minister. He understands, does he not, that he represents the Government? He can set the penalties, draw up the publicity and define those other activities. Also, he has told us that there would be a benefit in a reduction, although he will not quantify it, which is fine. Why is he unwilling to support a reduction?
      Mr. Jamieson: Because the benefit is difficult to quantify. The benefits of other measures that we are taking on enforcement and advertising—in particular, the focus on those who are ignoring the drink-driving laws, who are mainly younger men, I am afraid to say—mean that it is better to expend our energy in that particular direction.
      8 pm
      There can be little doubt that the approach adopted by successive Governments—by the present Secretary of State, among others—involving powerful publicity backed by tougher penalties has reduced the number of casualties by about two thirds. Given that the amount of road traffic has doubled during the period involved, that means that, in terms of miles travelled, we now see about a sixth of the number of drink-driving casualties that we used to see. As I said earlier, that has given us one of the best safety records in the European Union, and indeed in the wider world.
      It is encouraging to note the provisional results produced in 2001. They are the latest available figures. The number of people killed in drink-related road accidents had fallen from 530 to 480, and the number of people seriously injured had fallen from 2,540 to 2,410. Of course we recognise that there is a great deal more to be done.
      I think that all of us, including the hon. Member for Bath, share the same ambition. We want to reduce the number of casualties on our roads, and to reduce the consequent misery. I think that the new clause is founded on good intention, but I fear that accepting it would lead to a further debate on whether we should reduce the penalty relating to 50 mg because it is too harsh, and whether we should come more into line with Europe. That would distract us from the important issue—for the issue should not be whether low alcohol should apply when people are driving, but whether no alcohol should apply.
      I do not want our efforts, which have been very successful over a long period, to be wasted. I think that ours is the best approach: support for a strong deterrent and punishment, backed by the enforcement that operates in this country, along with education and research.
      Mr. Don Foster: No speaker today has in any way denigrated the enormously good work that has been done to ensure that we retain our good record on drink-driving. All have acknowledged the tremendous efforts of the present Government and their officials, previous

      739
      Governments and their officials, and many others. But none has denied the central truth that a lowering of the alcohol limit would save lives.
      I am grateful to Members on both sides of the House who have supported the lowering of the limit. It is traditional to comment on the contribution of the Conservative spokesman, but fortunately I do not need to do so, as the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir Brian Mawhinney), on the basis of considerable experience, effectively answered the point made by the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh). She had argued that more consultation and debate were needed. He said that he hoped that the Minister would not involve us in more consultation, adding eloquently, "We know what the facts are"—and he is absolutely right.
      The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) rightly pointed out that studies had been carried out for many years. He referred to the Grand Rapids study, which was conducted in 1962. All subsequent research has confirmed the basic findings of that study. He was also right to point out that we must tackle many other issues relating not just to speed but to drink-driving. We should promote the idea of a nominated driver, and the provision of a good range of reasonably priced nonalcoholic options.
      The right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire said that we had reached a point at which—knowing the evidence, and knowing that if we accepted the new clause we could save lives—we must start discussing whether or not we were prepared to will the means. Normally I would agree with everything said by my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), but I am about to surprise and slightly disappoint him. He said that this was one of the occasions on which, without doubt, the House should lead, Parliament should lead and the Government should lead, expecting others to follow—echoing what one or two others had said. The implication was that majority public support for this move does not already exist, although all the evidence suggests that such support exists. Moreover, surveys of other European countries employing the lower limit show that some 77 per cent. of the public in those countries support it.
      The Minister told us, as he did on another occasion, that we did not want harmonisation because some things that were done in those other countries were not as good as what we do here. He is partly right and partly wrong. If he wanted—although in fact I will not do it—I could go through the penalty regimes of each European country line by line, and show that ours is roughly the same as those of other countries. I could give the figures relating to public perception of enforcement, and demonstrate that a number of other countries believe that their enforcement regimes are stricter than ours, although some are less strict. I do not need to do that, because we all accept that measures in addition to limit-setting measures are important.
      We need a decent advertising campaign, appropriate penalties and appropriate enforcement. We know that a lower limit, along with those measures, would save many lives. I must tell the Minister, however, that it will not be possible to provide for appropriate advertising, to set penalties or to determine what is the right enforcement without first deciding on the limit. The new clause, based on all the research carried out over so
      740
      many years, suggests an appropriate limit. Notwithstanding what the Minister said, I genuinely believe that—in the words of the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins)—now is the time to press the Government a little harder.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 32, Noes 282.

      Division No. 149]

      [8:07pm

      AYES

      Allan, Richard

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Beith, rh A. J.

      Maude, rh Francis

      Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

      Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

      Breed, Colin

      Burstow, Paul

      Pugh, Dr. John

      Cable, Dr. Vincent

      Rendel, David

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Robertson, Angus (Moray)

      Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

      Sanders, Adrian

      Chidgey, David

      Stunell, Andrew

      Cotter, Brian

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Tonge, Dr. Jenny

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

      Gidley, Sandra

      Webb, Steve (Northavon)

      Hermon, Lady

      Weir, Michael

      Wishart, Pete

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Keetch, Paul

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Kirkwood, Sir Archy

      Bob Russell and

      Lamb, Norman

      Mrs. Annette L. Brooke

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Challen, Colin

      Alexander, Douglas

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Allen, Graham

      Clapham, Michael

      Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

      Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

      Austin, John

      Bailey, Adrian

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Baird, Vera

      Clelland, David

      Barnes, Harry

      Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

      Battle, John

      Coaker, Vernon

      Bayley, Hugh

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Beard, Nigel

      Cohen, Harry

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Coleman, Iain

      Benn, Hilary

      Colman, Tony

      Bennett, Andrew

      Connarty, Michael

      Benton, Joe (Bootle)

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Best, Harold

      Cooper, Yvette

      Betts, Clive

      Corston, Jean

      Blackman, Liz

      Cousins, Jim

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Crausby, David

      Blizzard, Bob

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Borrow, David

      Cummings, John

      Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

      Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Burden, Richard

      Darling, rh Alistair

      Burgon, Colin

      David, Wayne

      Burnham, Andy

      Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

      Burnside, David

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Caborn, rh Richard

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Cairns, David

      Denham, rh John

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Dismore, Andrew

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

      Caplin, Ivor

      Dobson, rh Frank

      Casale, Roger

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Caton, Martin

      Doran, Frank

      741

      Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

      Love, Andrew

      Drew, David (Stroud)

      Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      McCabe, Stephen

      Edwards, Huw

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Efford, Clive

      MacDonald, Calum

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      McDonnell, John

      Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

      MacDougall, John

      Farrelly, Paul

      McFall, John

      Fisher, Mark

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      McIsaac, Shona

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      McKechin, Ann

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

      McNulty, Tony

      Gerrard, Neil

      MacShane, Denis

      Gilroy, Linda

      McWalter, Tony

      Godsiff, Roger

      McWilliam, John

      Goggins, Paul

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Mallaber, Judy

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Mendelson, rh Peter

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

      Hanson, David

      Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Healey, John

      Martlew, Eric

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Meacher, rh Michael

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Merron, Gillian

      Hendrick, Mark

      Michael, rh Alun

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Milburn, rh Alan

      Heyes, David

      Miliband, David

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Hodge, Margaret

      Moffatt, Laura

      Hoon, rh Geoffrey

      Mole, Chris

      Hope, Phil (Corby)

      Moonie, Dr. Lewis

      Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

      Moran, Margaret

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

      Morley, Elliot

      Mountford, Kali

      Howells, Dr. Kim

      Mudie, George

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Mullin, Chris

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Naysmith, Dr. Doug

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Hutton, rh John

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Iddon, Dr. Brian

      Olner, Bill

      Illsley, Eric

      O'Neill, Martin

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

      Owen, Albert

      Palmer, Dr. Nick

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Pearson, Ian

      Jamieson, David

      Perham, Linda

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Pike, Peter (Burnley)

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Plaskitt, James

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

      Keen, Alan (Feltham)

      Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

      Keen, Ann (Brentford)

      Pound, Stephen

      Kemp, Fraser

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Khabra, Piara S.

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

      Primarolo, rh Dawn

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Purchase, Ken

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      Quin, rh Joyce

      Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Lammy, David

      Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Raynsford, rh Nick

      Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

      Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Leslie, Christopher

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

      Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Linton, Martin

      Rooney, Terry

      742

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Timms, Stephen

      Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

      Tipping, Paddy

      Ruddock, Joan

      Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

      Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

      Trickett, Jon

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Truswell, Paul

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Sheridan, Jim

      Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Singh, Marsha

      Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

      Soley, Clive

      Watts, David

      Southworth, Helen

      White, Brian

      Spellar, rh John

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      Squire, Rachel

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

      Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Williams, Betty (Conwy)

      Stevenson, George

      Winnick, David

      Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Wood, Mike (Batley)

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Woodward, Shaun

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Woolas, Phil

      Stoate, Dr. Howard

      Worthington, Tony

      Stringer, Graham

      Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Tami, Mark (Alyn)

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Mr. Nick Ainger and

      Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

      Mr. John Heppell

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New Clause 4

      RAIL FREIGHT FACILITIES GRANTS AND TRACK ACCESS GRANTS
      'Rail freight facilities grants and track access grants will be reinstated by the Secretary of State for the financial year 2003–04.'.—[Miss McIntosh.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Miss McIntosh: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      It gives me great pleasure to speak to new clause 4, which calls for the reinstatement of rail freight facilities grants and track access grants. The Minister will be aware of the significant damage that is being caused by the suspension of the two sets of grants for the next financial year, 2003–04, especially to those who have been left high and dry without alternative means. Initially, the conservative estimate—
      Mr. Bercow: With a small "c".
      Miss McIntosh: My hon. Friend is right. The conservative estimate was that, over the coming 12-month period, 2.75 million tonnes of freight are at risk of being moved by road. All hon. Members will deplore that fact, not least because those freight movements will come from the aggregates, construction and metals sectors. The combined impact of the freight facilities grants and track access grants awards that were made in the years for which the most recent figures are available—2000–01 and 2001–02—is considerable. To move the same volume of freight by road each year would require a fleet of 3,000 heavy lorries, which is

      743
      equivalent to more than 3 per cent. of the total UK heavy goods vehicles fleet. For the financial year 2002–03, nearly 17 million lorry journeys will have been removed from the road network as a result of the two grants. For the same period, 1 million tonnes of toxic emissions will have been removed from the atmosphere for the same reason. For the period 2003–04, it was expected that more than 12 million lorry journeys would have been removed from the British road network had the two grants proceeded.
      Those reductions can no longer be achieved, which will result in increasing road congestion, increasing emissions and increasing numbers of accidents and casualties on the road network. We therefore request that the Government think again about the withdrawal of the freight facilities grants and track access grants for the coming 12-month period. Will they give an early indication that they might reconsider the position for 2003–04 and reinstate the grants at the earliest opportunity, but at the very latest for the financial year 2004–05?
      Mr. Don Foster: I very much welcome the new clause and the hon. Lady can be assured of our full support for it. In some senses, it is a shame that it does not go further, because, tragically, the Government have scrapped other freight schemes, including the incremental output statement and the small freight grant, both of which we should like to have been included. Other grants that have been cut include the rail passenger partnership schemes, which would have brought significant improvement to passengers in the same way that the freight grants would have improved the availability of freight by rail, thereby reducing the need for freight on our already congested roads.
      The new clause would place a financial burden on the Government, but, as I am sure that the hon. Lady is aware, the Chancellor's capital modernisation fund contains some £2.3 billion that will be available over the next two or three years. That would be an eminently sensible source of funding. The Government would have no excuse for not making the money available, because it already sits in the Chancellor's piggybank and could be used to ensure that this sensible and modest new clause can be accepted.
      Mr. Spellar: There are issues of substance in the sentiments that hon. Members expressed, but this is not the right way to process them. A declaration of policy is not the appropriate mechanism for enshrining such a matter in a Bill. There are many other ways of arguing about such policy issues outside the context of what should strictly be a consideration of powers and legal mechanisms, which is what the law is for.
      I appreciate the concerns that hon. Members on both sides of the House have recently raised about short-term provision for rail freight grants. The management of the freight grant schemes, including the level of funding that is made available, is primarily a matter for the Strategic Rail Authority. As the authority has made clear, its suspension of freight grants for next year does not mark a change in policy, but is a short-term budgetary decision and, as such, a matter on which hon. Members need to reflect as to whether the Government should seek to intervene. The SRA has responsibility for the global budget that the Government have allocated to it.
      744
      The Government recognise that the Strategic Rail Authority's decision to suspend its freight grant scheme for the time being has been a difficult one, but it must be a judgment for it to make in the light of available funding and the balance between income and expenditure. The SRA is conscious of the considerable effort that its partners, including local authorities and freight customers, have made to put together viable funding packages, and it is aware that concerns will exist about ongoing support. That is why it sought to avoid wasted effort and expense on the part of stakeholders by informing them of the decision at the earliest possible opportunity. The authority has also taken the opportunity to assure those who already receive awards that it will honour its contractual commitments, and it will continue to provide an advisory service through its internal expert teams.
      I accept that a result of the decision will be to halt or delay the development of a number of potentially useful local projects, but I assure hon. Members that the Government and the SRA remain committed to our sustainable distribution objectives. That includes seeking a significant increase in modal share for rail freight where it provides value for money.
      8.30 pm
      Mr. Foster: Earlier, the Minister acknowledged that responsibility for gritting motorways lay with the Highways Agency. Nevertheless, the Government made it absolutely clear that they were unhappy with the decision of the Highways Agency with regard to the problems of 30 January. In a similar spirit, even though the Strategic Rail Authority is responsible for this particular decision, does the Minister support it, or disagree with it?
      Mr. Spellar: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will accept that that is not an exact analogy. The problem with the Highways Agency was that it was already spending money but people were not getting the service required. The travelling public on the M11 were not getting a service either from the agency or from the county police forces. On this issue, the SRA has to consider its overall budget and its budgetary constraints and priorities. It says that it has had to take temporary decisions on some of its schemes. It has done that and made announcements as soon as possible so that many stakeholders did not have to incur unnecessary expenditure. However, it will consider how it can get back to its schemes.
      Sir Teddy Taylor: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Spellar: The matter is of considerable concern in the railway community but, to be frank, the SRA is addressing it. It is certainly not a matter for inclusion in a clause in a Bill.
      Sir Teddy Taylor: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way.
      Mr. Spellar: I have finished my speech.
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. The Minister had sat down and will not be responding to the intervention.
      Sir Teddy Taylor: I hope that the Government will think about the implications for the opencast coal

      745
      industry, where strenuous efforts have been made to transfer freight on to the railways, thereby reducing the enormous problems on the roads in some already congested areas. I hope that the Government will consider whether they should intervene—especially in view of the massive increase that there will be in the transportation of coal by road. That is one of our biggest and most dangerous problems.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 155, Noes 282.

      Division No.150]

      [8:30 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Gidley, Sandra

      Allan, Richard

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Amess, David

      Goodman, Paul

      Ancram, rh Michael

      Gray, James (N Wilts)

      Arbuthnot, rh James

      Grayling, Chris

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Grieve, Dominic

      Bacon, Richard

      Gummer, rh John

      Barker, Gregory

      Hague, rh William

      Baron, John (Billericay)

      Hammond, Philip

      Beith, rh A. J.

      Harvey, Nick

      Bellingham, Henry

      Hawkins, Nick

      Bercow, John

      Hayes, John (S Holland)

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Heald, Oliver

      Blunt, Crispin

      Heath, David

      Boswell, Tim

      Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

      Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

      Hermon, Lady

      Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

      Brady, Graham

      Horam, John (Orpington)

      Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Brazier, Julian

      Jack, rh Michael

      Breed, Colin

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

      Johnson, Boris (Henley)

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Key, Robert (Salisbury)

      Burnett, John

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Burns, Simon

      Kirkwood, Sir Archy

      Burnside, David

      Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

      Burstow, Paul

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Burt, Alistair

      Lamb, Norman

      Cable, Dr. Vincent

      Laws, David (Yeovil)

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Leigh, Edward

      Cameron, David

      Letwin, rh Oliver

      Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

      Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

      Cash, William

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Chidgey, David

      Lidington, David

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Lilley, rh Peter

      Collins, Tim

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Conway, Derek

      Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

      Cotter, Brian

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Curry, rh David

      Mackay, rh Andrew

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

      Maples, John

      Maude, rh Francis

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

      Evans, Nigel

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Fabricant, Michael

      Mercer, Patrick

      Fallon, Michael

      Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

      Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Flight, Howard

      Murrison Dr. Andrew

      Flook, Adrian

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Forth, rh Eric

      Öpik, Lembit

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Fox, Dr. Liam

      Ottaway, Richard

      Francois, Mark

      Page, Richard

      Garnier, Edward

      Pickles, Eric

      George, Andrew (St. Ives)

      Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

      Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

      746

      Pugh, Dr. John

      Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

      Randall, John

      Syms, Robert

      Redwood, rh John

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Rendel, David

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Robertson, Angus (Moray)

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Thurso, John

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Tonge, Dr. Jenny

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

      Ruffley, David

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Waterson, Nigel

      Sanders, Adrian

      Watkinson, Angela

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Webb, Steve (Northavon)

      Selous, Andrew

      Weir, Michael

      Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

      Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

      Shepherd, Richard

      Wiggin, Bill

      Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

      Willetts, David

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

      Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

      Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Soames, Nicholas

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Wishart, Pete

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Young, rh Sir George

      Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      Spring, Richard

      Stanley, rh Sir John

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Streeter, Gary

      Mr. Desmond Swayne and

      Stunell, Andrew

      Hugh Robertson

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

      Alexander, Douglas

      Allen, Graham

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

      Clelland, David

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

      Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

      Coaker, Vernon

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Cohen, Harry

      Austin, John

      Coleman, Iain

      Bailey, Adrian

      Colman, Tony

      Baird, Vera

      Connarty, Michael

      Barnes, Harry

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Battle, John

      Cooper, Yvette

      Bayley, Hugh

      Corston, Jean

      Beard, Nigel

      Cousins, Jim

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Crausby, David

      Benn, Hilary

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Bennett, Andrew

      Cummings, John

      Benton, Joe (Bootle)

      Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

      Best, Harold

      Betts, Clive

      Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

      Blackman, Liz

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Darling, rh Alistair

      Blizzard, Bob

      David, Wayne

      Borrow, David

      Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

      Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Denham, rh John

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Burden, Richard

      Dismore, Andrew

      Burgon, Colin

      Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

      Burnham, Andy

      Dobson, rh Frank

      Caborn, rh Richard

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Cairns, David

      Doran, Frank

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Drew, David (Stroud)

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Caplin, Ivor

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Casale, Roger

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Caton, Martin

      Edwards, Huw

      Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

      Efford, Clive

      Challen, Colin

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

      Clapham, Michael

      Farrelly, Paul

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      Fisher, Mark

      Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Foster, rh Derek

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      747

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

      McFall, John

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

      McIsaac, Shona

      Gerrard, Neil

      McKechin, Ann

      Gibson, Dr. Ian

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Gilroy, Linda

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Godsiff, Roger

      McNulty, Tony

      Goggins, Paul

      MacShane, Denis

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      McWalter, Tony

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      McWilliam, John

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Hanson, David

      Mallaber, Judy

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

      Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

      Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Healey, John

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Martlew, Eric

      Hendrick, Mark

      Meacher, rh Michael

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Merron, Gillian

      Heyes, David

      Michael, rh Alun

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Milburn, rh Alan

      Hoon, rh Geoffrey

      Miliband, David

      Hope, Phil (Corby)

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Moffatt, Laura

      Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

      Mole, Chris

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

      Moonie, Dr. Lewis

      Moran, Margaret

      Howells, Dr. Kim

      Morley, Elliot

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Mountford, Kali

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

      Mudie, George

      Mullin, Chris

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Naysmith, Dr. Doug

      Hutton, rh John

      Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

      Iddon, Dr. Brian

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Illsley, Eric

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      Olner, Bill

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Owen, Albert

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Palmer, Dr. Nick

      Jamieson, David

      Pearson, Ian

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

      Perham, Linda

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Pike, Peter (Burnley)

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Plaskitt, James

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

      Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

      Keen, Alan (Feltham)

      Pound, Stephen

      Keen, Ann (Brentford)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Kemp, Fraser

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Primarolo, rh Dawn

      Kidney, David

      Prosser, Gwyn

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

      Purchase, Ken

      Quin, rh Joyce

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

      Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

      Raynsford, rh Nick

      Lammy, David

      Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Leslie, Christopher

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

      Linton, Martin

      Ruddock, Joan

      Love, Andrew

      Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

      Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Sheridan, Jim

      McCabe, Stephen

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      MacDonald, Calum

      Singh, Marsha

      McDonnell, John

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      MacDougall, John

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      748

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

      Soley, Clive

      Southworth, Helen

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Spellar, rh John

      Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

      Squire, Rachel

      Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

      Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

      Wareing, Robert N

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

      Stevenson, George

      Watts, David

      Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

      White, Brian

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

      Stoate, Dr. Howard

      Williams, Betty (Conwy)

      Stringer, Graham

      Winnick, David

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Tami, Mark (Alyn)

      Wood, Mike (Batley)

      Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

      Woodward, Shaun

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Woolas, Phil

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Worthington, Tony

      Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

      Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

      Timms, Stephen

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Tipping, Paddy

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

      Trickett, Jon

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Truswell, Paul

      Mr. Nick Ainger and

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Mr. John Heppell

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New Clause 11

      ANNUAL REPORT ON ROAD SAFETY STATISTICS
      '.—(1) The Secretary of State shall prepare and lay before Parliament an annual report on the incidence and causes of major road traffic accidents that have occurred in the preceding 12 months.
      (2) For the purposes of this section "major road traffic accident" shall mean any road traffic accident involving a fatality or a serious injury likely to lead to permanent disability.
      (3) A report under subsection (1) shall include—

      (a) a summary and analysis of the statistics collected by the relevant bodies responsible for road safety or for investigating road traffic accidents, and

      (b) an assessment of those statistics for improving the safety of road design.'.—[Miss McIntosh.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 159, Noes 281.

      Division No. 151]

      [8.42 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

      Allan, Richard

      Brazier, Julian

      Amess, David

      Breed, Colin

      Ancram, rh Michael

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

      Arbuthnot, rh James

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Burnett, John

      Bacon, Richard

      Burns, Simon

      Barker, Gregory

      Burnside, David

      Baron, John (Billericay)

      Burstow, Paul

      Beith, rh A. J.

      Burt, Alistair

      Bellingham, Henry

      Cable, Dr. Vincent

      Bercow, John

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Cameron, David

      Blunt, Crispin

      Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

      Boswell, Tim

      Cash, William

      Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

      Chidgey, David

      Chope, Christopher

      Brady, Graham

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      749

      Collins, Tim

      Mercer, Patrick

      Conway, Derek

      Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

      Cotter, Brian

      Curry, rh David

      Moss, Malcolm

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Murrison, Dr. Andrew

      Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Öpik, Lembit

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Evans, Nigel

      Ottaway, Richard

      Fabricant, Michael

      Page, Richard

      Fallon, Michael

      Pickles, Eric

      Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

      Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

      Flight, Howard

      Pugh, Dr. John

      Flook, Adrian

      Randall, John

      Forth, rh Eric

      Redwood, rh John

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Rendel, David

      Fox, Dr. Liam

      Robertson, Angus (Moray)

      Francois, Mark

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Garnier, Edward

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      George, Andrew (St. Ives)

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

      Ruffley, David

      Gidley, Sandra

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Sanders, Adrian

      Goodman, Paul

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Gray, James (N Wilts)

      Selous, Andrew

      Grayling, Chris

      Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

      Grieve, Dominic

      Shepherd, Richard

      Gummer, rh John

      Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

      Hague, rh William

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

      Hammond, Philip

      Harvey, Nick

      Soames, Nicholas

      Hawkins, Nick

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Hayes, John (S Holland)

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Heald, Oliver

      Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

      Heath, David

      Spring, Richard

      Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

      Stanley, rh Sir John

      Hermon, Lady

      Streeter, Gary

      Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

      Stunell, Andrew

      Horam, John (Orpington)

      Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Syms, Robert

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Jack, rh Michael

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Johnson, Boris (Henley)

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Key, Robert (Salisbury)

      Thurso, John

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Tonge, Dr. Jenny

      Kirkwood, Sir Archy

      Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

      Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Viggers, Peter

      Lamb, Norman

      Waterson, Nigel

      Laws, David (Yeovil)

      Watkinson, Angela

      Leigh, Edward

      Webb, Steve (Northavon)

      Letwin, rh Oliver

      Weir, Michael

      Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

      Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Wiggin, Bill

      Lidington, David

      Willetts, David

      Lilley, rh Peter

      Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Wishart, Pete

      Mackay, rh Andrew

      Young, rh Sir George

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      Maples, John

      Maude, rh Francis

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

      Hugh Robertson and

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Mr. Desmond Swayne

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Alexander, Douglas

      Austin, John

      Allen, Graham

      Bailey, Adrian

      Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

      Baird, Vera

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

      Barnes, Harry

      Battle, John

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Bayley, Hugh

      750

      Beard, Nigel

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

      Benn, Hilary

      Farrelly, Paul

      Bennett, Andrew

      Fisher, Mark

      Benton, Joe (Bootle)

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Best, Harold

      Foster, rh Derek

      Betts, Clive

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Blackman, Liz

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Blizzard, Bob

      Boateng, rh Paul

      Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

      Borrow, David

      Gerrard, Neil

      Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

      Gibson, Dr. Ian

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Gilroy, Linda

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Godsiff, Roger

      Burden, Richard

      Goggins, Paul

      Burgon, Colin

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Burnham, Andy

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Caborn, rh Richard

      Cairns, David

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Hanson, David

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

      Caplin, Ivor

      Casale, Roger

      Healey, John

      Caton, Martin

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

      Challen, Colin

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Hendrick, Mark

      Clapham, Michael

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      Heyes, David

      Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Hinchliffe, David

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Hoon, rh Geoffrey

      Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

      Hope, Phil (Corby)

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Clelland, David

      Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

      Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

      Coaker, Vernon

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Howells, Dr. Kim

      Cohen, Harry

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Coleman, Iain

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

      Colman, Tony

      Connarty, Michael

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Cooper, Yvette

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Corston, Jean

      Hutton, rh John

      Cousins, Jim

      Iddon, Dr. Brian

      Crausby, David

      Illsley, Eric

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      Cummings, John

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

      Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

      Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Jamieson, David

      Darling, rh Alistair

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

      David, Wayne

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Denham, rh John

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

      Dismore, Andrew

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

      Keen, Alan (Feltham)

      Dobson, rh Frank

      Keen, Ann (Brentford)

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Kemp, Fraser

      Doran, Frank

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

      Kidney, David

      Drew, David (Stroud)

      Drown, Ms Julia

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Edwards, Huw

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      Efford, Clive

      Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

      751

      Lammy, David

      Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Raynsford, rh Nick

      Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

      Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Leslie, Christopher

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

      Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Linton, Martin

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Love, Andrew

      Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

      Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

      Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Savidge, Malcolm

      McCabe, Stephen

      Sedgemore, Brian

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Sheridan, Jim

      MacDonald, Calum

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      McDonnell, John

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      MacDougall, John

      Singh, Marsha

      McFall, John

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      McIsaac, Shona

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      McKechin, Ann

      Soley, Clive

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Southworth, Helen

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Spellar, rh John

      McNulty, Tony

      Squire, Rachel

      MacShane, Denis

      Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

      McWalter, Tony

      Steinberg, Gerry

      McWilliam, John

      Stevenson, George

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

      Mallaber, Judy

      Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Stoate, Dr. Howard

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Stringer, Graham

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Martlew, Eric

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Meacher, rh Michael

      Tami, Mark (Alyn)

      Merron, Gillian

      Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

      Michael, rh Alun

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Miliband, David

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

      Moffatt, Laura

      Tipping, Paddy

      Mole, Chris

      Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

      Moonie, Dr. Lewis

      Trickett, Jon

      Moran, Margaret

      Truswell, Paul

      Morley, Elliot

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Mountford, Kali

      Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

      Mullin, Chris

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Naysmith, Dr. Doug

      Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

      Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

      Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Olner, Bill

      Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Watts, David

      Owen, Albert

      White, Brian

      Palmer, Dr. Nick

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      Pearson, Ian

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Perham, Linda

      Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

      Picking, Anne

      Williams, Betty (Conwy)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Winnick, David

      Pike, Peter (Burnley)

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Plaskitt, James

      Pollard, Kerry

      Wood, Mike (Batley)

      Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

      Woodward, Shaun

      Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

      Woolas, Phil

      Pound, Stephen

      Worthington, Tony

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Primarolo, rh Dawn

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Purchase, Ken

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Quin, rh Joyce

      Mr. Nick Ainger and

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Mr. John Heppell

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New Clause 16

      REIMBURSEMENTS OF COSTS
      'The Secretary of State shall authorise the reimbursement of the costs arising from the extended jurisdiction for the British Transport Police provided in the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001.'.—[Miss McIntosh.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 158, Noes 276.

      Division No. 152]

      [8.54 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Gidley, Sandra

      Allan, Richard

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Amess, David

      Goodman, Paul

      Ancram, rh Michael

      Gray, James (N Wilts)

      Arbuthnot, rh James

      Grayling, Chris

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Grieve, Dominic

      Bacon, Richard

      Gummer, rh John

      Barker, Gregory

      Hague, rh William

      Baron, John (Billericay)

      Hammond, Philip

      Beith, rh A. J.

      Harvey, Nick

      Bellingham, Henry

      Hawkins, Nick

      Bercow, John

      Hayes, John (S Holland)

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Heald, Oliver

      Blunt, Crispin

      Heath, David

      Boswell, Tim

      Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

      Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

      Hermon, Lady

      Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

      Brady, Graham

      Horam, John (Orpington)

      Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Breed, Colin

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

      Jack, rh Michael

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Burnett, John

      Johnson, Boris (Henley)

      Burns, Simon

      Key, Robert (Salisbury)

      Burnside, David

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Burstow, Paul

      Kirkwood, Sir Archy

      Burt, Alistair

      Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

      Cable, Dr. Vincent

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Lamb, Norman

      Cameron, David

      Laws, David (Yeovil)

      Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

      Leigh, Edward

      Cash, William

      Letwin, rh Oliver

      Chidgey, David

      Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

      Chope, Christopher

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Lidington, David

      Collins, Tim

      Lilley, rh Peter

      Conway, Derek

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Cotter, Brian

      Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

      Curry, rh David

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Mackay, rh Andrew

      Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Maples, John

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Maude, rh Francis

      Duncan Smith, rh Iain

      Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

      Evans, Nigel

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Fabricant, Michael

      Mercer, Patrick

      Fallon, Michael

      Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

      Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Flight, Howard

      Murrison, Dr. Andrew

      Flook, Adrian

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Forth, rh Eric

      Öpik, Lembit

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Fox, Dr. Liam

      Ottaway, Richard

      Francois, Mark

      Page, Richard

      Garnier, Edward

      Pickles, Eric

      George, Andrew (St. Ives)

      Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

      Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

      753

      Pugh, Dr. John

      Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

      Randall, John

      Syms, Robert

      Redwood, rh John

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Rendel, David

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Robertson, Angus (Moray)

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Thurso, John

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Tonge, Dr. Jenny

      Ruffley, David

      Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Sanders, Adrian

      Viggers, Peter

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Watkinson, Angela

      Selous, Andrew

      Webb, Steve (Northavon)

      Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

      Weir, Michael

      Shepherd, Richard

      Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

      Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

      Wiggin, Bill

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

      Willetts, David

      Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

      Soames, Nicholas

      Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Wishart, Pete

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Young, rh Sir George

      Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      Spring, Richard

      Stanley, rh Sir John

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Streeter, Gary

      Hugh Robertson and

      Stunell, Andrew

      Mr. Desmond Swayne

      NOES

      Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

      Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Alexander, Douglas

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Allen, Graham

      Clelland, David

      Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

      Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

      Coaker, Vernon

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Cohen, Harry

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Coleman, Iain

      Austin, John

      Colman, Tony

      Bailey, Adrian

      Connarty, Michael

      Baird, Vera

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Barnes, Harry

      Cooper, Yvette

      Battle, John

      Corston, Jean

      Bayley, Hugh

      Cousins, Jim

      Beard, Nigel

      Crausby, David

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Benn, Hilary

      Cummings, John

      Benton, Joe (Bootle)

      Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

      Best, Harold

      Betts, Clive

      Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

      Blackman, Liz

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Darling, rh Alistair

      Blizzard, Bob

      David, Wayne

      Boateng, rh Paul

      Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

      Borrow, David

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon, C)

      Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Denham, rh John

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Dismore, Andrew

      Burden, Richard

      Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

      Burgon, Colin

      Dobson, rh Frank

      Burnham, Andy

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Caborn, rh Richard

      Doran, Frank

      Cairns, David

      Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Drew, David (Stroud)

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Caplin, Ivor

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Caton, Martin

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

      Edwards, Huw

      Challen, Colin

      Efford, Clive

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Clapham, Michael

      Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      Farrelly, Paul

      Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Fisher, Mark

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Foster, rh Derek

      754

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      McDonnell, John

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

      MacDougall, John

      McFall, John

      Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Gerrard, Neil

      McIsaac, Shona

      Gibson, Dr. Ian

      McKechin, Ann

      Gilroy, Linda

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Godsiff, Roger

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Goggins, Paul

      McNulty, Tony

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      MacShane, Denis

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      McWalter, Tony

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      McWilliam, John

      Hanson, David

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Mallaber, Judy

      Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

      Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

      Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Healey, John

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Hendrick, Mark

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Martlew, Eric

      Heyes, David

      Meacher, rh Michael

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Merron, Gillian

      Hinchliffe, David

      Michael, rh Alun

      Hodge, Margaret

      Miliband, David

      Hoon, rh Geoffrey

      Moffatt, Laura

      Hope, Phil (Corby)

      Moonie, Dr. Lewis

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Morley, Elliot

      Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

      Mountford, Kali

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

      Mudie, George

      Mullin, Chris

      Howells, Dr. Kim

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Naysmith, Dr. Doug

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

      Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Olner, Bill

      Hutton, rh John

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Iddon, Dr. Brian

      Owen, Albert

      Illsley, Eric

      Palmer, Dr. Nick

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      Pearson, Ian

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

      Perham, Linda

      Picking, Anne

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Jamieson, David

      Pike, Peter (Burnley)

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

      Plaskitt, James

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Pound, Stephen

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Primarolo, rh Dawn

      Keen, Alan (Feltham)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Keen, Ann (Brentford)

      Purchase, Ken

      Kemp, Fraser

      Quin, rh Joyce

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Kidney, David

      Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

      Raynsford, rh Nick

      Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

      Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

      Lammy, David

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

      Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Ruddock, Joan

      Leslie, Christopher

      Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

      Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Linton, Martin

      Sheridan, Jim

      Love, Andrew

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

      Singh, Marsha

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      McCabe, Stephen

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      MacDonald, Calum

      Soley, Clive

      755

      Southworth, Helen

      Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

      Spellar, rh John

      Squire, Rachel

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

      Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

      Stevenson, George

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

      Watts, David

      White, Brian

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

      Stoate, Dr. Howard

      Williams, Betty (Conwy)

      Stringer, Graham

      Winnick, David

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Tami, Mark (Alyn)

      Wood, Mike (Batley)

      Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

      Woodward, Shaun

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Woolas, Phil

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Worthington, Tony

      Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

      Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

      Tipping, Paddy

      Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Trickett, Jon

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Truswell, Paul

      Mr. Nick Ainger and

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Mr. John Heppell

      Question accordingly negatived.
      It being after Nine o'clock, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that hour, pursuant to Order [28 January 2003].

    Clause 2

      MEANING OF "RAILWAY ACCIDENT" AND "RAILWAY INCIDENT"
      Amendments made: No.11, in page 2, line 10, after 'to', insert—

      '(a) location;

      (b)'.

      No.12, in page 2, line 10, at end insert 'or another specified person'.—[Mr. Spellar.]

    Clause 4

      GENERAL AIMS
      Amendments made: No.13, in page 2, line 27, leave out
      'have regard to the desirability of'
      and insert', wherever relevant, aim'.
      No.14, in page 2, line 29, leave out 'improving' and insert 'to improve'.
      No.15, in page 2, line 30, leave out 'preventing' and insert 'to prevent'.—[Mr. Spellar.]

    Clause 24

      SPECIAL CONSTABLES
      Amendments made: No.16, in page 11, line 37, at end insert 'and'.
      No.17, in page 11, line 38, leave out from 'Constable,' to end of line 39.
      No.18, in page 12, line 4, at end insert—
      '()Section 88(1) to (5) of the Police Act 1996 (c.16) (liability for wrongful act of constable) shall have effect in relation to special constables of the Police Force as if—
      756

      (a) a reference to the chief officer of police for a police area were a reference to the Chief Constable,

      (b) a reference to a constable were a reference to a special constable,

      (c) a reference to the police fund were a reference to the British Transport Police Fund,

      (d) a reference I o a police authority were a reference to the Authority, and

      (e) subsection (5) included a reference to a special constable of the Police Force.'.—[Mr. Spellar.]

    Clause 59

      PUBLIC CONSULTATION
      Amendment made: No.19, in page 24, line 7, at end insert—
      '() employees of persons providing railway services,
      () organisations representing employees of persons providing railway services,'.—[Mr. Spellar.]

    Clause 73

      INDEX OF DEFINED EXPRESSIONS
      Amendments made: No.20, in page 30, line 36, at end insert—
      'Railway property Section 72'.
      No.27, in page 30, line 37, at end insert—
      'Railway vehicle Section 72'.
      —[Mr. Spellar.]

    Clause 76

      PROFESSIONAL STAFF OFF DUTY
      Amendment made: No.28, in page 32, line 9, at end insert—
      '() Where a person is charged with an offence under this section in respect of the effect of a drug on his ability to take action it is a defence for him to show that—

      (a) he took the drug for a medicinal purpose on, and in accordance with, medical advice, or

      (b) he took the drug for a medicinal purpose and had no reason to believe that it would impair his ability to take the action.'.—[Mr. Spellar.]

    Clause 86
      INTERPRETATION
      Amendment made: No.29, in page 37, leave out line 3.—[Mr. Spellar.]
    Clause 87
      CROWN APPLICATION
      Amendment made: No.30, in page 37, line 17, leave out Clause 87.—[Mr. Spellar.]
    Clause 88
      TERRITORIAL APPLICATION
      Amendment made: No.21, in page 37, line 34, leave out from 'enactment' to 'concerning' in line 36.—[Mr. Spellar.]
    Clause 98

      MILITARY APPLICATION
      Amendment made: No.31, in page 43, leave out lines 1 to 9 and insert
      'by a member of Her Majesty's air forces, military forces or naval forces, within the meaning given by section 225(1) of the Army Act 1955 (c.18), acting in the course of his duties.
      () This Part shall not apply to a function or activity which is performed or carried out by—

      (a) a member of a visiting force, within the meaning which that expression has in section of the Visiting Forces Act 1952 (c.67) by virtue of section 12(1) of that Act, acting in the course of his duties, or

      (b) a member of a civilian component of a visiting force, within that meaning, acting in the course of his duties.

      () This Part shall not apply to a function or activity which is performed or carried out by a military or civilian member of a headquarters, within the meaning given by paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Schedule to the International Headquarters and Defence Organisations Act 1964 (c.5), acting in the course of his duties.'.—[Mr. Spellar.]

    Clause 99
      TERRITORIAL APPLICATION
      Amendment made: No.22, in page 43, line 30, leave out from 'enactment' to 'concerning' in line 32.—[Mr. Spellar.]
    Clause 106

      SHIPPING LEGISLATION: APPLICATION TO STRUCTURES, CRAFT, &C.
      Amendment made: No.23, in page 48, line 1, leave out
      '(including an Act of the Scottish Parliament or Northern Ireland legislation)'.—[Mr. Spellar.]

    Schedule 4

      BRITISH TRANSPORT POLICE AUTHORITY
      Amendments made: No.24, in page 60, line 38, at end insert—
      '(ba) a person who has knowledge of and experience in relation to the interests of employees of persons providing railways services,'.
      No.25, in page 61, line 9, at end insert—
      '() But a person may not be appointed so as to—

      (a) contribute to satisfying subparagraph (1)(b), and

      (b) satisfy subparagraph (1)(ba).'.—[Mr. Spellar.]

    Schedule 7

      REPEALS
      Amendment made: No.26, in page 72, line 37, leave out 'paragraph 9' and insert 'paragraphs 7 to 10'.—[Mr. Spellar.]
      Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, and Prince of Wales's consent, on behalf of the Duchy of Cornwall, signified.]
      9.6 pm
      Mr. Spellar): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      758
      The House will, I am sure, join me in thanking the members of Standing Committee D for their careful scrutiny of this important Bill. We met 18 times during February and March, and the Committee proved tireless in its extremely detailed questioning of the Government's proposals. The House has now considered on Report a Bill that has been through a fine-toothed comb. I pay special tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) and for Braintree (Mr. Hurst), who shared the chairmanship of the Committee. They were helped by my hon. Friends the Members for Bootle (Mr. Benton) and for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Mahmood), to whom we are also grateful.
      Although we have been discussing the details today, we all recognise the general picture—that the Bill will mark an important step in improving safety in our railway system, and in transport more widely. It will thereby help to strengthen passenger confidence, and to answer the public's justified demand for the highest standards. Part 1 makes provision for a rail accident investigation branch with responsibilities to investigate rail accidents. That is in response to one of Lord Cullen's recommendations following the Ladbroke Grove incident. Like its air and marine counterparts, the rail accident investigation branch will investigate the causes of accidents, so that remedial action can be taken as soon as possible. It will act independently of both the industry and its regulators and carry out its investigations openly.
      The Bill also modernises the governance of the British Transport police, who provide an essential service policing Britain's railways. Currently, the powers and accountability of the British Transport police are derived from a hotch-potch of measures shaped by the railways of the 19th century, and altered by nationalisation and then privatisation. The Bill will give the British Transport police similar governance and a similar statutory basis to the Home Office police forces and the Scottish police forces, with a clearly defined jurisdiction and proper accountability.
      The Bill replicates for the civil marine and aviation sectors the well-understood measures combating drink-driving on the roads. Drink-driving on the roads can be fatal, whether the driver is a professional or a nonprofessional. The same principle is true on the water and in the air. However, we need to be proportionate about this. Everyone recognises that an aeroplane travelling at 500 mph is more dangerous than a car travelling at 50 mph which itself is more dangerous than a boat travelling at 5 mph.
      The maximum permitted alcohol limit for air crew will be 20 mg per 100 ml of blood, in comparison with 80 mg for car drivers. The Marchioness tragedy showed us graphically that all boats can be imperilled by sailors drinking, but there is a difference between a large passenger ship, with a professional crew, and a man in a rowing boat. We have, therefore, included a power to except vessels piloted by non-professionals, by reference to the power of their motor and to their size and location. We shall hold consultations about such exceptions so as to strike the right proportionate balance between regulation and protection for the public.

      759
      Among other provisions, the measure will restructure the Office of the Rail Regulator. It will be headed by a board rather than a single regulator, in line with the recommendations of the Better Regulation Task Force, and will bring the railways into line with other regulated industries.
      Tonight, the House completes its deliberations on a highly important Bill that will significantly promote public safety and confidence in our transport networks. Accordingly, I commend the Bill to the House.
      9.10 pm
      Miss McIntosh: On behalf of the official Opposition, I welcome the Bill. I agree with the Minister for Transport: there was excellent scrutiny in Committee. Indeed, the measure received about 50 hours of scrutiny. I join him in his eloquent thanks to our presiding Chairmen. For the most part, our 18 sittings were good-humoured and good-natured.
      The powers of the new rail accident investigation branch will be wide ranging. We welcome the fact that the branch will he modelled on the air accidents and marine accident investigation branches, both of which were set up under a Conservative Government. Regrettably, several matters are still unresolved, as we pointed out during Report, especially the relationship between the RAIB and the Health and Safety Executive.
      I pay tribute to the work of the British Transport police. The provisions for the BTP will put the force on a wholly statutory footing for the first time, which is welcome. There are questions about its jurisdiction, which, in the view of the force, should continue to extend to property in the vicinity of railway lines and stations. There is still concern about employment and pension provisions. Following the Wheeler report on airport security, there is potential for further liaison and co-operation between the BTP and the officers who police our airports.
      The Bill includes provisions on offences for drink and drug abuse by air and sea personnel. We support the main thrust of the provisions but, in relation to aviation personnel, it would be simpler and clearer if there were a single limit for all safety-critical personnel, whatever their specific function. As regards maritime personnel, the provisions relating to non-professional recreational mariners could be further clarified and a clearer definition of what constitutes standby duty would be welcome. It would be better still if the clauses on marine and aviation offences had been consistent. For example, under clause 80 the police are given power to breathalyse when there is an accident involving a ship. The procedure is similar to that followed after a road accident. In clause 93, however, the same provision does not extend to an accident involving an aircraft.
      We especially regret the fact that lack of time prevented consideration of our new clauses 14, 15 and 17 and that we were unable to press them to a vote. There is great merit in asking the Civil Aviation Authority to introduce a peer intervention programme on drink and drug abuse at work. Will the Government consider that proposal in the imminent future?
      There is also merit to the proposal that someone other than a uniformed officer should escort a suspect from a plane, as that would cause less alarm to other
      760
      passengers. As the provisions on aviation are especially extensive, it would be welcome if the CAA could issue guidance to the industry on their enforcement.
      In Committee, we were told that the Bill would have monetary consequences but that they would not be huge. The Government have resisted our requests that they consider wider aspects of road safety as part of the Bill. However, we are pleased that the Government have caved in to our request for a legal responsibility on highways authorities to clear the roads of snow and ice.
      Indeed, so many of our amendments caught the attention of both Ministers in Committee that we feel that much of the Bill is part of a Conservative agenda. In that regard, we welcome the Bill and wish it Godspeed in the other place.
      9.15 pm
      Mr. Don Foster: Now that the passage of Bill is nearly over, the Minister has suddenly become fulsome in his praise of members of the Committee on both sides of the House. He rightly described us as having been tireless, but whether all hon. Members are happy to be called a tooth comb is for them to decide.
      The Minister is right that the Bill is important and underwent intense scrutiny during the 18 Committee sittings. Of course, its passage has also been enjoyable at times. We have found out more about the pleasures and dangers of jet-skis and discussed at some length what constitutes the vicinity of a railway line. We have contemplated the implications for a constable in carrying out his duties of his hat blowing off and learned more than we might want to know from the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) about the use of swabs in taking samples for various forms of testing. Indeed, we have also heard a very lengthy list of interests, which she has declared on numerous occasions. We have even discovered a trolley bus in Scotland.
      However, we have also debated many important issues. I am delighted that we have now established the rail accident investigation branch and turned the function of a single individual—the rail regulator—into that of a board such as those in all other regulatory organisations. We have also given the British Transport police a statutory basis. Sensibly, we have introduced appropriate alcohol limits in respect of aviation and maritime activities.
      Of course, I am disappointed that a number of issues have not been dealt with. Perhaps the most notable is the attempt to reduce the current drink-driving limit. Equally, I am disappointed that there has been no opportunity to discuss road safety as much as many members of the Committee would have wished. We hope very much that the Government will introduce legislation in that area before too long. There should also have been an opportunity to streamline some existing structures, particularly in respect of the Office of the Rail Regulator. Such measures were promised by the previous Secretary of State following the turning of Railtrack into a not-for-profit public interest company. That has still not happened.
      We have also wisely accepted the need for a change in the way in which the Health and Safety Executive is funded for its work in the railway industry and a move away from the per-hour system. Unfortunately,

      761
      however, we are introducing a new levy system that many people believe is not the most appropriate way forward. I share their concerns and I suspect that that issue will exercise the minds of those who will debate it in another place.
      Like the hon. Member for Vale of York, I am disappointed that there have not been more opportunities to discuss aviation security. We will all look with interest to the answers that I hope to receive shortly to parliamentary questions about Sir John Wheeler's excellent report on aviation security and want an assurance that the Government will implement his many sensible recommendations as soon as possible. Questions remain about whether it is right for the Government to appoint the chief constable of the British Transport police authority, but those are all matters that will no doubt be for another time and place.
      Meanwhile, good progress has been made on this important Bill, to which, as we said on Second Reading and repeat on Third Reading, we broadly give our full support.
      9.19 pm
      Mr. Hopkins: May I say how pleased I am, as the only Back Bencher left to speak, to follow such eminent Front-Bench speakers? They have all made significant contributions to the Bill, as I have tried to do. We are all pleased to support a Bill that has cross-party support. I believe that it is a substantial step in the right direction but I would like more progress on other aspects of rail safety.
      We have not received the results of the investigations into Hatfield and Potters Bar. That is a failing but it possibly arises due to the privatisation legislation introduced by the Conservative Government because that took away the legal responsibility of the Health and Safety Executive and Her Majesty's rail inspectorate to investigate rail accidents, although they retained rights. Perhaps that was done to make life somewhat easier for the private companies that were to follow. The Bill will plug the gap by providing again for a serious investigation process.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) wants to make legislation stronger and more coherent and she pointed out that other bodies must be examined. I mentioned the new rail safety and standards board earlier today and the problem that has clearly arisen due to the shift to a more arm's length relationship with the industry. We thought that the chief executive of the existing body would have been automatically asked to transfer to the new organisation and I hope that the Minister and the Under-Secretary will examine that because newspapers speculate that the situation is unhappy and we want to know whether something in the murky depths must be studied.
      The HSE rail inspectorate has not covered itself with glory in recent times and although the British Transport police have done a good job, the inspectorate has not investigated as enthusiastically as it might have done. I understand that several of the staff who undertake investigations are not experts on railway matters. Running a railway is very technical and to appreciate
      762
      what is going on, one must have an appreciation of engineering, and especially mechanical and electrical engineering. I have a modest knowledge of the subject and I appreciate it when people explain what is happening. However, a person with a background in the law or accountancy might not be the appropriate person to undertake such an investigation. We should examine that gap and ensure that people who undertake investigations have an appreciation of engineering. That knowledge need not be specific to railways because one can adjust to a new engineering field over time. However, a person who has no expertise in engineering at all will find it harder to appreciate problems that arise on railways.
      Track circuits are currently a subject of controversy and are likely to attract press coverage. A system using track circuits allows the detection of whether a train is on a particular stretch of track. The axle and wheels of a train make contact across rails and signallers can use that to discover where a train is. However, that is being replaced by a system of axle counters, which counts axles as they enter and leave a section of rail. That is fine but it does not address the problem of broken rails because while the track circuits system detects broken rails, axle counters do not. It is argued that axle counters are used in Germany, but they are used only on concrete slab track, which holds the track firmly and rigidly. That makes it less prone to breakages and even if it does break, it is held safely so that trains will not derail. Many railway engineers argue that the use of axle counters on ballast track is dangerous. I would like to move toward using slab track rather than ballast track because it is safer and its price is coming down. We could look forward to a safer railway if we moved in that direction. Slab track is generally used in Japan.
      We have had a great deal of discussion on the British Transport police, and almost everyone has spoken highly of them. Indeed, I have a very high opinion of them myself. In every sphere, however, there are not enough of them. My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich talked about the problem of controlling football crowds moving from train to train at Crewe station. She said that just four police officers had been on duty to deal with a massive crowd of good-humoured but somewhat inebriated football fans. That was clearly not enough. There are also problems involved in patrolling ports, relating to illegal immigration, drug trafficking and so on. If there were more transport police, those matters could be dealt with more adequately.
      All the safety bodies must work together much more effectively. One of my concerns in recent years is that some of them have had too close a relationship with the industry. They have to be independent, and I am pleased to see that the rail accident investigation branch will indeed be independent of the industry. The people who work in these bodies must have a sense that they are working in the public interest, rather than looking over their shoulder at the commercial interests of the railway industry. Since privatisation, commercial and financial pressure has inevitably been brought to bear on railway operations. One does not want to see a wholly inefficient public system, but, where public safety is concerned, it is vital to ensure that safety comes first and commercial interests come second.

      763
      One of the points made earlier was that the rail accident investigation branch will look at what happens after an accident. The key to the problem, however, is to ensure that the accidents do not happen in the first place. If they happen, something has gone wrong, and we need to have much more rigorous inspection of railway systems before they occur. Although railway travel is much safer than road transport—we have heard a great many statistics on that from the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster)—it is still a fact that one accident involving a train can cause an horrendous number of deaths and injuries. We want to avoid accidents altogether.
      We are moving in the right direction, and I welcome the Bill very much indeed. I look forward to seeing how it will work in practice. One of the new body's first jobs will be to investigate the accidents at Hatfield and Potters Bar—I had some experience of those, having lived in the area for most of my life—and I hope that it will do a very thorough job so that the truth can come out. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have recently exerted pressure to introduce the concept of corporate manslaughter, so that people in commercial organisations who are responsible for deaths can be taken to task and prosecuted. If people have not behaved well in relation to their responsibilities on the railways, and such behaviour has caused problems or accidents, those people should be prosecuted and, when necessary, have an appropriate fine or prison sentence imposed on them.
      These are serious matters, where life and death are concerned. We might scrape our knee if we have an accident on a bicycle, but anyone who travels on an aircraft has a strong sense that an accident in those circumstances could result in hundreds of people dying. Trains are much more like aircraft in that sense. They travel at very high speeds and carry a lot of people. They are inherently safe, but we nevertheless need to be
      764
      rigorous in ensuring that the track and all the systems in the railway industry work properly and safely. I think that we are moving in the right direction on that. I am delighted to support the Bill, and I look forward to its Third Reading going through on the nod, as they say—I understand that there is to be no opposition to it. I want the legislation to go further in future, but I am delighted to support the Bill today.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

    SUSTAINABLE USE OF PESTICIDES
    That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 10665/02, Commission Communication, entitled Towards a Thematic Strategy on the Sustainable Use of Pesticides; and supports the Government's view that this document is a useful step towards a strategy that will help reduce risks and hazards to health and the environment from the use of pesticides.—[Joan Ryan.]
    Question agreed to.

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

    HEALTH CARE AND ASSOCIATED PROFESSIONS
    That the draft General and Specialist Medical Practice (Education, Training and Qualifications) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 3rd March, be approved.—[Joan Ryan.]
    Question agreed to.

PETITION

  Neighbourhood Pharmacies
  9.30 pm
  Bob Russell: The Government speak much of sustainable communities, but they have embarked on a programme of mass closure of our neighbourhood post offices, with a third of those in the urban network due for closure. Not content with that policy, they have before them proposals that would lead to an attack on and the closure of many of our neighbourhood pharmacies. I have a petition signed by 2,881 residents of Colchester and district.
  The petition states:
  To the House of Commons
  The petition of Mr. Ramanlal Patel, of Mile End Pharmacy, Nayland Road, Colchester, and others
  Declares that the recommendations of the Office of Fair Trading Report on UK Pharmacies are not in the best interests of the wider community;
  That the Report threatens the viability of neighbourhood pharmacies which play an important role in the Government's objectives for sustainable communities and social inclusion, particularly for those without transport, the elderly and people with disabilities;
  That the important role which neighbourhood pharmacists play, notably free professional advice, to a comprehensive National Health Service should be valued.
  The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to maintain the present framework of pharmacy provision by rejecting proposals which would lead to the closure of community pharmacies.
  And the Petitioners remain, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Learning-disabled Athletes
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Joan Ryan.]
  9.32 pm
  Mr. Martin Caton: About half way through last month, I received a short letter from a constituent:
  "I can't understand why the International Paralympic Committee has banned all us athletes with learning disabilities.
  I love swimming, I'm very proud to be in the Welsh Squad. I thought that if I keep on training hard and improve my times I could, maybe, take part in the Paralympics one day. It's not fair to ban us when none of us cheated.
  How can this terrible mistake be sorted out?"
  It was signed David Vaughan.
  Since then, I have met David, who is a young man coming up to his 18th birthday with, as he says, a learning disability and a passion for swimming—in particular, swimming as fast as he can in competition with others. I have to confess that, when I received David's letter, I thought that he must have made a mistake or got the wrong end of the stick. Surely the committee could not have banned every athlete with a learning disability from participating in its competitions, but David was right and I was wrong. When I investigated, I found that that is exactly what the committee had done.
  As things stand, no learning-disabled athlete will be permitted to enter the Athens Paralympics in 2004. How has that come about? What led to such a draconian sanction? The story goes back to the 2000 Sydney Paralympics, when 10 Spanish male basketball players were found to have cheated because they did not have the intellectual disability that they claimed to have.
  The International Sports Federation for People with Intellectual Disability—INAS-FID for short, which is the body responsible for eligibility verification for that group of athletes—was implicated in the cheating because its then president, Fernando Martin Vicente, as leader of the Spanish federation, had moved eligibility administration to his office in Madrid. It was his office that verified the eligibility of the basketball players, although they were ineligible.
  The International Paralympic Committee set up an investigation commission to look into the eligibility cheating issue. It suspended INAS-FID from membership, and banned all athletes with intellectual disability from IPC-sanctioned competitions. Interestingly, it did not suspend the Spanish paralympic committee, which was ultimately responsible for all Spanish athletes entered in the Sydney games. Equally interestingly, although 11 positive doping cases were exposed in the Sydney paralympics, no similar investigation of that problem was instituted; nor did the main sport involved, weightlifting, incur anything comparable to the sanctions imposed on the learning-disabled.
  In March 2001, the IPC executive committee requested INAS-FID to perform nine specific actions. The most important were acknowledging responsibility for the violations in Sydney, expelling Fernando Martin Vicente, accepting that verifications had not been carried out properly under his presidency, accepting the findings of the IPC investigation commission, agreeing

  767
  to conduct its own investigation of the Sydney eligibility issue, agreeing to establish new leadership, and agreeing to put forward five experts for a joint IPC-INAS-FID eligibility verification scheme.
  INAS-FID agreed to all those requests. When it conducted its own investigation of the Sydney games, it found that apart from the 10 Spanish basketball players, only three athletes did not fully meet the eligibility criteria. In each case the athlete, although not meeting the criteria, did have a disability. There is no evidence of a huge international problem of cheating by this group of athletes, in Sydney or anywhere else. There was, however, an eligibility verification issue, which everyone agreed should be tackled.
  In November 2001, IPC and INAS-FID representatives met in Amsterdam, and the IPC secretary-general said he would recommend reconsideration of INAS-FID's suspension. In December, the executive committee added a new condition for the lifting of the suspension: INAS-FID must accept the IPC handbook's requirement for athletes to show what is described as
  "a functional disadvantage clue to a permanent disability".
  That caused problems for INAS-FID, which had always argued that the "functional" classification system was inappropriate for the identification of intellectual disability. It appears to have been persuaded to go along with the new requirement, given the clarification that "functional" did not mean "physical", and the acceptance that the IPC handbook was due to be rewritten and INAS-FID could influence that work if it was back in the IPC.
  I should point out that the IPC handbook was written before learning-disabled athletes were allowed to compete in the paralympics, although they have been included in the last two games—in other words, fully involved for more than eight years. Even so, the handbook still really deals only with physical and visual disabilities, and that is generally recognised.
  In the following months, INAS-FID tried to establish how it could meet the handbook's requirements. In October 2002, agreement was reached with IPC officers. It was outlined in a letter sent by the IPC medical officer to the various IPC sports chairpersons. There were three points, covering INAS-FID's responsibility for primary documentation of intellectual impairment—that is, psychologists' reports for individual athletes—which needed to be accessible at the competition site; INAS-FID's acceptance of the development of a sports-specific consequence analysis form as part of the eligibility/ classification process, a sort of sports classification card; and INAS-FID's acceptance that an eligibility/ classification protest procedure must be established.
  On 9 January this year, INAS-FID gave the IPC information showing its implementation of all three conditions. It was hopeful about the reinstatement of learning-disabled athletes in all paralympic events. At its meeting on 1 February, however, the IPC management committee ruled that INAS-FID had not met its requirements, and that athletes with learning disabilities would not be allowed to participate in Athens. The committee argued that, in the case of the first two conditions, the INAS-FID proposal had not been tested and implemented.
  768
  That seems to me to impose a sort of catch-22. The way in which to test the primary evidence eligibility system would be to use it in the registration process for an athletics or other sports meeting—indeed, that was how the previous registration scheme was tested at the Lille IPC world athletics championships—but while the ban continues, that will not be possible.
  On the second condition, relating to the impact on the sport, the IPC position seems even less reasonable. INAS-FID's only opportunity to test its system was at the IPC swimming championships in Argentina in December. The IPC swimming chairman refused to use the INAS-FID system. On the third condition, the IPC argued that INAS-FID had not provided a protest procedure. That is just plain wrong. INAS-FID did present a specific protest procedure in July. However, it then agreed on the advice of the IPC medical officer to adopt the standard IPC procedure, with some modifications, again agreed with the IPC medical officer. In any case, although the system may not have been tested for actual competitions, it has been rigorously tested. Perhaps I could outline the current position as the International Sports Federation for Persons with Intellectual Disability sees it. A new registration form for athletes aspiring to compete in IPC events has been available from the beginning of the year. All documents will have to be sent to the INAS secretariat in Sweden for checking that they are completed fully and correctly. All nations entering athletes for INAS and IPC events are now required to have set up a verification committee in that country to check the accuracy and detail of documentation before they are sent to Sweden.
  From 1 July, only athletes who have registered using the new form will be allowed to participate in IPC events, when and if learning-disabled athletes are restored to the IPC. The new registration procedure requires primary evidence of intellectual disability. It also requires evidence of the effect of that disability on sporting performance. The procedure was devised by two world-recognised experts, Professor McTavish and Professor Parmenter, aided by other experts in the specialism. The procedure was then tested by coaches on their own athletes and the results were analysed by other experts. They were subjected to three different tests to determine whether they were testing effectively the impact of intellectual disability on sports performance. The results were conclusive. INAS has offered to provide those procedures to any other expert in the field of intellectual disability for their analysis. In my opinion, there is no excuse for maintaining the ban on learning-disabled athletes from competing in Athens. I fear that we are seeing out and-out discrimination.
  There is one last chance, outside the law courts, for athletes with intellectual disability to be allowed to compete in the 2004 Paralympics. That is the appeal that INAS-FID will make to the IPC executive committee on 4 April. I hope that the Minister might be able to use his influence, perhaps through the British Paralympic Association and UK Sport, to encourage the IPC to reconsider and go the extra mile to get this important group of disabled athletes back where they belong on the international stage, particularly at the 2004 games in Athens.
  There are currently 15 British athletes with a learning disability on the world class performance programme, all of whom are now hoping against hope to represent

  769
  our country in Athens in 2004. UK Sport has made it clear that if the IPC maintains its ban on learning disabled athletes attending Athens, funding for those athletes will cease, probably as early as next month. Some of those athletes have been working towards competing in Athens for years, so the ban is devastating for them. I mean people such as Gemma Bennett, the 16-year-old learning-disabled swimmer from Barking, who is the double world record holder for 100 m and 200 m breaststroke. She said:
  "Swimming is the main thing that is important to me because I'm really good at it."
  That feeling of devastation experienced by Gemma is not felt by British learning-disabled athletes alone, but by such athletes around the world.
  Representative organisations from some 20 countries are considering taking the IPC to court on the ground that that group of athletes' human rights have been breached. However, the impact of the ban does not hit only the elite athletes around the world who have reached the standard high enough for them to compete in Athens in 2004. I go back to my constituent, David Vaughan, who has done very well in freestyle and backstroke, but is only now moving from juniors to seniors. He loves competition swimming and is very good at it. He loves to attend events, as he did three or four weeks ago, such as the British national championships in Sheffield, where he can swim with, watch and admire other swimmers with a range of disabilities who have overcome them in different ways to contribute to the sport.
  David knows that he belongs in those all-embracing competitions and events. Indeed, David produced personal bests in Sheffield in both his main strokes. He does not yet know whether he will eventually reach the standard whereby he might be part of our paralympic team, perhaps in Beijing, but he has already identified that as a target, which, as he says, helps to provide him with the incentive to keep on training hard and to improve his times. David's case has been reflected around the country and around the world. We need the IPC to restore that target to David Vaughan and to all those like him.
  The Government's White Paper on learning disability identified sporting activities as an area where people with learning disabilities are most excluded and likely to experience discrimination. It also said that enabling people to use a wider range of leisure opportunities can make a significant contribution to improving quality of life, help to tackle social exclusion and encourage healthier lifestyles. That White Paper was called "Valuing People". However, as I speak—ironically, about a third of the way through the European year of the disabled—an awful lot of learning-disabled people who are interested in sport do not feel that they are properly valued as people because of the IPC's decision.
  Earlier today, I received a message from Mencap asking me to make a three-part appeal: first, to call on the Government to urge the IPC and INAS-FID to work together to resolve these issues immediately; secondly, to call on the 1PC to extend its deadline to ensure that athletes with a learning disability are not excluded from the 2004 Olympics; and, thirdly, to urge
  770
  the Government to work with UK Sport to seek an interim solution to ensure that athletes with a learning disability are able to continue their training programmes. I do not think that that is too much to ask.
  9.46 pm
  The Minister for Sport (Mr. Richard Caborn): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Caton) for securing an Adjournment debate to discuss this very important issue for athletes with a learning disability and for disability sport as a whole.
  As my hon. Friend forcefully explained, the recent decision by the International Paralympic Committee not to allow athletes with a learning disability to participate in the 2004 Paralympic games in Athens was understandably a great disappointment to the athletes involved and to their families and supporters, and I will comment specifically on that in due course. However, I should like to say at the outset that the Government are determined to promote sport for people with disabilities to enable them to compete on equal terms in mainstream sport. That was clearly underlined last summer at the Manchester Commonwealth games, where, for the first time in a major multidisciplinary international event of that nature, able-bodied and disabled people competed for the same medals, which enabled them to compete on equal terms in mainstream sport. The Government take the funding and development of disability sport very seriously, and as Minister for Sport I will continue in my efforts to raise awareness and to extend opportunities for all those involved in disability sport.
  As a demonstration of that commitment, we have put in place extensive funding for disability sport at the elite and the grassroots levels. The British Paralympic Association has over the years received funding from UK Sport, which was further strengthened in 2002 with an award of £1.7 million in support of the British team, leading up to the Paralympic games in Athens in 2004. That award represented one of the largest ever investments in elite disability sport in the UK. The award comes in addition to the annual investment of more than £3 million in individual disability sports through the world-class performance programme. In addition, in England the world-class potential programme assists in the development of talented athletes with the potential to win medals in future international competitions over the next eight years. For example, disability swimming has been allocated more than £3 million up to 2005. For grassroots sport, we invest more than £1 million a year in disability sport directly, through Sport England. Since 1998, the majority of funding for disability sport has been channelled through Sport England to the English Federation for Disability Sport, which was set up with the purpose of leading a unified, co-ordinated and comprehensive approach to sport for disabled people.
  As I think you can see, Mr. Speaker, the Government are committing significant investment to develop disability sport at all levels in Britain. The benefits were apparent at the Sydney Paralympics in 2000 and at other international events since. However, it is generally agreed that the full benefits of investment in such programmes will not be realised until the Paralympic

  771
  games in Athens in 2004 and Beijing in 2008. However, funding is not the only issue. For example, I will have the pleasure of attending the Special Olympics in Dublin in June this year. The event will provide the opportunity for individuals with learning disabilities, at all ability levels and from all around the world, to participate at what will be an international sporting extravaganza.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Gower referred to athletes with learning disabilities. I am aware of the background to this issue. At the Paralympics in Sydney, 10 members of the Spanish male basketball team falsely claimed to have learning disabilities. As a result, the International Paralympic Committee felt that the eligibility verification system of the International Sports Federation for Persons with Intellectual Disability—INAS-FID, as my hon. Friend referred to it, which is the international governing body—was not adequate to ensure fair competition. That position was accepted by the governing body. Following that admission, the IPC suspended INAS-FID, and its athletes were not allowed to participate in any future IPC events—in particular, the 2004 Paralympic games in Athens. As a result, the IPC set out a series of conditions that INAS-FID had to meet to be considered for readmittance. I understand that, to help INAS-FID with the development and improvement of its procedures, the IPC has provided support and advice, as well as financial assistance.
  In order to finalise the programme of events for the 2004 Paralympic games in Athens, the IPC had to decide whether events for athletes with a learning disability would be included. Indeed, the IPC extended the deadline for that decision to allow INAS-FID more time to meet the conditions. Unfortunately, at a meeting on 31 January 2003, the IPC concluded that INAS-FID's procedures still did not comply with its guidelines. It was therefore decided that events for athletes with a learning disability could not be included in the Athens 2004 Paralympic games, as the IPC could not guarantee to the athletes taking part that they would be competing on a level playing field. From the details that I have seen, I believe that the IPC has given very careful consideration to this matter and has supported INAS-FID in its efforts to develop a system that meets the required conditions.
  I have a copy of a letter that was sent to the president of INAS-FID Europe, Mr. Bernard Atha. The letter lays out and explains what my hon. Friend mentioned earlier about the three conditions that were laid down at that meeting of 31 January. I will ask Mr. Atha if my hon. Friend may have a copy of this letter, as he may wish to see it. On the three conditions, the letter says:
  "First, the IPC Management Committee considered that INAS-FID had not yet demonstrated a systematic and reliable impairment verification process. INAS-FID had developed Eligibility Verification Procedures that included the provision of primary documentation on the assessment of intellectual disability, as requested by the IPC. This approach, however, had not been tested. INAS-FID had developed an 'IPC Athletes Eligibility Application Form' for athletes with an intellectual disability aspiring to compete in IPC competitions. However, the process itself was in the early stages of implementation and some of the key components were not finalised (e.g. the universal establishment of INAS-FID Member Nation Eligibility Committees).
  Second, INAS-FID had not successfully implemented a valid method of assessing the disability (the functional implication on sport) and the INAS-FID Sport Information & Consequences
  772
  Questionnaire (SICQ) had not been adequately tested. The INAS-FID report contained the proposed SICQ and a document outlining its background. However, the actual status and implementation of this questionnaire and the status of consultation by INAS-FID with the relevant sports did not provide sufficient evidence on the validity and reliability of the system in providing the linkage between intellectual disability and its effect on the ability of the athlete to practise his/her specific sport.
  Third, INAS-FID had not provided and adequately developed and implemented protest procedures process. The INAS-FID report only included a copy of a memorandum from the IPC Medical Officer to the INAS-FID President dated 5 November 2002 which contained recommendations on how to amend the IPC Handbook to include an authorised professional (psychologist) on any protest panel and also gave some guidelines on the development of a protest procedure. The report also included a statement of the INAS-FID Executive Committee's acceptance of these recommendations. However, no evidence was given by INAS-FID that a protest procedure had been developed and implemented in compliance with IPC Protest Procedures."
  That is pretty detailed and it may be challenged, but it nevertheless shows the depth to which the IPC has gone in putting its case.
  The IPC has agreed to prepare a further series of comments and suggestions to enable INAS-FID to identify what action needs to be taken to meet the conditions. In addition, the financial support from the IPC development fund, as well as technical advice and guidance, will continue to assist INAS-FID in the work that needs to be done.
  The IPC has also stated that, one month from a decision by its executive committee that INAS-FID has met the conditions, its athletes will be fully reinstated in IPC' events. As my hon. Friend has pointed out, a further result of that decision is that 15 UK athletes with learning disabilities have been informed that, as from 30 April 2003, they will lose the funding received from the world-class performance programme, as they will not be competing at the Al hens 2004 Paralympic games.
  UK Sport's action is in line with policy regarding the use of lottery funding in supporting success at the Olympic and Paralympic games and would apply to any athlete on the programme. However, I understand that the various organisations involved have made every effort to overcome that situation. Those efforts include UK Sport agreeing to continue to fund the swimmers with learning disabilities, so that they can attend the INAS-FID swimming world championships in Hong Kong in May.
  In addition, the athletes will still be eligible for support from the athlete career and education programme—the ACE programme—until April 2004, and they have been told what support is available to them. Furthermore, although world class performance programme funding is no longer available to those athletes, the national governing body in the UK for athletes with learning disabilities can apply for funding for future events through UK Sport.
  Those athletes may not be eligible for funding under the world-class potential programme. Under that scheme, they would not receive financial support until INAS-FID was reinstated in IPC events. However, in the meantime, they could train alongside other athletes

  773
  and have access to support services such as training camps, coaching and educational support. Indeed, the Amateur Swimming Association and UK Athletics have already submitted proposals to Sport England for athletes with learning disabilities to gain access services on that basis.
  At the end of the day, the decision is one for the IPC, and it has not been taken lightly. However, the IPC thought it necessary to ensure that the credibility of its events—in particular, the Paralympic games—is protected. The IPC is an independent body and Governments do not have a right to appeal against its decisions. Although the decision has severely affected UK athletes, the impact also affects athletes with learning disabilities in other countries.
  There are, however, steps that I can take as the Minister for Sport to ensure that the problem is resolved. My officials have been in contact with the British Paralympic Association about the matter and, as the UK member of the IPC, it has assured me that it will continue to press the IPC and INAS-FID to overcome the current problems and to work swiftly to establish an
  774
  acceptable eligibility verification and protest system. I believe that it is in everyone's interests to find a resolution to the problem as quickly as possible.
  I do not doubt that the UK athletes must be bitterly disappointed by the decision made by the IPC. They, as with all elite athletes, will have worked extremely hard towards their goal of the Paralympic games in Athens in 2004. My sympathy is with them because of the efforts that they have already put in. However, I can assure them that I will closely monitor events to ensure that all the national and international sports associations involved work together for a quick resolution to this issue. We will continue to support the BPA in its action to provide any necessary support and advice to the governing bodies. Although I accept that the withdrawal of funding will have caused difficulties for the athletes, I can confirm that UK Sport's decision to remove funding from the world-class performance programme is in line with the policy for this programme. None the less, I fully support the efforts by the funding organisations and the governing bodies of sport to provide support, wherever possible, to the athletes.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at Ten o'clock.

DEFENCE

  Iraq
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his policy is towards the commitment of British forces to long-term peacekeeping missions in urban areas in Iraq. [105449]

  Mr. Ingram
  We have made it clear that we are committed to help the Iraqi people rebuild their country once Saddam Hussein's regime is removed from power. We envisage that United Kingdom forces will help to provide a safe and secure environment to allow the renewal effort to begin.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he is taking to secure the Iraq/Iran border. [105463]

  Mr. Hoon
  The area in Southern Iraq in which United Kingdom forces are operating includes a significant segment of the Iraq/Iran border. UK forces are responsible for ensuring the security of the whole of the area under their control. I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government is making every effort to liaise closely with the Iranian authorities to reduce the scope for any potential misunderstandings. We see no need to take special measures relating to the security of the Iraq/Iran border.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, if he will make a statement on Iraq. [105467]

  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, if he will make a statement on the military situation in Iraq. [105468]

  Mr. Hoon
  I refer the hon. Members to the answer I gave a short while ago to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dudley, North (Mr. Cranston), my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor) and the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady).

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) soldiers from British Overseas Territories and (b) Gibraltarians are deployed in Iraq. [105248]

  Mr. Ingram
  Details of the number of soldiers from the British Overseas Territories and Gibraltarians are deployed in Iraq are not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), of 23 January 2003,Official Report, column 450W, on Iraq, how much of the money was spent on munitions. [105355]
  488W
  Mr. Ingram
  The costs identified in my earlier answer are only the net additional costs the Department has incurred. Operational costs are recorded only when normal rates of peacetime activity and consumption are exceeded. As a result figures do not record the cost of all munitions used, only those expended in excess of normal requirements. However, centrally held records do not identify separately the additional costs of munitions consumed.

  Jim Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment his Department has made of the logistic support required to sustain British forces in the Gulf region. [105453]

  Mr. Ingram
  The massive logistic effort, involving many of the 28,000 civilian and military personnel in the Defence Logistics Organisation and around 5,000 personnel in theatre, in support of United Kingdom armed forces operations in the Gulf, and the build up to it, has been extremely successful. The size of this task has been considerable; we have deployed an equivalent quantity of materiel to that supplied for the last Gulf conflict in half the time. This has ranged from some 13,000 tonnes of ammunition and over 15,000 vehicles, to 2.5 million operational ration packs. This level of logistic support is being maintained, including delivery of about 2,000 bags of mail per day totalling over 185 tonnes so far.

  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received about delays to mail from UK forces in Iraq to the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [106068]

  Mr. Ingram
  I have received no representations about delays to mail from United Kingdom forces in Iraq. On the wider question of mail services between UK and the Gulf area, I have received a large number of enquires from hon. Members and from the general public about services available. The British Forces Post Office is despatching and receiving mail regularly and there are no delays. Naturally, it is more difficult to arrange collection and delivery of mail to deployed units, many of which are moving rapidly across Iraq.

  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many hot meals a day soldiers in the Gulf conflict are receiving. [105512]

  Mr. Ingram
  Personnel who have moved forward into Iraq are currently on Operational Ration Packs. These provide for two hot meals and one cold meal, plus snacks, per day. Similarly, personnel in the camps in Gulf have access to at least two hot meals a day.

  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many women from each of the British armed forces are taking part in Operation Iraqi Freedom. [105215]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 27 March 2003]: As of 28 March 2003, there were 2,966 women serving with all three services in support of Operation TELIC. The figures by service are not available. Of these, 2,690 were serving in the Arabian Peninsular and 276 are in Cyprus.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on Iraqi defections. [105461]
  489W
  Mr. Hoon
  There have so far been no 'defections' of very senior politicians or military commanders to the coalition.

  The coalition is, however, currently holding over 8,000 prisoners of war, many of whom have surrendered.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his working relationship with the media during the conflict with Iraq. [105464]

  Dr. Moonie
  The working relationship between the Ministry of Defence and the media during times of conflict or war is covered in detail in the Green Book—"Working Arrangements with the Media in times of Emergency, Tension, Conflict or War".

  In the United Kingdom, we have provided the media with briefings by Ministers, officials and military officers, and arranged facilities to demonstrate our capabilities. In theatre, we have established a media information service at the Coalition Headquarters. We have also compiled a media pool of 128 accredited UK war correspondents who are now embedded with our forces in the Gulf.

  While it is inevitable that at times the relationship is bound to be tested, overall the new arrangements appear to be working very well for both parties.

  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on military co-ordination of humanitarian aid in Iraq. [105465]

  Mr. Ingram
  Coalition forces are taking the utmost care to minimise the effects of conflict on the Iraqi people. However, there is an urgent need for humanitarian relief, not least because of damage and neglect during the long years of Saddam Hussein's misrule.

  United Kingdom forces will, where they are able, deliver emergency humanitarian assistance to the people of Iraq until the post-conflict security situation is stable enough for civilian aid agencies to deploy. The Government have allocated up to £30 million to United Kingdom Forces to provide this immediate assistance.

  In due course, the intention is that responsibility for humanitarian provision should be transferred to civilian aid agencies, however, assistance provided so far by UK forces has included drinking water, food, shelter, and medical supplies. Supplies have been delivered both overland from Kuwait, and through the deep port at Umm Qasr.

  European Security and Defence Policy
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, If he will make a statement on the future of the European Security and Defence Policy. [105469]

  Mr. Hoon
  We continue to make progress in developing the European Security and Defence European Union agreed Policy. Earlier this month, NATO and the arrangements, known as "Berlin Plus", giving the EU ready access to the Alliance's common assets and capabilities for operations. As a consequence, the EU is now able to launch its first military mission in Macedonia, taking over from the NATO operation "Allied Harmony" today. This is a tangible 490W
  demonstration of the strategic partnership between the two organisations and of the EU's determination to strengthen its ability to undertake crisis management operations. We also continue to make progress on improving European military capabilities and are actively engaged in the debate on the future of the ESDP in the Convention on the Future of Europe.

  Army Deployment
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of the Army is deployed or warned to deploy on operations. [105470]

  Mr. Ingram
  Around 57 per cent. of the Army are currently deployed and between four to five per cent. are preparing to deploy on Operations.

  Troop Replacement (Gulf)
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to replace units currently engaged in the Gulf. [105471]

  Mr. Hoon
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham).

  Aircraft Carriers
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if it will be possible to adapt either of the two new aircraft carriers so as to make them interoperable with the Rafale aircraft. [97328]

  Mr. Ingram
  As we announced on 30 September 2002, the Royal Navy's two new aircraft carriers will be configured to operate the STOVL version of the Joint Strike Fighter rather than a conventionally launched aircraft such as Rafale. The vessels will, however, be constructed to an adaptable design. which will allow us, if we so decide in the future, to modify the vessels from their original STOVL configuration to facilitate conventional flight operations.

  Although it might be technically possible to build the vessels so that they could operate STOVL-JSF and conventional carrier aircraft simultaneously, we assess that this could not viably or safely be achieved without substantial revision of the basic design. This would impact on construction and through life operations, as well as affordability.

  Armed Forces
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the effect of a declaration of war is on the(a) pay, (b) taxation and (c) legal liability of armed forces personnel. [105223]

  Dr. Moonie
  The declaration of war has no effect on the pay or taxation of armed forces personnel. In the event of a fatality, the only tax issue affected is the estate of the deceased member of the armed forces of the Crown, which may qualify for an exemption from inheritance tax under section 154 of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984. The presence or absence of a declaration of war does not have any effect on the legal position of
  491W
  armed forces personnel. Once a state of armed conflict exists, international humanitarian law applies to the conduct of the campaign.

  Colombia
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether UK military liaison teams provided(a) advice and (b) assistance to the Colombian armed forces during 2002; and what plans there are to do so this year. [105584]

  Mr. Ingram
  There have been occasions when we have sent military liaison teams to Colombia to provide advice and training assistance. The nature of this advice and assistance is confidential between governments and I am withholding the details under Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, which covers information whose disclosure would be harmful to national security, defence or international relations. The uncertainties regarding military deployment as a result of Operation TELIC make forward planning for this type of assistance this year impossible at present.

  Departmental Creche Facilities
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what crèche facilities are provided by his Department and at what cost. [104305]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence provides the following child care support for its civilian and military employees:45 work place nurseries offering 1,700 full day care places for children aged three months to five years. (Three new nurseries were opened during 2002–03 at Northwood, Andover and Ensleigh Bath).
  36 crèches (benefiting 700 children) providing occasional care and 70 pre schools (benefiting over 2,000 children) providing education on a sessional basis, primarily for Service families.
  14 wrap-around care schemes for 5–12 year olds (benefiting 350 children) providing after school care to match the working day.
  15 holiday play schemes providing full day care for 5℃12 year olds during school holidays (three are shared with other Government Departments) benefiting 550 children.
  Two child care voucher schemes: for civilian employees in Glasgow and a new scheme for Defence Science and Technology Laboratory staff, which started May 2002. (The schemes benefit over 18 parents).

  Within MOD responsibility for child care is delegated to the main budget areas. Initial funding can be from a variety of sources: the central budget allocation, MOD's grant from the Civil Service Modernisation fund (£900,000 in FY2000–01 and FY 2001–02 only), local authorities, benevolent funds or raised by the parents themselves. The business case then determines how much direct or indirect subsidy the MOD gives.

  MOD nurseries are usually run by contractors, as commercial enterprises. They frequently receive indirect subsidies in the form of a peppercorn rent. In addition about 10 per cent. of the nurseries offer direct subsidies, which can reduce the fees by around a third. Some play schemes also receive direct subsidies. MOD's two voucher schemes provide employees with about a third of actual costs for the registered care of their choice at a cost of some £16,000 a month.
  492W
  No further information regarding the MOD's contribution towards the costs of child care schemes is held centrally and it could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Gulf Forces (Equipment)
  David Burnside
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the availability of(a) boots and (b) protection goggles to members of the armed forces who are stationed in the Gulf. [103134]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 17 March 2003]: There are sufficient quantities of both desert boots and protection goggles available for all personnel expected to fulfil a combat role in the Gulf.

  Gulf War Veterans
  Mr. Malin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will encourage the Trustees of the Gulf Trust Fund to make payments of(a) capital and (b) income to civilian Gulf War veterans. [105979]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Gulf Trust was set up on 12 February 1991 to meet the financial needs arising out of the engagement of the British Armed Forces and civilian personnel attached to or accompanying British Armed Forces in military and other operations relating to or in connection with the 1990–1991 Gulf conflict. The Gulf Trust was administered independently of the Ministry of Defence in accordance with Charity Law by the United Services Trustee. The fund was closed on 31 July 1994 at which point the remaining money in the fund was distributed on a pro-rata basis to the three Service Benevolent Funds. It would be inappropriate for the Ministry of Defence to intervene in any issues concerning disbursements of funds raised by the Gulf Trust. All enquiries, representations, applications for financial assistance or questions regarding the administration of funds raised by the Gulf Trust, should be directed as follows:

  RN, RM, and RFA personnel and all other sea-borne civilians:

  King George's Fund for Sailors

  8 Hatherley Street

  London

  SW1P 2YY

  Army personnel and all other civilians:

  The Army Benevolent Fund

  41 Queens Gate

  South Kensington

  London

  SW7 5HR

  493W
  RAF personnel:

  The RAF Benevolent Fund

  67 Portland Place

  London

  W1N4AR

  Kosovo
  Mr. Roy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many service personnel are serving in Kosovo. [106450]

  Mr. Ingram
  As at 21 March 2003 there were 1,264 United Kingdom Service Personnel serving in Kosovo.

  Middle East
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much has been spent since the end of hostilities of the Gulf War in 1991 by Her Majesty's Government on operations in the Middle East in each year since 1991, broken down by each of the armed services. [105780]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Department identifies the costs of Operations in terms of the net additional costs it has incurred. The costs which the Department would have incurred had the operation not been undertaken—expenditure on wages and salaries or on conducting training exercises for example—are deducted from the total costs of the operation. The information requested is as follows:

  £ million

  Year

  Costs of operations

  1992–93

  551

  1993–94

  179

  1994–95

  58

  1995–96

  14

  1996–97

  6

  1997–98

  16

  1998–99

  35

  1999–2000

  28

  2000–01

  25

  2001–02

  161

  2002–032

  2 31,045

  1 Denotes figure calculated on a full resource cost basis; all previous figures are cash-based.

  2 Estimate

  3 Includes £1,000 million for operations against Iraq.

  This information cannot be sub-divided into costs for each of the services. Costs are reported by Top Level budget holders. None of these are single-service organisations.

  Ministry Building
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which company is providing the doors for the refurbishment of the main MOD building; what types of wood will be used in their manufacture; and what efforts have been made to ensure that the timber used is being sourced from legal and sustainable sources. [105387]
  494W
  Dr. Moonie
  Contracts have been awarded for the supply of doors in the refurbished Main Building as follows:Swift Horsman. Timber doors made from American White Oak. PFI Contractor Skanska United Kingdom has paid a premium for a Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certified chain of custody.
  Stafford Bridge Doors. The frames, lippings and veneers of which are made from American White Oak. Cores are Ghanaian Celtis finger jointed off-cuts. The American White Oak originates from a FSC certified custody chain and the larger frames come from North American sustainable forests. Ghana is a member of International Tropical Timber Organisation with certification that the products are from a Sustained Yield Management system.

  Nimrod Patrol Aircraft
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects the fleet of 18 Nimrod MRA.4 Maritime Patrol Aircraft will be operational; why these have been delayed; how much the aircraft will cost; how much they were originally expected to cost; and if he will make a statement. [104238]

  Mr. Ingram
  My noble Friend the Minister for Defence Procurement (Lord Bach) announced in another place on 19 February 2003,Official Report, columns 175–77W, that, as a result of the recent agreement with BAE SYSTEMS to restructure the Nimrod MRA4 contract, the revised in-service date is 2009. This is now defined as the delivery of the sixth series production aircraft. The balance of the 18 aircraft fleet is envisaged to be delivered during the subsequent period to mid 2011. The reasons for the delay are those that are indicated by the reply my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Moonie) gave to the hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) on 10 December 2002, Official Report, columns 222–23W. The Agreement with BAE SYSTEMS recognises the delays that have occurred on this programme by deferring the start of series production of later aircraft until we have seen demonstrated performance from the first three flight trials aircraft. When an appropriate level of design maturity has been reached (and we envisage this to be in late 2005), we will then be in a position to finalise the negotiations with the Company over the production price of the remaining number of aircraft. As my hon. Friend also indicated in his statement of 19 February, the MOD has agreed to make a contribution to this restructured programme of an additional £270 million. Subject to on-going negotiations, this increase therefore brings the expected contract value to some £2,600 million at current prices. I have nothing further to add to the statement made by my hon. Friend on 19 February 2003.

  Northern Ireland
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with his colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office about the establishment of a UDR Fund to recognise and support the widows and families of soldiers serving with the Ulster Defence Regiment who were murdered by terrorists in Northern Ireland. [105980]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence has, to date, had no formal discussions with the Northern Ireland Office about this issue. However I did meet with
  495W
  representatives from the UDR widows and widowers on 5 March 2003. This matter is being considered, although the Department is not yet in a position to make a decision on the way ahead.

  SA80
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on problems with the SA80 in the conflict in the Gulf; and what steps are being taken to overcome such problems. [105513]

  Mr. Ingram
  Hot and dusty environments—such as those pertaining in the Gulf area—are the most demanding in which to operate small arms of any kind. The new cleaning regime introduced for the modified SA80 is minimising the effects of the harsh environmental conditions. Units have expressed confidence in the modified SA80, and its performance during operations in Iraq thus far has demonstrated that it is one of the most reliable weapons in its class.

  Service Personnel
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the facilities available for families to communicate with service personnel by television. [105644]

  Mr. Ingram
  The British Forces Broadcasting Service (BFBS) is produced by the Services Sound and Vision Corporation (SSVC) under contract to the Ministry of Defence and provides radio and television services to most locations overseas where significant numbers of British forces are permanently stationed and, subject to practicality, to operational theatres.

  Two channels of BFBS TV, plus BBC News 24 and Sky News, are transmitted continuously from the UK to a satellite covering the Greater European and middle east operational areas. The signal is distributed to 55 locations in Kuwait and from 27 March to parts of southern Iraq. BFBS TV is therefore available live at all major UK military locations in the middle east, as well as to RN andRFA ships in the area.

  BFBS TV film messages from both service personnel in the Gulf and their families in the UK and Germany, and transmit these as "fillers" between TV programmes in lieu of the more usual community and welfare announcements. BFBS has a 'tie-in' with ITV's flagship programme "This Morning" (which is retransmitted on BFBS) which also provides a chance for families to see video messages from their people on operational duty. BFBS TV also communicates to the Forces via a daily news magazine programme, `BFBS Reports' which goes out across the BFBS network.

  Student Reservists
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether university student reservists called up to serve in the Gulf will be required to pay back the additional year's student loan that they may have to take out; and if he will make a statement. [104978]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 27 March 2003]: Reservists who are full-time university students may apply to have their call-out notices revoked or deferred.
  496W
  Details on how to make such applications are given at the time call-out notices are served. The situation referred to in the question is unlikely, therefore, to arise.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Air Pollution
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much funding has been made available by her Department to tackle air pollution in Buckinghamshire in 2002–03. [105695]

  Alun Michael
  The Department wrote to local authorities in England on 14 February last year inviting applications for Supplementary Credit Approvals to support proposals for capital expenditure in 2002–03 on their air quality management duties under Part IV of the Environment Act 1995. Milton Keynes was the only authority in Buckinghamshire to apply, and £30,000 in additional borrowing powers has been awarded. Since 1997/98 the Government's annual revenue support grant settlement has included provision to support local authorities running costs associated with these duties.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many days of(a) moderate, (b) high and (c) very high air pollution there were (i) in the United Kingdom and (ii) in Buckinghamshire in 2002; and if she will make a statement on the suspected causes of high and very high readings. [106013]

  Alun Michael
  Air quality is now a devolved matter therefore my reply focuses on England. According to data provided by the Automatic Urban and Rural monitoring Network (AURN), the number of days air pollution at at least one AURN sites in England in 2002 was:

  (a) moderate: 194.

  (b) high: 25.

  (c) very high: 4.

  Very high readings were all related to particles (PM10). Of the 25 high readings, two were related to sulphur dioxide (S02), four were related to ozone and the remaining 19 were all related to particles (PM10). Meteorological conditions also affects the level of all pollutants.

  There is no AURN site in Buckinghamshire but all local authorities, including in Buckinghamshire, have a statutory duty under Part IV of the Environment Act 1995 to review and assess the local air quality in their area against the national air quality objectives. I have provided information on the five local authorities in Buckinghamshire in PQ 106012.

  John Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the air quality strategy. [105421]

  Alun Michael
  The Government and Devolved Administrations' air quality policies are set out in detail in the air quality strategy for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, published in January 2000. An Addendum to the strategy was published in February 2003. The strategy and addendum can be found at http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/airquality/index.htm.
  497W
  The strategy sets objectives for nine main air pollutants to protect human health and two objectives to protect vegetation and ecosystems. The air pollutants covered by the strategy are benzene; 1,3-butadiene; carbon monoxide; lead; nitrogen dioxide; particles (PM10); ozone; sulphur dioxide and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.

  The Government and devolved Administrations monitor progress to meeting the objectives in the strategy through the national air quality monitoring network, which consists of over 1,500 sites. Over 120 of these sites are sophisticated, real-time monitors from which information is available hour-by-hour, 24 hours a day, via a dedicated website: www.airquality.co.uk.

  Air quality monitoring indicates that we are on course or have already met objectives for six of the nine pollutants in England, namely benzene, 1,3-butadiene, carbon monoxide, lead, sulphur dioxide and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. This is as a result of the measures that have been implemented over the last decade or so.

  Additional measures are likely to be needed if we are to meet the nitrogen dioxide and particles objectives in certain parts of England. We are considering those in the context of the delivery of our DEFRA/DfT joint Air Quality Public Service Agreement. We are also expecting to exceed the ozone objective in parts of southern England. However we believe that internationally agreed measures are the most effective ways to tackling this pollutant as ground level ozone concentrations in southern England are influenced largely by transboundary pollution. The UK will play a key role in seeking further agreements on international measures.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what progress has been made in Buckinghamshire towards meeting the National Air Quality Strategy targets. [106012]

  Alun Michael
  Local authorities have a statutory duty under Part IV of the Environment Act 1995 to review and assess the local air quality in their area against the national air quality objectives for seven of the pollutants prescribed in regulations for the purpose of local air quality management. Where it is likely that the air quality objectives will not be met by the relevant deadline, the local authority must designate an air quality management area and produce an action plan setting out the measures they intend to implement to work towards meeting the air quality objectives.

  Of the five local authorities in the Buckinghamshire region (Milton Keynes, Aylesbury Vale District Council, Chiltern District Council, South Buckinghamshire District Council and Wycombe District Council), only one authority (Wycombe District Council) has declared an air quality management area along the M40 motorway due to predicted exceedences of the annual mean Nitrogen Dioxide objective. Wycombe District Council has produced an action plan which has been appraised by my Department. Wycombe will now have to work with the Highways Agency and other stakeholders to look to implement the most cost-effective and proportionate measures to improve the local air quality within the area affected by the M40.

  Coastal Erosion (Norfolk)
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the risk to the Norfolk Broads as a result of coastal erosion in the Happisburgh area. [103778]

  Margaret Beckett
  Responsibility for assessing such risks rests with the local operating authorities. The Environment Agency has sea defence responsibility for the length of coastline from Cart Gap, Eccles to Winterton, which fronts the low lying hinterland including the Norfolk Broads. North Norfolk district council has coast protection responsibility for the cliffs at Happisburgh. There is some concern abut the risk of a breach in the frontage at Cart Gap as a result of cliff erosion, but both operating authorities judge that such a risk is not expected for at least 15 to 20 years. Both authorities are keeping the position under review, and the Council monitors the rate of erosion monthly.

  Departmental Catering Services
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the cost was of(a) the in-house canteen and (b) other catering services provided by the Department in 2002. [104251]

  Alun Michael
  The costs of the subsidies paid by the Department for the four in house canteens, three in central London and one in York, for 2002 was £132,413.75.

  The figures for the full costs of these canteens and other catering services could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Departmental Invoices
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs 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. [104313]

  Alun Michael
  Information on the occasions where the Department, Agencies and non-departmental public bodies failed to pay valid invoices within the 30 days or after the agreed credit period can be obtained only by disproportionate cost. However I am able to say that the percentage of bills which were paid by Defra within 30 days of receipt of a valid invoice was 91 per cent., or 85 per cent. when FMD transactions are included for financial year 2001–02. The average percentage of bills paid by the Departments' Agencies was 93 per cent. over the same period. The average percentage of bills paid by the Departments non-departmental public bodies was 76 per cent. over the same period.

  Dog Fouling
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many fines were imposed for dog fouling during 2001. [105714]

  Alun Michael
  The number of fines imposed nationally for dog fouling during 2001–02 was 2,227.

  Environment Agency
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what plans she has to expand the remit of the Environment Agency; [105050]

  (2) what recent discussions she has had with the Environment Agency regarding a more independent status for the organisation. [105052]

  Mr. Meacher
  We intend that the Environment Agency should take responsibility from local authorities and internal drainage boards for all watercourses that present the greatest flood risk. We also intend that the Agency's flood defence functions should be funded by a single stream of DEFRA block grant which will, subject to enactment of the water bill, replace our grants for individual capital schemes and also the levies currently paid by local authorities. The timing of these changes will be announced in due course. The Department has no other plans to change the remit or status of the Agency.

  External Reports
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list(a) the title and subject, (b) the total cost to her Department and (c) the commissioned author or organisation of each external report commissioned by her Department and its predecessors in each year since 1997. [103714]

  Alun Michael
  The information requested in this question is not held centrally in the form requested and could be collated only at a disproportionate cost.

  Rural Tourism
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she will take to ensure the promotion of rural tourism after the merger of the English Tourism Council and the British Tourist Authority. [105533]

  Dr. Howells
  I have been asked to reply.

  VisitBritain, the new organisation which has been created from the merger of the British Tourist Authority and the English Tourism Council will market England within Britain and Britain to the rest of the world. VisitBritain is developing a comprehensive long-term strategy for the marketing of England, to include the countryside. A partnership between VisitBritain, the Regional Development Agencies, the Regional Tourist Boards and the private sector will shortly launch a spring 2003 tourism marketing campaign urging British people to explore England.

  Waste Minimisation and Recycling Schemes
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what priority will be given to the funding of waste minimisation and recycling schemes in local authorities with a significant number of landfill sites in their area when changes to the Landfill Tax Credit Scheme are introduced; and if she will make a statement. [98525]
  500W
  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 24 February 2003]: Prior to current Landfill Tax Credit Scheme (LTCS) reform, LTCS funding was directed mainly at approved environmental and social/community projects (approximately one third of the Scheme) and at local authority collection and recycling infrastructure improvements.

  Under the proposed reforms, the former will continue to be funded along similar lines as now, while the latter will be supported through closer focussing on sustainable waste management objectives. That will certainly include suitable waste minimisation and recycling schemes.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Aid Agencies
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps the UK Government are taking to ensure aid agencies have safe access to endangered populations. [105200]

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

  Cuba
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on aid to Cuba. [105497]

  Clare Short
  We do not have a government-to-government bilateral aid programme to Cuba nor do we have plans to develop one.

  Funding for DFID programmes in Cuba in 2001–02 was £346,000 primarily through NGOs.

  In addition DFID contributes £1 million as its share of the EC aid programme to Cuba.

  Emergency Preparations
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development for what reasons the Government has not made extra funding available to her Department to finance emergency preparedness. [105202]

  Clare Short
  On 27 March the Chancellor announced that HM Treasury would provide an additional £120 million to DFID for its work in Iraq.

  Humanitarian Assistance
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps the Government will take to support the role of the UN in co-ordinating humanitarian relief efforts. [105181]

  Clare Short
  It is essential that international plans are co-ordinated. This is the role of the UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA). We
  501W
  have provided £150,000 to support their Iraq co-ordination centre in Cyprus and have seconded two members of staff.

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps the Government will take to ensure that humanitarian assistance is given on the basis of need by impartial and independent organisations. [105212]

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

  Iraq
  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what(a) bilateral and (b) multilateral funding her Department has allocated for development aid for Iraqi citizens in (i) 2002–03 and (ii) each of the next three years. [105065]

  Clare Short
  Our bi-lateral programme assistance to Iraq in 2002–03 is expected to total approximately £8 million.

  Since the onset of the current crisis, DFID has committed £50 million to support preparations by humanitarian agencies, including £32 million for the Red Cross/Red Crescent and £8 million for the World Food Programme. DFID has a further £160 million earmarked for the humanitarian response and is considering further assistance in line with emerging needs. We will consider further resource needs for the reconstruction phase in due course. It is not possible at this stage to anticipate the sums that will be required over the next three years, or to anticipate the balance between bi-lateral and multilateral funding.

  DFID provides 19 per cent. of European Community (EC) funding to Iraq through the Humanitarian Aid Office of the European Commission (ECHO). Since 1991, these contributions have totalled £15 million.

  On 21 March 2003, the College of European Commissioners proposed to release an additional 79 million euros from their Emergency Aid Reserve for Iraq, increasing their total humanitarian commitment in the current crisis to 100 million euros. This funding is still to be approved by the European Council.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the levels of food and medicines stockpiled by the coalition on the Iraqi border for Iraqi refugees and internally displaced people within Iraq. [105106]

  Mr. Ingram
  I have been asked to reply.

  United Kingdom forces will, where they are able, deliver emergency humanitarian assistance to the people of Iraq until the post-conflict security situation stabilises sufficiently for civilian agencies to deploy. The coalition has long recognised that this would be the case, and has made extensive preparations, including the purchase and pre-positioning of food, water, medicines and other
  502W
  supplies. Those supplies will be deployed as any humanitarian requirements arise, and on the advice of experts from the Department for International Development.

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how the(a) cost and (b) logistical challenge of aid operations to replace the Oil for Food Programme will be met. [105201]

  Clare Short
  The immediate humanitarian priority is to get the UN humanitarian actors back into Iraq as soon as the security situation allows, at the same time we must work to get the Oil For Food (OFF) programme back up and running. A new Security Council Resolution has been passed which allows the UN Secretary General to take charge of the programme.

  The UK has meanwhile been in discussion with the UN humanitarian agencies, Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement and international NGOs to determine what resources they require to procure food to cover any temporary, gap in the OFF programme. The UN is currently planning on a medium case scenario under which the World Food Programme will provide food assistance for a three-month period. We have committed £115 million to support the preparations of our humanitarian partners including the World Food Programme. The WFP is acutely aware of the need to maintain and re-build the Iraqi distribution system used for OFF so that humanitarian supplies can be delivered quickly to those in need.

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans she has to discuss the re-building of Iraqi institutions with European Union partners. [105829]

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

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how she will ensure that humanitarian aid and re-construction of Iraq are carried out under the auspices of the United Nations. [105830]

  Clare Short
  The UN humanitarian agencies are well prepared and ready to re-enter Iraq as soon as the security situation allows. Iraq staff are still working within Iraq. The UN system has prepositioned stocks and supplies in the region, the World Food Programme has one months worth of food for two million people and is procuring more. The next priority is to get the Oil For Food (OFF) programme back up and running. A Security Council Resolution has now been passed to allow the UN Secretary General to take charge of the programme. 16 million people are reliant on OFF. Most have been provided with food supplies to the end of April but thereafter the need to supply food will be very urgent.

  We are also working to secure a UN mandate which will be required to provide legal authority for the reconstruction effort, and to make possible the

  503W
  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.

  Liberia
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent discussions her Department as had with the UN Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs regarding food shortages in Liberia. [105148]

  Clare Short
  We have not held recent discussions with the UN Office for Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UNOCHA) on the subject. DFID has provided substantial support to the International Committee of the Red Cross, Medicins Sans Frontieres, the UN High Commission for Refugees and UNOCHA in Liberia during the past year for both refugees and displaced people. Some of this assistance may be used to help tackle food security needs.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the expected saving to public funds from the private finance initiative schemes due to become operational in 2003. [105720]

  Clare Short
  DFID has no private finance initiatives.

  Somali Peace Process
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what support her Department is giving to the Somali peace process taking place in Kenya; and if she will make a statement. [105619]

  Clare Short
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has contributed £25,000 to the Somali Reconciliation process. Since January 2003, a new joint DFID/FCO Officer in the High Commission in Nairobi has engaged with the reconciliation talks and has facilitated several policy discussions on behalf of the Intergovernmental Authority on Development ([GAD) Special Envoy.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Bank Account Access (Post Office)
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will seek to ensure that banks allow customers with regular current accounts to access their pensions and benefits at the Post Office; and if she will make a statement. [105577]

  Mr. Timms
  The Post Office currently provides banking services on behalf of Girobank/Alliance and Leicester, Barclays, Lloyds TSB, the Co-Operative, and the Internet Banks Smile and Cahoot. This (paper-based) service enables customers of these banks to cash cheques at post offices free of charge. The Post Office is in discussion with the banks to modernise these services and to extend commercial arrangements to cover other financial institutions. This is a commercial matter between Post Office Ltd. and the individual financial institutions.
  504W
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the(a) banks and (b) building societies that will offer access to (i) standard current accounts and (ii) basic bank accounts through the Post Office. [105578]

  Mr. Timms
  The Post Office currently provides banking services on behalf of Girobank/Alliance and Leicester, Barclays Lloyds TSB, the Co-Operative, and the Internet Banks Smile and Cahoot. This (paper-based) service enables customers of these banks to cash cheques at post offices free of charge. The Post Office is in discussion with the banks to modernise these services and to extend commercial arrangements to cover other financial institutions.

  From April this year the Post Office will provide access to basic bank accounts on behalf of Barclays, Lloyds TSB, Royal Bank of Scotland/Nat West, HSBC, Abbey National, HBOS, Alliance and Leicester, NAG, the Co-operative Bank, First Trust, the Bank of Ireland and the Nationwide Building Society.

  Broadband
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what financial assistance her Department is providing to help small businesses in rural Suffolk access broadband services. [104807]

  Mr. Timms
  DTI has supplied the East of England Development Agency with £3.22 million from the UK Broadband Fund. Part of this funding has been used towards the RABBIT initiative (Remote Area Broadband Inclusion Trial), which has supplied SMEs throughout the East of England with financial grants to help purchase broadband connections other than ADSL or cable modem. EEDA's connecting communities competition, which aims to provide funding for groups of companies or individuals towards obtaining broadband connections for their communities, has seen more applications from Suffolk than any other EEDA county.

  Business Development
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what help her Department gives to(a) district and (b) borough councils to help local business to (i) expand and (ii) start up. [105514]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The Department supports small businesses and those thinking of starting a business through the Small Business Service (SBS). SBS works through a network of business link operators across England who provide information, advice, or access to experts on any aspect needed to start and expand a business. The budget totalled £140 million in 2002–03. Business link operators are independent autonomous organisations who work in partnership with local organisations such as their local authorities, district and borough councils.

  SBS funds over 90 Phoenix Development Fund projects to promote enterprise in disadvantaged areas amongst disadvantaged groups, a number have active local council involvement and two are run by local councils. Haringey council is being funded to undertake enterprise outreach work with young people in the local African Caribbean community. Stevenage borough

  505W
  council is receiving funding for 'Community Enterprise Champions' to work with groups who have found it difficult to access traditional forms of business support e.g. ethnic minorities, women and young people.

  Fuel Cell Technology
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the support given by the Carbon Trust to the development of fuel cell technology in the UK. [105218]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 27 March 2003]: The department works closely with the Carbon Trust on a range of energy and carbon related matters including fuel cell technology development. The Carbon Trust, an independent, not for profit company, has recently published an assessment of low carbon technologies and fuel cells were identified as one of its priorities for support through its Low Carbon Innovation Programme.

  In February, we published a joint study with the Carbon Trust reviewing the commercial potential of fuel cells in the UK. This study will help the department and the Carbon Trust develop a complementary approach to supporting the development and commercialisation of fuel cells for the home and export markets. Within this co-operative framework, individual funding decisions are matters for the respective organisations. In the case of the Carbon Trust, these decisions are taken by the company.

  Post Office Card Account
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action she is taking to promote the use of Post Office card accounts. [105776]

  Mr. Timms
  The Post Office card account is one of a range of accounts that people can use to receive benefit payments into, and which will enable people who wish

  Biodegradable municipal solid waste

  Waste tyres

  Used to generate heat (thousand tonnes of oil equivalent)

  Percentage of total renewables and wastes used to generate heat

  Electricity generated (GWh)

  Percentage of total electricity generate from renewables and wastes

  Used to generated heat (thousand tonnes of oil equivalent)

  Percentage of total renewables and wastes used to generate heat

  Electricity generated (GWh)

  Percentage of total electricity from generated renewables and wastes

  1992

  49.0

  11.2

  177

  2.7

  3.7

  0.8

  —

  —

  1993

  44.9

  6.9

  251

  4.3

  3.9

  0.6

  18

  0.3

  1994

  46.8

  5.2

  449

  6.1

  3.4

  0.4

  88

  1.2

  1995

  48.5

  5.1

  471

  6.5

  2.3

  0.2

  135

  1.9

  1996

  50.6

  5.3

  490

  8.0

  —

  —

  129

  2.1

  1997

  14.3

  1.5

  585

  7.9

  —

  —

  139

  1.9

  1998

  24.1

  2.8

  849

  9.2

  —

  —

  84

  0.9

  1999

  32.0

  4.0

  856

  8.4

  —

  —

  55

  0.5

  2000

  40.6

  5.6

  862

  8.2

  —

  —

  26

  0.2

  2001

  46.5

  6.6

  948

  9.4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Notes:

  1. '—' means nil or negligible (less than half the final digit shown).

  2. As waste tyres are not a biodegradable waste, the two sets of figures have not been added together.

  Source:

  Digests of United Kingdom Energy Statistics

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Mark Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proportion of UK companies employ 15 or fewer employees; and what proportion of the UK workforce such establishments employ. [105819]
  506W
  to do so to be able to collect their benefits in cash at post offices. Our aim is that people should be able to choose the option that suits them best. Information about all the options is being supplied to benefit, pension and tax credit customers by the Department for Work and Pensions and the Inland Revenue. Post Office Ltd is also making its own material available to customers.

  Quality Mark
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimates she has made of the number of builders that will receive reduced insurance premiums as a result of the new health and safety assessments made as part of the Quality Mark scheme. [101348]

  Mr. Wilson
  Discounts on liability insurance premiums are a commercial proposition, open to all Quality Marked firms. They are part of a package of financial benefits which will help drive take up of the scheme. Likely numbers are difficult to estimate at this early stage. Firms which do not initially pass the required health and safety assessment are given advice on how to meet the standards, to access the discount.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what the total amount was of(a) electricity and (b) heat produced by the combustion of biodegradable municipal solid waste (i) including and (ii) excluding tyres in the United Kingdom every year since 1992; and what percentage of the total renewable energy produced these represented; [105669]

  (2) what the total amount of (a) electricity and (b) heat produced by the combustion of tyres in the United Kingdom was in each year since 1992; and what percentage of the total renewable energy produced these represented. [105668]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answers 28 March 2003]: The available information is as follows:

  Nigel Griffiths
  Data for businesses with 15 or fewer employees is not available. However, published figures do cover the size-classes 0–9 employees and 10–19 employees.
  507W
  At the start of 2001 there were about 3.5 million businesses with 0.9 employees and they employed a little over 6.5 million people. This represents nearly 95 per cent. of the UK business population and 29 per cent. of UK employment.

  About 3.67 million businesses had 0–19 employees. They employed 8.1 million people. This represents nearly 98 per cent. of the UK business population and 36 per cent. of UK employment. The 10–19 size-class accounted for an extra 112,000 businesses and 1.57 million employment.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Broadband
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what action he is taking to maximise broadband connections to new housing developments. [105308]

  Mr. McNulty
  On 14 March the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister published a public consultation document entitled "The Building Regulations and Electronic Communications Services (Broadband)1". The aim of this consultation is to assess whether the demand for broadband services is being restricted by the inconvenience people may experience when retrospectively installing broadband services in existing premises, and whether this should be addressed through the Building Regulations, by Government supported voluntary means or not at all. The consultation closes on 13 June 2003.

  1 Available at http://www.safety.odpm.gov.uk/bregs/consult/brecs/index.htm

  Council House Rents (East Riding)
  David Davis
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what estimate he has made of unpaid council house rents in the East Riding of Yorkshire in each year since 1997. [105279]

  Mr. McNulty
  The information requested is tabled.

  East Riding Of Yorkshire Local authority housing arrears (unaudited figures)

  (£000s)

  Date

  Current tenants

  Former tenants

  Total

  31 March 1997

  920

  88

  1,008

  31 March 1998

  908

  263

  1,171

  31 March 1999

  634

  305

  938

  31 March 2000

  842

  319

  1,161

  31 March 2001

  1,198

  311

  1,509

  31 March 2002

  940

  503

  1,443

  Source

  Second housing subsidies and grants form

  Development Certificates
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what legal duties Swale borough council has when issuing a lawful development certificate to(a) consult parish councils and (b) inform elected council members. [105225]
  508W
  Mr. McNulty
  There is no statutory requirement on local planning authorities to consult parish councils when issuing lawful development certificates. The local planning authority may, however, seek evidence from the parish council if there is reason to believe that they possess relevant information about a specific lawful development certificate application. Lawful development certificate applications and decisions are entered in the local planning authority's planning register in accordance with section 69 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The planning register is available for inspection by the public, including members of parish councils and elected council members.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many homeless households in the constituency of Buckingham have been resident in bed and breakfast accommodation in 2002; and what percentage of these claimed social security benefits in 2002. [106022]

  Mr. McNulty
  Information reported by Aylesbury Vale District Council on the number of homeless households resident in bed and breakfast hotels under statutory homelessness provisions at the end of each quarter in 2002 is given as follows. This information relates to households in the local authority area. Aylesbury Vale DC comprises the entire parliamentary constituency of Buckingham, and part of Aylesbury. The number of these households claiming, or in receipt of, social security benefits is not collected centrally.

  Homeless households in bed and breakfast accommodation (including shared facility annexes): Aylesbury Vale DC

  2002

  Number

  31 March

  1

  30 June

  4

  30 September

  4

  31 December

  0

  Note:

  Includes households accommodated pending completion of inquiries by the local authority.

  Source:

  ODPM P1(E) housing returns (quarterly).

  Local Authority Housing
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many council houses there are in each(a) parliamentary constituency and (b) district or borough council area. [106024]

  Mr. McNulty
  The information is as follows:

  (a) The number of council houses broken down by parliamentary constituency is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  (b) Information on the number of council houses in England broken down by local authority area has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Regional Assemblies
  David Davis
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what measures the Department has taken to publicise public meetings arising from the public consultation into referendums for regional assemblies. [105197]
  509W
  Mr. Raynsford
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister invited responses by post and email from individuals and organisations to our soundings exercise on the level of interest in each English region outside London in holding a referendum about establishing an elected regional assembly. We advised representative bodies that we would attach additional weight to responses which had been framed in response to wide consultation, but left it to them to decide on how best to consult their members, constituents or the general public in their area. No public meetings were held by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.

  David Davis
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many responses he has received to the consultation on a referendum for an elected regional assembly for Yorkshire and the Humber. [105289]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister asked for responses by 3 March on its soundings exercise about the level of interest in each English region in holding a referendum about an elected regional assembly. Approximately 5,000 responses have been received so far, amongst which we have identified just over 400 from Yorkshire and the Humber.

  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many responses he has received from the north-west in the recent soundings consultation on directly elected regional assemblies; and if he will make a statement. [105444]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister asked for responses by 3 March 2003 on its soundings exercise about the level of interest in each English region in holding a referendum about an elected regional assembly. Approximately 5,000 responses have been received so far, among which we have identified just under 2000 from the north-west.

  Decisions will be announced after the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill has received Royal Assent.

  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what EU funding is spent by regional assemblies. [105524]

  Mr. Raynsford
  None.

  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what civil service support is available to regional assemblies. [105525]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Meeting room space in government offices has occasionally been provided. But the voluntary regional assemblies are freestanding bodies that do not have civil service support.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the responses he has received to his proposals for referendums on regional assemblies. [106015]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister asked for responses by 3 March 2003 on its soundings exercise about the level of regional interest in each English region in holding a referendum about an elected regional assembly. So far the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has received approximately 510W
  5,000 responses. We will announce our decisions after the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill has received Royal Assent.

  South West Area Multi-Modal Study
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what role the South West Regional Assembly can play in revising the report of the South West Area Multi-Modal Study. [105518]

  Mr. Raynsford
  As Regional Planning Body, the South West Regional Assembly has reported to the Government with its conclusions and recommendations relating to the study. The final decision rests with Government.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Brass Bands
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if it is the policy of the Government that premises owned by brass bands and used for rehearsals and practice should be subject to licensing. [104744]

  Dr. Howells
  Under the Licensing Bill rehearsing or practising of any form of entertainment would not be licensable unless it is intended to be provided for the public or a charge was made for a private audience. Other users of, for instance, a village hall, passing through the practice or rehearsal area would not trigger the licensing requirements.

  Commercial Confidentiality
  Rob Marris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what guidance her Department issues to civil servants on how to deal with claims from organisations that the information they provide to the Department is commercially confidential. [105553]

  Dr. Howells
  Procurement in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport is the responsibility of procurement staff qualified by examination and experience and who, by virtue of the professional training they have received, are able to deal with questions of commercial confidentiality without further guidance.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what her estimate is of the expenditure of her Department on newspapers, magazines and periodicals in 2002. [106311]

  Dr. Howells
  The Department's spend on newspapers, magazines and periodicals in 2002–03 was £29,393.

  External Reports
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list(a) the title and subject, (b) the total cost to her Department and (c) the commissioned author or organisation of each external

  511W
  report commissioned by her Department in each year since 1997. [103712]

  Dr. Howells
  The title and subject, cost and the commissioned author or organisation of each external report commissioned by the Department in each year since 1997 is shown in the following table.

  Year

  Title

  Cost £(including VAT where indicated)

  Author

  1997

  A review of the Ecclesiastical Exemption from listed building controls jointly with the Welsh Office): Listings

  30,000

  John Newman

  1998

  A study to assess the economic impact of Government policies for digital television and for the closure of analogue transmission: Broadcasting

  137,996.93

  National Economic Research Associates

  1998

  A feasibility study for compiling a tourism satellite account for the United Kingdom: Tourism

  not known

  Cambridge Policy consultants and Geoff Broom Associates

  1999

  Coalfields and the Lottery: Lottery

  113,240

  Tony Gore, Gordon Dabinett and Jonathan Breeze Centre for Regional Economic and Social Research, Sheffield Hallam University

  1999

  Establising a new National Tourism Body for Tourism in England—Report and Action plan: Tourism

  18,000

  Angela Heath

  1999

  The Efficiency and Effectiveness of Government-sponsored Museums and Galleries: Museums and Galleries

  1260,424

  Deloitte Touche and Lord Cultural Resources and Planning

  1999

  Review of the future funding of the BBC: Broadcasting

  not known

  Gavyn Davies

  2000

  Improving Lottery Funding Access and Delivery in the British Coalfield: Lottery

  130,475

  Tony Gore, Gordon Dabinett and Jonathan Breeze Centre for Regional Economic and Social Research, Sheffield Hallam University

  2000

  Out of the Box—The Programme Supply Market in the Digital Age—Broadcasting

  176,051.88

  David Graham and Associates

  2000

  Review of the BBC's Financial Projections: Broadcasting

  123,4847

  PKF

  2001

  A study into the Social Impacts of Lottery good cause spending in the UK: Lottery

  121,296.95

  Graeme Evans and Phyllidia Shaw, Centre for Leisure and Tourism Studies, University of North London

  2001

  Future of the Royal Park Constabulary—The Speed Report: Royal Parks Agency

  20,950

  Anthony Speed

  2001

  Review of the Tote privitisation sale strategy/An updated assessment reflection of the Tote's current financial projections and business plan: Gambling

  20,000

  PricewaterhouseCoopers

  2001

  To quantify the enviromental and cost saving benefits of waste minimisation in the hotels sector: Tourism

  19,900

  AEA Technology

  2001

  Review of the BBC's Fair Trading Commitment and Commercial Policy: Broadcasting

  not known

  Michael Whish

  2001

  English National Stadium Review—Interim Report2

  46,000

  Patrick Carter

  2002

  UK Television Programme Supply review

  25,0000

  ITC

  2002

  Final Evaluation of the Travel Cumbria Project: Tourism

  4,995

  Halcrow Fox

  2002

  The Economic Impact of Tourism—North East pilot study: NE England Economy

  10,000

  Trends Business Research with Cogentsi

  2002

  Independent Review of BBC News 24: Broadcasting

  139,473.4

  Richard Lambert

  2002

  Lessons Learned—Review of the 2002 Commonwealth Games in Manchester Final Report—December 20023

  0

  KPMG

  2002

  English National Stadium Review—Final Report4

  346,000

  Patrick Carter

  2002

  Survey of Public Opinion on a London 2012 Olympic Bids5

  37,750

  ICM Polling

  2003

  Considering the potential taxation implications arising from he planned transfer of assets upon abolition of the Levy Board: Horserace Betting Levy Board

  5,023

  PKF

  2003

  E-commerce Impact Study on the Tourism Sector: Tourism5

  0

  PricewaterhouseCoopers

  1 Indicates that VAT has been charged

  2 This figure includes the costs of the Review of the National Athletics Centre for Sport England.

  3 Jointly commissioned by DCMS, Sport England and Manchester city council in August 2002. The cost of the report was met from Games funding to which DCMS contributed but there is no direct, invoiced cost to us

  4 Published 16 October 2002. Costs of the Review process from 19 December 2001 to present day

  5 Although commissioned by the Department, this report was paid for by ukonline.

  The costs of these reports could be obtained only at a disproportionate cost.
  512W
  An "external report" has been interpreted as being a report produced at the request of government by a person, group or organisation external to the department, and which is publicly available. These costs are exclusive of any costs incurred by the Department in the publication of these reports which could have been obtained only at a disproportionate cost.

  National Lottery
  Martin Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what awards have been made to the Battersea constituency by the distributing bodies of the National Lottery in each of the last five years. [105641]

  Mr. Caborn
  According to the National Lottery awards database, which is based upon the information provided by the Lottery distributors, the number of awards that have been made to the Battersea constituency by each of the National Lottery good causes in the last five calendar years is set out in the following table:

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Arts

  5

  9

  18

  14

  14

  Charitable expenditure

  5

  13

  3

  11

  12

  Health, education and the environment

  0

  1

  5

  6

  5

  Heritage

  2

  1

  2

  2

  2

  Millennium

  0

  3

  0

  0

  0

  Sports

  0

  1

  3

  3

  1

  Sports Facilities
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what action she is taking to(a) increase and (b) refurbish sports facilities in London; and if she will make a statement. [105598]

  Mr. Caborn
  Local authorities a re the key providers of sport and recreation facilities in their areas. For that reason they are responsible for making the difficult judgments about what sports facilities to provide at the expense of local taxpayers, and the decisions about the renovation of local facilities.

  Significant investment from the National Lottery has helped to create new state of the art community sports facilities. Local authorities may apply to the Lottery Sports Fund for grants for the creation of new sports facilities, and the upgrading of existing facilities to increase participation. London boroughs have received 201 grants from the Lottery Sports Fund's Community Capital Fund totalling over £249.5 million, for projects costing over £675 million.

  Local education authorities in the London boroughs will also benefit from the New Opportunities Fund's PE and Sport programme which aims to bring about a step change in the provision of sports facilities for young people and for the local community. The New Opportunities Fund provisionally allocated funding to each local education authority area to ensure that funding is available for projects in all parts of the country. Local education authorities in London have been allocated £81,286,000 under the programme.

  The Government's planning guidance to local authorities (PPG 17) requires local planning authorities to undertake assessments to determine what deficiencies exist in their areas and to remedy those deficiencies in provision via their plans and planning decisions.

TRANSPORT

  Air Travel (Environmental Taxation)
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what impact he estimates a reduction in passenger demand for air travel as a result of the introduction of proposals to introduce environmental taxation on air travel, outlined in Aviation and the Environment, would have on Government estimates of passenger demand cited in 'The Future Development of Air Transport in the South East'. [105240]

  Mr. Jamieson
  There would be no material difference as this has already been taken into account. Demand forecasts in The Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom' consultation document took into account aviation's contribution to climate change, by far the most significant environmental cost. They did so by assuming a CO2 tax in place by 2015 to internalise aviation's climate change costs.

  The recent discussion paper 'Aviation and the Environment: Using Economic Instruments' cites a figure of £1.4 billion as the estimated annual cost of aviation's contribution to climate change. The costs are similar to the value of the CO2tax, which was assumed in the demand forecasts.

  Brighton West Pier
  Mr. Lepper
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received from English Heritage in respect of the proposed Brighton West Pier Harbour Revision Order. [105381]

  Mr. Jamieson
  None.

  Mr. Lepper
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to announce a decision on the proposed Harbour Revision Order for the Brighton West Pier. [105382]

  Mr. Jamieson
  There is one outstanding objection to this application and the Harbours Act 1964 requires that when this is the case, an inquiry must be held. If the applicants apply for an inquiry now, a decision on the Harbour Revision Order could be made within five to six months.

  Mr. Lepper
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what assessment he has made of the need for repair to and restoration of the Brighton West Pier in considering the Harbour Revision Order; [105408]
  (2) what assessment he has made of the decision of Brighton and Hove City Council's Planning Applications Sub-Committee of 26 February 2003, in relation to the Brighton West Pier and the subsequent decision of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister on the West Pier Planning Application in considering the proposed West Pier Harbour Revision Order. [105407]

  Mr. Jamieson
  None. The Secretary of State will receive advice on all relevant issues from the Inspector after a public inquiry into the Order, if and when an inquiry is held.

  Central Railway
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has asked the Strategic Rail Authority to amend any aspect of its report delivered in autumn 2002 on the Central Railway proposal. [105550]

  Mr. Jamieson
  No.

  Civil Contingency Planning
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport 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. [102623]

  Mr. Jamieson
  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, columns 957–58. Following a recent internal review the Department has increased its capacity for handling civil contingency planning by establishing a dedicated team within its Defence and Civil Contingency Planning Division. The overall resource for the current year is around £850,000 and will increase by £150,000 for 2003–04 mainly to reflect the increased work on civil contingency planning.

  The Civil Contingency Planning team is reviewing the Department's role with the transport sector's own contingency planning. It is also working closely with Whitehall committees, Government Departments and Government Offices on developing civil contingency issues and responses to such events, as demonstrated by the co-operation during the current fire fighters dispute and recent exercises. The team is also working closely on the improvement of the department's own contingency plan. The Department will also continue to play an active role in Government exercises.

  Civil Service Travel
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what grades in the Civil Service in his Department are allowed to travel by air(a) first class and (b) business class at public expense when on official duties. [104965]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Staff in my Department must use the most efficient and economic means of travel commensurate with meeting operational needs.

  Staff may only use first class air travel where it is unavoidable, for instance:

  (a) it is necessary to travel in the company of someone else who is travelling first class

  (b) there is an urgent business at short notice where no other class of ticket is available.

  Business class air travel can be used by staff in the following circumstances:

  Internal flights

  (a) they are a member of the Senior Civil Service at pay band 2 or higher

  (b) no tickets are available in economy class and the business need is urgent.

  516W
  Overseas flights

  (a) the duration of the flight is more than 2½ hours

  (b) strict application of the rules might not be cost effective and can be justified by a saving in time or subsistence.

  Staff may also use business class travel if:

  (a) the facilities provided in economy class do not meet their needs in that they are pregnant, suffering from a temporary or permanent disability or because of their physical stature.

  (b) it is necessary to travel in the company of someone else who is travelling business class.

  (c) they are a member of the Senior Civil Service who transferred to my Department from the Treasury Solicitor's Department and have reserved rights.

  Communications Masts
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many communications masts will be required for the new GSM-R digital network. [105416]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I understand that Network Rail is upgrading its analogue radio systems network of around 1,400 telecommunications masts to a national digital network of approximately 2,000 masts. The increased number arises from the extended coverage of the new system across the entire rail network, including all tunnels and cuttings.

  Departmental Conferences
  Mr. John Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the(a) conferences, (b) seminars, (c) workshops, (d) exhibitions and (e) press conferences which have been sponsored by his Department and which took place on non-departmental premises in the last 12 months, broken down by title, purpose, date and cost. [104275]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This information can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  External Reports
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport 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 and its predecessors in each year since 1997. [103725]

  Mr. Spellar
  Information on publications and reports produced by the Department is not broken down to this level of detail. This could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  The Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions' annual report in 2001 lists all white and green papers and major policy documents issued by the Department between April 1997 and March 2001.

  A list of the titles published by and for the Department and its predecessors in each year since 1997 is available in the Libraries of the House.

  M5
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much was spent on maintaining the M5 in Somerset in(a) 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03. [105520]
  517W
  Mr. Jamieson
  The total works and supervision cost spent on maintaining the M5 in Somerset for(a) 2001–02 was £1,649,416 and for (b) 2002–03 (to date) £4,178,450.

  Spend in 2002–03 is higher because a major road renewal scheme to replace a section of concrete carriageway was carried out south of Junction 26.

  Network Rail
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether Network Rail pays(a) corporation tax, (b) income tax and (c) stamp duty; and what the VAT status of Network Rail is. [105118]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Network Rail is treated in the same manner as any other private sector company in relation to these matters.

  Private Hire Vehicles
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what arrangements his Department makes for the regulation of private hire vehicle companies employed by local authorities to transport(a) adults and (b) children with (i) autism and (ii) other disabilities. [105209]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Primary legislation requires that private hire vehicle companies must be licensed by district or borough councils, unitary authorities or Transport for London. However, it is a matter for the local authorities making the arrangements with private hire vehicle companies to ensure that appropriate safeguards are in place with regard to the carriage of passengers with particular needs.

  Departmental Invoices
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the occasions on which(a) his Department, (b) agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department failed to pay valid invoices within 30 days or after the agreed credit period in the financial year 2001–02. [104320]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Information in respect of the financial year 2001–02 is not available as my Department came into being in May 2002. The Department currently has a service delivery agreement target to pay at least 98 per cent. of valid invoices within 30 days of receipt. The overall performance of the Department and its agencies is monitored centrally and corrective action taken when necessary.

  Rail Performance
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on changes in rail performance since May 1997. [104938]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Rail performance is measured using the Public Performance Measure (PPM). This takes account of both the punctuality and reliability of trains. The SRA publish PPM data each quarter in National Rail Trends. The latest edition, published Wednesday 12 March, gives information PPM from Q1 1997–1998 to Q3 2002–2003. The document is in the Libraries of the House.
  518W
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement of his policy on minor improvements to the rail network designed to improve reliability of punctuality of services; and how he expects Network Rail and the Strategic Rail Authority to assess the cost and benefits of such minor schemes. [104988]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Securing the development of the rail network is a specific purpose of the Strategic Rail Authority. The Authority's strategic plan, published at the end of January, explains their investment priorities and approach to appraisal. The Authority must ensure that any expenditure from their budget is affordable and provides value for money. As stated in their directions and guidance, the Authority's assessment of value for money should be consistent with Treasury guidance in the green book.

  Rural Roads
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress his Department has made with the proposals contained in the report, "Development of a Rural Road Hierarchy for Speed Management", published in November 2001. [105963]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Following the publication of the Rural Road Hierarchy Report in November 2001 we are progressing work to improve safety across our rural road network. This includes simplifying the procedures to introduce 30mph village speed limits and the development of a framework to assess what speeds are appropriate, together with surveys of what speeds are actually being driven on rural roads. The first results of this work should be available shortly and will feed into other work, including a review of the guidance on setting speed limits due to start later this year.

  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he intends to publish good practice guidance on rural road speed management. [105964]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Guidance on the setting of rural road speed limits already exists in the form of Circular Roads 1/93. This remains good advice. The Government recognise, however, the need to build in the new experiences gained over the last 10 years. Work is due to start on revised guidance later this year. This will incorporate the on-going work to address the problems associated with vehicle speeds on rural roads.

  Airport Noise
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps his Department is taking to monitor aircraft disturbance around airports, with particular reference to Stansted; and what plans his Department has for improving existing measures. [105241]

  Mr. Jamieson
  At Stansted, as at Gatwick and Heathrow, the noise climate is monitored by noise exposure contours, published each year to form an aircraft noise index. There are also fixed and mobile noise monitors in the vicinity of each airport which are part of the Noise and Track-keeping (NTK) system operated by BAA plc.
  519W
  The contours are determined by a computer model which calculates the emission and propagation of noise, using a database that is regularly updated with operational data gathered at the airports.

  The location of the fixed noise monitors was determined after a lengthy review and consultation on the departure noise limits and associated monitoring arrangements was announced on 18 December 2000, Official Report, columns 11–12W. In announcing that decision, my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), confirmed the commencement of a further review of both monitoring efficiency and of the departure noise limits. The findings of that review will be published shortly.

  The mobile noise monitors are used to collect data for technical studies by the Civil Aviation Authority, for information gathering and to investigate local problems. At Stansted, as at Gatwick and Heathrow, it is normal practice for the deployment of monitors for local purposes to be discussed at meetings of the NTK working group on which local people are represented by members of the airport consultative committee.

  Stansted Airport
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment of alternative runway mode has been undertaken in connection with the proposals for three additional runways at Stansted Airport outlined in 'The Future of Air Transport in the South East'. [105242]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The option for three new runways at Stansted that was developed for the SERAS study provides for four runways arranged in two close parallel pairs. For the purposes of the study certain assumptions were made about the operation of the runways. The assumptions are set out in the SERAS Stage 1 report (option 7 on page 214), which is publicly available.

  One runway in each pair would be used for take-offs, the other for landings. In the case of the western pair, the outer (new) runway would be staggered to the northeast of the existing runway. On the basis that landing aircraft should land on the first runway they encounter, aircraft would land on the outer runway in westerly operations and the inner runway in easterly operations.

  The eastern pair would not be staggered so either runway could be used for landings and take-offs.

  The SERAS study did not appraise other possible ways of operating the runways. Consultees may wish to comment on these assumptions and any other aspect of the options for Stansted.

  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessments his Department has made of the potential cost to public funds of a significant transfer of Heathrow's long haul and USA scheduled services to Stansted airport, if a second runway were to be built there.[105243]

  Mr. Jamieson
  No detailed assessment has been made. Chapter 15 of 'The Future Development of Air Transport—South East' consultation document considers issues relating to the funding of one or more new runways at Stansted and gives examples of the sort of Government action that might be required to allow Stansted to be developed as a hub.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  China
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the Chinese authorities concerning the treatment of Tibetan political prisoners. [105244]

  Mr. Rammell
  We have raised specific cases of Tibetan prisoners three times this year, in both London and Beijing.

  We raise Human Rights concerns both publicly and privately with the Chinese Government. We raise individual cases of concern, both Tibetan and Chinese, with the Chinese authorities in the context of the biannual UK/China Human Rights Dialogue, the last round of which was held in London in November 2002. We expect the next round to take place in May.

  Cyprus
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the implications of the presidential election in Cyprus for the future of the Annan plan. [99611]

  Mr. MacShane
  President Papadopoulos has taken a constructive approach towards the UN process. At the meeting in The Hague on 10–11 March, he was prepared to put the UN Secretary-General's plan to referendum.

  Detention (France)
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many representations he has received about UK citizens held(a) in remand and (b) following conviction in French prisons in the last 12 months. [105779]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We regularly receive representations on behalf of British citizens held in prisons in France. These are often from families concerned about members of their family. We look into the details of each case on an individual basis. We do not record statistics on the points raised by the hon. Member.

  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many UK lorry drivers are held(a) on remand and (b) in prison following conviction in France. [105777]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  There are currently 24 British lorry drivers held on remand in prisons in France and 25 British lorry drivers who are in prison following conviction.

  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many UK citizens are held(a) on remand and (b) in custody following conviction in France; and what proportion of (a) and (b) was for drug offences. [105778]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  There are currently 79 British citizens held on remand in France and 107 British citizens who have been convicted and are serving prison sentences in France. 68 per cent. of the British citizens detained both on remand and sentenced are being held on charges related to drugs.

  Iraq
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what. steps he will take to ensure that in the Iraqi conflict, the 4th Geneva Convention of 1949 requiring that any force that occupies all or part of a territory has to ensure the provision of food, medical supplies and the maintenance of hygiene and public health is adhered to. [104874]

  Mr. Ingram
  I have been asked to reply.

  We take our responsibilities to the Iraqi people extremely seriously and British forces have played a vital role in the effort to liberate the port of Urn Qasr, which will be a major point of entry for humanitarian aid into Iraq.

  Until the security situation in Iraq stabilises sufficiently to allow the full deployment of civilian aid agencies, United Kingdom forces will, where they are able, deliver emergency humanitarian assistance to the people of Iraq in full accordance with their obligations under the Geneva and Hague Conventions. The military has made extensive preparations for this, with the assistance of experts from the Department for International Development.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received about the source of evidence passed to the UN inspectors in Iraq in support of the allegation that Iraq had attempted to obtain uranium from Niger; and if he will make a statement. [105302]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Information was passed to the UN weapons inspection teams from a number of sources. The documents referred to by Dr. El-Baradei in his presentation to the UN Security Council on 7 March 2003 came from only one of those sources. These were not documents provided by the UK. We continue to have confidence that the information provided by a variety of sources demonstrates a clear intention by Iraq to procure uranium to restart a covert nuclear programme.

  Kuwait
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what contingency plans are in place(a) to supply British citizens who remain in Kuwait with emergency supplies and (b) to evacuate such people; [105249]

  (2) how many British citizens remain in Kuwait; what advice he has given them; and what safety equipment has been made available to them. [105250]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We advise against all travel to Kuwait. British nationals are urged to leave while commercial flights remain available. Kuwait airport remains open.

  Kuwaiti authorities say that there are no shortages of food or water. There are food stocks to feed the entire population (including expatriates) for several months. Ports are fully functional. The border with Saudi Arabia is open for the overland shipment of imports. Food aid shipments are being made into southern Iraq.
  522W
  On 11 March 2003, the number of British citizens registered at our embassy in Kuwait was 3,170. By 24 March 2003, 888 citizens had left. There will be some who have not registered, or have left without informing the embassy. Those who remain in Kuwait despite our travel advice are advised to follow the safety instructions of the emergency services in the event of a chemical or biological incident.

  I am advised that safety equipment needs to be adequate. However, only a full NBC suit, plus the full training needed to use it, would provide safety. A gas mask and other equipment of themselves might provide a false sense of security without the full NBC suit.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made to Kuwait about the use of the Kuwait Compensation Fund for the post-war reconstruction of Iraq. [105264]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The purpose of the UN Commission for Compensation is to compensate for losses arising out of the illegal invasion of Kuwait by Iraq in 1991. The reconstruction of post-war Iraq will require funds from the wider international community.

  Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to his answer of 18 March 2003, Official Report, column 727, on OPCW, what information the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons has given the UK Government about when budgetary contributions should be paid. [105362]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The timelines for payment are in the OPCW's Financial Regulation 5.4. This states that contributions to the budget are payable in full within 30 days of receipt of the notice of assessment or on the first day of the financial period to which they relate, whichever is later. However, at 28 February 2003, 85 states parties had not paid anything towards their 2003 assessments.

  Pensions
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs 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. [104934]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The UK based staff employed by the Foreign & Commonwealth Office are members of the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme (PCSPS) and related schemes. These schemes are managed under Section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972, by the Civil Service Pensions Division of the Cabinet Office, on behalf of HM Treasury. The audited accounts of the PCSPS for 2001–2002 were laid before the House on 21 January 2003 by the Comptroller and Auditor General.
  523W
  Of the non-departmental public bodies for which the Foreign & Commonwealth Office is responsible, the staff of the British Council, the Great Britain China Centre and the Westminster Foundation for Democracy are similarly members of the PCSPS and related schemes. Staff of the Britain-Russia Centre and the British Association for Central and Eastern Europe receive an enhancement to their individual salaries in lieu of having pension arrangements.

  Various different pension arrangements exist for local staff at United Kingdom Missions abroad. Readily available information on such schemes is as follows:

  £

  Country

  Date of valuation

  Assets

  Future liabilities

  Belgium

  2000

  2,168,000

  1,847,000

  Canada

  2001

  3,902,000

  3,383,000

  Irish republic

  2001

  1,316,000

  1,486,000

  Jamaica

  2001

  247,000

  206,000

  South Africa

  2000

  1,713,000

  1,103,000

  USA

  2002

  30,220,000

  36,320,000

  To obtain the information requested in respect of other schemes elsewhere abroad, would incur disproportionate costs.

  Somalia
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what support his Department is providing to establish a new reconciliation committee to address human rights, war crimes and transitional justice in Somalia. [105620]

  Mr. Straw
  The UK is playing a leading role among international observers in assisting Ambassador Kiplagat, the new Kenyan chair of the Somali National Reconciliation Conference. The UK contributed £25,000 to conference costs. Addressing past human rights abuses is critical to resolution of the Somali conflict. However, the timing and way in which these issues are addressed is a matter for the Somalis.

  Telecommunications Network
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the risk of short term disruption to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office Telecommunications Network in the event of the failure of the providing company; and if he will make a statement. [105186]

  Mr. Rammell
  Since the FCO's private sector supplier, Global Crossing, went into Chapter 11 proceedings in the US, the FCO has taken steps to ensure continuity of the FTN service. Contingency arrangements are in place to allow the FCO's essential services to continue to operate should Global Crossing, for any reason, withdraw their service. We are closely monitoring the company's progress towards exit from Chapter 11.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the(a) telephone system and (b) network connections were provided as part of the Foreign and Commonwealth
  524W
  Office Telecommunications Network to the British Embassies in (i) Egypt, (ii) Syria, (iii) Jordan and (iv) Turkey; and if he will make a statement. [105185]

  Mr. Rammell
  The installations of the telephone systems and network connections at the embassies in Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Turkey were completed, under the FTN contract, by Global Crossing as follows:

  Embassy

  FTN Network Connection

  Telephone Systems Installed under FTN

  Amman

  21 December 2000

  11 March 19991

  Ankara

  26 March 2002

  None2

  Cairo

  12 March 2002

  None2

  Damascus

  24 May 2002

  21 October 2001

  1 The telephone installation at Amman was completed prior to signing the FTN contract with Global Crossing. The installation was completed under the 'Instruction to proceed' process to ensure Year 2000 software compliance.

  2 Legacy telephone systems are in service at the Embassies in Ankara and Cairo. These telephone systems were installed prior to the FTN contract being signed and are still operating within their expected design life. Both systems are connected to the new network allowing embassy staff to benefit from the full range of FTN services and facilities.

  Western Sahara
  Mr. MacDougall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the political situation in Western Sahara. [105982]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  On 25 March 2003, the United Nations Security Council unanimously adopted resolution 1469, extending the mandate of the United Nations Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara (MINURSO) until 31 May 2003 and requesting that the Secretary-General report by 19 May on the situation in the territory. James Baker, the Secretary-General's Personal Envoy, is currently considering the parties' formal responses to his most recent proposal. Neither proposal nor responses have been made public.

PRIME MINISTER

  10 Downing street
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Prime Minister how many times 10 Downing street has been used for charitable functions in the last 12 months; for which organisations; and how much money was raised in each case. [105653]

  The Prime Minister
  Since 2002, 38 charity receptions have been held at 10 Downing street, including events for Sane, Sight Savers International, Prisoners of Conscience, Saving Faces and Guide Dogs for the Blind. Fund-raising is a matter for the charities concerned.

  Assassination (Government Policy)
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Prime Minister what the policy of Her Majesty's Government is on assassination of(a) civil and (b) military public figures. [105222]

  The Prime Minister
  Our policy is to act in accordance with UK and international law.

  Committee on Standards in Public Life
  Tony Wright
  To ask the Prime Minister whether the Committee on Standards in Public Life has to receive his approval before undertaking an inquiry. [105274]

  The Prime Minister
  The position remains as set out in the report of the Quinquennial Review of the Committee on Standards in Public Life published in January 2001, which is: "Both it (the Committee) and the Government have been free to propose topics, and the programme of work has been established after consultation between the Committee and the Government".

  E-envoy
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the meetings he has had with the e-Envoy since the office was created. [105631]

  The Prime Minister
  I have regular meetings with; civil servants and others on a wide range of subjects, and will continue to do so. As with previous Governments, it is not my practice to provide details of confidential discussions, under Exemption 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Prime Minister what recent discussions he had regarding Gibraltar with the Prime Minister of Spain; and if he will make a statement. [106420]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) on 27 March 2003,Official Report, column 309W.

  IRA Murders (South Armagh)
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Prime Minister what reports he has received from the Victims Group FAIR concerning a number of IRA murders committed in South Armagh; and what progress has been made in the police investigation into each of these murders. [106065]

  The Prime Minister
  As far as I am aware, I have not received any reports from FAIR on this issue specifically. Currently, the Police Service Northern Ireland are employing a group of former detectives in a civilian capacity to review the case files of a number of unsolved murders in the South Armagh area. It is not the Government's policy to comment on this on-going review.

  Iraq
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister if he has discussed with President Bush the return of UN weapons inspectors to Iraq to assist the task of accounting for Saddam Hussein's alleged stocks of weapons of mass destruction; and if he will make a statement. [106056]

  The Prime Minister
  I continue to discuss the full range of Iraq issues regularly with President Bush, including how to resolve outstanding disarmament issues.
  526W
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister what his policy is on the use of war to prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction. [106055]

  The Prime Minister
  The UK has never sought to use military means to enforce disarmament without first having exhausted all other avenues open to us.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on paragraphs(a) two and (b) three on the Al-Amn Al-Askari military security service in Iraq in the dossier, "Iraq—its infrastructure of concealment, deception and intimidation", published on 3 February. [105590]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 10 February 2003,Official Report, column 583W, and Prime Minister's Questions on 12 February 2003.

  Poland
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to visit Poland. [105651]

  The Prime Minister
  It will be important to work with Poland and other countries about to join the European Union. I hope to visit again in the future.

  Special Advisers
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the names of his special advisers. [105652]

  The Prime Minister
  At 28 March, the following special advisers are currently in post in my office:

  Andrew Adonis

  Arnab Banerji

  Phil Bassett

  David Bradshaw

  Alastair Campbell

  Hilary Coffman

  Patrick Diamond

  Matthew Elson

  Kate Garvey

  Sarah Hunter

  Peter Hyman

  Katie Kay

  Roger Liddle

  Liz Lloyd

  Chris McShane

  Fiona Millar

  Sally Morgan

  Joanna Nadin

  Geoff Norris

  Carey Oppenheim

  Jonathan Powell

  Catherine Rimmer

  Justin Russell

  Derek Scott

  Carl Shoben

  Simon Stevens

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many civil servants have been employed by(a) his department and (b) each of its agencies and non departmental bodies in each year from 1994–95 to 2002–03; and if he will make a statement. [92357]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Paisley, South on 23 January 2003,Official Report, column 333W, for HCS staff. In addition, the overall figures for the Northern Ireland Office for N ICS and HCS are collated in September of each year and are as follows:

  Total

  1994–95

  5,705

  1995–96

  4,779

  1996–97

  4,590

  1997–98

  4,446

  1998–99

  4,232

  1999–00

  3,929

  2000–2001

  3,306

  2001–02

  3,318

  2002–03

  3,361

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Northern Ireland Departments

  15,980

  8,869

  7,630

  7,230

  6,820

  6,943

  8,667

  9,102

  Sponsored agencies:

  Business Development Service

  —

  —

  259

  227

  238

  278

  268

  266

  Child Support Agency

  1,044

  968

  1,151

  1,229

  1,206

  1,424

  1,470

  1,612

  Construction Service

  —

  725

  690

  576

  557

  516

  509

  507

  Driver & Vehicle Licensing Agency

  242

  253

  261

  275

  297

  320

  351

  398

  Driver & Vehicle Testing Agency

  252

  289

  312

  318

  326

  319

  348

  391

  Environment & Heritage Service

  —

  370

  353

  352

  360

  354

  372

  410

  Forest Service

  —

  —

  —

  —

  412

  395

  387

  372

  Government Purchasing Agency

  —

  58

  68

  72

  91

  100

  79

  89

  Industrial Research & Technology Unit

  149

  156

  152

  143

  141

  148

  154

  171

  Land Registers for NI

  —

  230

  220

  205

  199

  195

  194

  201

  NI Health & Social Services Estates Agency1

  —

  125

  117

  120

  117

  114

  119

  119

  NI Statistics & Research Agency

  —

  107

  125

  177

  219

  255

  290

  301

  Ordnance Survey NI

  195

  192

  179

  177

  178

  175

  176

  179

  Planning Service

  —

  422

  407

  386

  420

  452

  484

  529

  Public Record Office NI

  90

  91

  80

  62

  67

  68

  70

  69

  Rate Collection Agency

  286

  282

  252

  256

  250

  233

  238

  234

  Rivers Agency

  —

  —

  493

  460

  431

  420

  402

  408

  Roads Service

  —

  2,379

  2,269

  2,207

  2,163

  2,162

  2,175

  2,230

  Social Security Agency

  5,655

  5,699

  5,799

  5,555

  5,582

  5,526

  5,732

  6,091

  Training & Employment Agency

  1,318

  1,334

  1,200

  1,318

  1,365

  1,269

  —

  —

  Valuation and Lands Agency

  317

  313

  288

  270

  222

  267

  268

  279

  Water Service

  —

  2,384

  2,353

  2,278

  2,228

  2,216

  2,176

  2,202

  Sub Total

  9,548

  16,377

  17,028

  16,663

  17,069

  17,206

  16,262

  17,058

  1 Average figures.

  Northern Ireland Civil Service

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Northern Ireland Departments

  15,980

  8,869

  7,630

  7,230

  6,820

  6,943

  8,667

  9,102

  Sponsored Agencies:

  Non-Departmental Bodies:

  Certificate Office

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  —

  —

  Commission for Racial Equality

  —

  —

  —

  5

  3

  —

  —

  —

  Health & Safety Executive for NI

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  68

  76

  76

  Local Enterprise & Development Unit

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Mental Health Commission

  8

  8

  8

  8

  8

  8

  7

  7

  Northern Ireland Tourist Board

  5

  3

  4

  3

  1

  —

  —

  Office for the Regulation of Electricity & Gas

  14

  14

  19

  19

  23

  28

  15

  14

  528W
  NDPBs are generally supported by civil servants from their sponsor departments, and do not employ their own staff with exception of the Probation Board for Northern Ireland and the Juvenile Justice Board. The figures for the NIO agencies and NDPBs are collated in September of each year and are as follows:

  Compensation agency

  Forensic science Northern Ireland

  NI prison service

  Probation board for Northern Ireland

  Juvenile justice board

  1994–95

  149

  126

  4,265

  2

  0

  1995–96

  132

  125

  3,515

  1

  0

  1996–97

  131

  123

  3,377

  1

  0

  1997–98

  120

  122

  3,212

  1

  0

  1998–99

  139

  125

  3,085

  1

  0

  1999–2000

  128

  123

  2,720

  1

  0

  2000–01

  138

  128

  2,123

  1

  0

  2001–02

  141

  137

  2,143

  1

  0

  2002–03

  137

  131

  2,137

  1

  2

  The following table shows the number of civil servants (permanent and temporary, non-industrial and industrial employees) in Northern Ireland Administration bodies from 1994–95 until 2001–02, with figures for each agency and non-departmental body shown separately. Only those non-departmental bodies employing civil servants have been included. Statistics for 2002–03 are not yet available.
  529W

  Northern Ireland Civil Service

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Planning/Water Appeals Commission

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  13

  Sub Total

  30

  28

  34

  37

  37

  106

  98

  110

  Total NICS staff

  25,558

  25,274

  24,692

  23,930

  23,926

  24,255

  25,027

  26,270

  Note:

  The absence of a yearly figure in the table indicates that the agency/NDPB was not in existence at that time.

  Entertainment
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what his estimate is of the total spending of his Department on all forms of entertainment in each year from 1994–95 to 2002–03; and if he will make a statement. [92358]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The estimated total spend by the Northern Ireland Office (excluding its agencies and NDPBs)on all forms of entertainment in each financial year from 1994–95 to 2002–03 is set out in the table:

  £

  Year

  Total

  1994–95

  190,300

  1995–96

  195,205

  1996–97

  214,363

  1997–98

  214,473

  1998–99

  322,853

  1999–2000

  320,230

  2000–01

  246,517

  2001–02

  221,477

  2002–03

  1255,875

  1 To date (full year estimate £325,000)

  Entertainment at public expense is provided using very strict criteria. A necessary pre-condition for any entertainment or hospitality to be financed from public funds is that it will be in the direct interests of the Northern Ireland Office and/or its Agencies. The facility to offer official entertainment or hospitality is used sparingly and is carefully monitored.

  The estimated total spend by the Northern Ireland Administration on all forms of entertainment in each financial year from 1994–95 to 2002–03 is set out in the table:

  £

  Year

  Total

  1994–95

  245,377

  1995–96

  407,248

  1996–97

  466,995

  1997–98

  453,807

  1998–99

  480,317

  1999–2000

  493,729

  2000–01

  595,261

  2001–02

  534,712

  2002–03

  1479,036

  1 To date

  Further Education
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether the information and communication technology strategy for further education has achieved its targets in terms of the number of full-time equivalent further education lecturers per networked PC. [103332]
  530W
  Jane Kennedy
  The information and communications technology strategy set a target of one networked PC to every three full-time equivalent FE Lecturers. While there are variances between colleges, the target has been exceeded for the sector as a whole with one networked PC to every 1.94 FE lecturers.

  Grammar Schools
  Lembit Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will instruct a Minister from his Department to meet representatives of the grammar school sector in Northern Ireland to discuss arrangements relating to selection and entry to those schools; and if he will make a statement. [104647]

  Jane Kennedy
  Diary pressures have restricted my meetings on the post-primary review to Northern Ireland political parties. However, in December I hosted a dinner for the main education sector interests, including the Governing Bodies Association representing the views of the voluntary grammar schools, to hear at first hand views on how best to take the review forward. In recent months my officials have met representatives of the GBA on four occasions and with representatives of grammar school principals on three occasions on this issue, most recently on Wednesday 26 March. My officials keep me fully advised of the views of the grammar school sector and I do not believe a meeting is necessary at the present time.

  Laptops
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many laptop computers were used by(a) Ministers and special advisers and (b) officials in his Department in each year since 1995; how many were (i) lost and (ii) stolen; what their cost was; and if he will make a statement. [97501]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The Northern Ireland Office has purchased the following number of laptops:

  (£)

  Year

  No. Laptops purchased

  Stolen

  Cost of laptops stolen

  1996–97

  25

  1997–98

  28

  1998–99

  34

  1999–00

  55

  1

  1,500.00

  2000–01

  30

  2001–02

  18

  2002–03

  17

  1

  1,500.00

  Total:

  207

  Records show that the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland was provided with a laptop in 1999–2000. The current Secretary of State's special adviser has been provided with a laptop. Neither the current Secretary of State nor Ministers have laptops

  531W
  provided by the Northern Ireland Office. In the period from 1999 to date Ministers' offices were provided with a total of seven laptops. Detailed information prior to 1999 is not available.

  No laptops have been reported as lost. Two laptops have been reported as stolen.Each cost in the region of £1,500.

  Laptops used by:

  Year

  Minister and special advisers (2 December 1999 to 11 February 2000 30 May 2000 to 14 October 2002)

  Officials

  Lost

  Stolen

  Cost of Laptops lost/stolen

  1995–96

  297

  1996–97

  314

  1

  1

  2,000

  1997–98

  367

  2

  2,675

  1998–99

  415

  1

  1,546

  1999–2000

  8

  814

  2

  1

  3,812

  2000–01

  13

  931

  8

  17

  35,494

  2001–02

  12

  1,114

  9

  10.745

  2002–03 (to 17/02/03)

  13

  1,040

  7

  1

  4,750

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what his estimate is of the total expenditure by his Department on ministerial travel(a) in the UK and (b) abroad, in each year from 1995–96 to 2002–03 (estimated); and if he will make a statement. [92490]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The Northern Ireland Office follow Cabinet Office guidance on this matter. The guidance states, "Since 1999 this Government has published an annual list of all visits overseas undertaken by Cabinet Ministers costing £500 or more during each financial year. The Government has also published on an annual basis the cost of all Ministers' visits overseas. Copies of the lists are available in the Libraries of the House.

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

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

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

  The estimated total expenditure by the devolved Northern Ireland Administration on ministerial travel between 2 December 1999–11 February 2000 and 30 May 2000–14 October 2002 was £363,630.69.

  A breakdown of the figures for Northern Ireland Administration departments is shown in the table.

  UK

  Abroad

  DOE

  2,554.50

  1,010.17

  DFP

  281.00

  5,253.00

  DETI

  6,591.35

  102,912.19

  DRD

  2,879.00

  10,375.00

  DARD

  1,749.28

  19,445.02

  532W
  For the Northern Ireland Administration, the number of laptop computers used, lost and stolen in, each year since 1995 by Ministers, special advisers and officials are set out in the table. The information relating to Ministers and special advisers in the Northern Ireland Administration is for the periods of devolution only. In the case of one department figures are not available prior to 1998.

  UK

  Abroad

  DEL

  2,447.35

  9,031.70

  DHSSPS

  1,981.82

  1,756.87

  DE

  1,683.90

  10,683.01

  DSD

  00.00

  00.00

  DCAL

  2,920.75

  4,074.78

  Sub-Totals:

  23,088.95

  164,541.74

  OFMDFM

  2000–01

  160,000.00

  1

  2001–02

  155,000.00

  1

  2002–03

  21,000.00

  40,000.00

  Sub-Totals:

  136,000.00

  40,000.00

  1 The information is not held in the required format

  Multiple Sclerosis
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on progress made in 2003(a) to increase the number of multiple sclerosis sufferers commencing beta interferon treatment and (b) to provide more specialist staff for multiple sclerosis treatment. [105191]

  Mr. Browne
  There are several disease modifying medicines (three beta interferon products and glatiramer) currently available for the treatment of multiple sclerosis (MS). To meet the needs of all MS patients, including those who have been assessed as suitable for treatment with disease modifying drugs, there is also a requirement to secure the services of professionals with specialist expertise.

  Such treatment is supplied through the regional neurology services based at the Royal Group of Hospitals (RGH). They recently advertised for MS specialist nurses and interviews are scheduled to take place in April 2003. It is anticipated that this will both sustain current services and enhance provision for MS sufferers.

  RGH has appointed two additional pharmacists to commence in April 2003 and a pharmacy technician to enhance services for patients who receive specialist medicines, including disease-modifying drugs. Beyond

  533W
  this, two additional pharmacy members of staff have been appointed to specifically enhance delivery of pharmacy services for MS patients.

  At the end of February 2003, the RGH pharmacy was supplying disease-modifying drugs to 444 patients. This figure does not include patients who are taking a break from treatment for clinical and other reasons, nor those who are being supplied drugs through third party commercial suppliers—for example, a number of additional patients in the Western Health and Social Services Board area have been offered treatment through a contract with a private sector organisation.

  Murder Investigation
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will ensure that there is a full investigation of the circumstances surrounding the murder of the son of Mr. David Wright that is fully compliant with Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights. [106064]

  Jane Kennedy
  The government does not believe that there is a continuing obligation upon it to hold a new, article 2 compliant investigation into a past incident where there has already been an investigation. This position is presently being challenged in the courts, but no final judgment has been reached.

  However, the government is determined to get to the bottom of allegations of collusion once and for all. That is why, in May 2002, the British and Irish governments appointed the Canadian Judge Peter Cory to look at allegations into six high profile cases, including that of Billy Wright, with a view to advising what more needs to be done to establish the truth.

  Numbers (wte) employed in cross border bodies as at 28 February 2003

  Body

  Permanent

  Secondees

  Temporary

  Placements

  Total

  The Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission

  32

  1

  2

  2

  37

  Waterways Ireland

  299

  2

  15

  —

  316

  The Trade and Business Development Body

  35.6

  1

  —

  —

  36.6

  The Special EU Programmes Body

  27

  3

  —

  —

  30

  The North/South Language Body

  36

  2

  2

  —

  40

  The Food Safety Promotion Board

  20

  1

  5

  1

  27

  Grand total

  486.6

  Staff costs in 2000–02

  £

  Body

  20001

  2001

  2002

  The Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission

  776,772

  868,930

  864,062

  Waterways Ireland

  3,600,000

  5,600,000

  25,600,000

  The Trade and Business Development Body

  479,134

  906,028

  1,123,446

  The Special EU Programmes Body

  433,409

  587,574

  942,418

  The North/South Language Body

  1,158,516

  1,232,190

  1,325,374

  The Food Safety Promotion Board

  139,000'

  319,000

  471,000

  1 Costs relating to 2000 cover the period 3 December 1999 to 31 December 2000.

  2 Estimate.

  Online Sales/Purchases
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what(a) products, (b) goods and (c) services were (i) bought and (ii) sold online by his Department in each of the last five years. [97445]
  534W
  If Justice Cory, an independent judge of international standing, recommends that a public inquiry needs to be established into any of those cases, then that is what the government will do.

  NHS Patients (Treatment Arrangements)
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many NHS patients from Northern Ireland have been sent outside the Province to(a) the Republic of Ireland, (b) Great Britain and (c) elsewhere over the past year; and what the total cost incurred has been as a result. [105190]

  Mr. Browne
  The information is as follows:

  (a) In the past year 199 patients from Northern Ireland have been sent to the Republic of Ireland for treatment.

  (b)In the past year 1,074 patients from Northern Ireland have been sent to Great Britain for treatment.

  (c)In the past year one patient from Northern Ireland was sent outside of the United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland for treatment.

  The total costs incurred is not available in the form requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  North/South Implementation Bodies
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many staff are employed in each of the North/South Implementation Bodies; and what the staff costs were in each year since the bodies were established. [100723]

  Mr. Browne
  Details of the staff employed in the North/South Implementation Bodies as at 28 February 2003 together with staff costs are provided as follows.

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The following table sets out what products, goods were bought online by the Northern Ireland Office in each of the last five years. There have been no services bought online and no online sales.
  535W

  Financial year

  Products/goods

  1998–99

  Specialist electronic components and IT equipment

  1999–2000

  Specialist electronic components and IT equipment

  2000–01

  Specialist electronic components and IT equipment

  2001–02

  Specialist electronic components and IT equipment

  2002–031

  Specialist electronic components and IT equipment

  1 To date

  In addition, the Northern Ireland Office placed electronic orders via EROS (Electronic Requisitioning and Ordering System).

  EROS is not internet based but is a method for sending electronic orders, via telephone lines to contracted suppliers.

  The types of products ordered electronically on EROS over the last five years are as follows:

  Office equipment and machinery

  PCs and printers

  Miscellaneous computer equipment

  Reprographics

  Stationery, IT consumables, paper and printed material

  Publications.

  The following table sets out what products, goods and services were bought online by the Northern Ireland Administration in each of the last five years. There have been no online sales.

  Financial year

  Products/goods

  Services

  1998–99

  IT software/hardware

  —

  1999–2000

  IT software/hardware

  —

  2000–01

  IT software/hardware Books Stationery

  Flights

  2001–02

  IT software/hardware Books Stationery

  Flights

  2002–031

  IT software/hardware

  Flights

  Books

  Hotel

  Stationery

  Accommodation

  1 To date

  In addition, the Northern Ireland Administration placed electronic orders via Electronic Data Interchange (EDI).

  EDI is not internet based but is a method for sending electronic orders via telephone lines to contracted suppliers.

  The types of products ordered electronically on EDI over the last five years are as follows:

  Bitumen

  Courier services

  Miscellaneous computer equipment

  Office equipment and machinery

  Office machinery maintenance

  Parcel distribution

  PCs and printers

  Postage services

  Printing services

  Publications

  Reprographics

  Road signs

  Stationery, IT consumables, paper and printed material

  536W

  Storage and distribution

  Street lighting

  Tools, equipment and building materials

  Vehicle Maintenance

  Organic Farming
  David Burnside
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland w hat progress has been made towards the target for the area of land converted to organic farming by 2006. [104795]

  Mr. Pearson
  The Northern Ireland Rural Development Plan 2000–2006 included a target that, by 2006, 1,000 farmers would be managing 30,000 hectares organically. At present some 140 producers have 5,200 hectares under organic management.

  Programme for International Student Assessment
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the objective is of the Programme for International Student Assessment; when it was authorised; and by whom. [104511]

  Jane Kennedy
  The international objective of the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) is to measure how well young people approaching the end of compulsory schooling are prepared to meet the challenges of today's knowledge societies. Through PISA, OECD member countries are collaborating to improve comparative indicators on the performance of education systems. Research and statistics provide the basis for sound, evidence-based policy making. The specific objective of Northern Ireland's participation, over and above enabling UK figures to be produced, is to build up a time series, independent of GCSE results and capable of international comparison, of data on how well pupils in Northern Ireland are performing in reading, maths and science.

  Participation by Northern Ireland in PISA 2000 and PISA 2003 was respectively authorised by my predecessors: Tony Worthington in October 1997 and Martin McGuinness in September 2000.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which schools in Northern Ireland participated in the 2003 Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA); on what basis these schools were selected; and what average length of time was taken for each school to complete the PISA. [104512]

  Jane Kennedy
  In keeping with the National Statistics Code of Practice, the identities of schools taking part in the PISA survey are confidential to the Office for National Statistics and the Central Survey Unit of the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency (NISRA).

  Schools were selected at random in proportion to the number of their pupils born in 1987. The list of schools was first stratified according to the following:
  School type (secondary/grammar/independent)
  Secondary and grammar schools were grouped further according to their GCSE results.
  All the sub-groups thus produced were divided according to the five Education and Library Board areas.

  537W
  PISA assessments and pupil questionnaires take three hours to administer. Principals are also asked to spend 40 minutes on a questionnaire about the school.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the total cost is of the 2003 Programme for International Student Assessment. [104513]

  Jane Kennedy
  The estimated financial cost to the Department of Education is £267,000.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether parents were informed of their child's participation in the Programme for International Student Assessment; and how pa rental consent was obtained. [104515]

  Jane Kennedy
  Each school that agreed to take part in the study nominated a 'School Co-ordinator' who was supplied with a 'School Co-ordinator's Manual' describing all the procedures associated with the study, from the build-up to the survey through to the administration of the test. The school co-ordinator was also provided with letters and leaflets for the parents of each child selected to take part in the survey. The letters were provided in unsealed envelopes, giving the school the option of adding a letter of their own or a reply slip. It was for the school to decide whether to send the letter and leaflet by post to the parents, or give them to the pupils to take home. The information for parents included a clear statement of what the survey was about, its voluntary nature, information for parents on how to withdraw their child from the survey, and information on what was involved and how long it would take.

  Sickness Absence
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many working days have been lost due to illness in his Department in(a) 2002 and (b) each of the preceding five years. [90972]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Sick absence statistics for the Northern Ireland civil servants and the home civil servants in the Northern Ireland Office are recorded separately. Figures for home civil servants within the NIO and are recorded as days absence per are not available in the required format. The information available is as follows:

  year

  Days Sick Absence

  Per staff year

  1998

  6.5

  1999

  8.0

  2000

  9.3

  2001

  10.0

  Sick absence statistics for NICS staff in the Northern Ireland Office are analysed by financial year as opposed to calendar year.

  The number of working days lost by NICS staff in the Northern Ireland Office due to illness was 16,394 during 2000–01. Comparable figures are not available for earlier years.
  538W
  The sick absence statistics for 2001–02 for HCS and NICS staff are to be available inthe near future.

  The Northern Ireland Office is committed to managing sickness absence effectively and arange of corporate and departmental initiatives have been and are being taken forwardto reduce the current levels of sickness absence.

  Sick absence statistics for the Northern Ireland Administration are analysed by financialyear as opposed to calendar year. Published statistics for Northern Ireland Departments for the financial year 2000–01 are accessible on the Department's website atwww.dfpni.gov.uk/publications.

  The number of working days lost by NI Departments due to illness was just under 320,000 during 2000/2001 with the comparable figure for 1999–2000 being just over 315,000. Comparable/accurate figures are not available for earlier years. The sick absence statistics for Northern Ireland Departments during 2001–02 are to be published in the near future and will be similarly accessible on the Department's website.

  NI Departments are committed to managing sickness absence effectively and a range of corporate and departmental initiatives have been and are being taken forward to reduce the current levels of sickness absence.

  Smoking in the Workplace
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, what policy his Department has adopted on smoking in the workplace. [100921]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The Northern Ireland Office has a well established policy on smoking in the workplace which was first introduced in 1991 and a complete ban on smoking, apart from designated smoking rooms, has been in operation in all NIO premises since 1995. The policy has been supported through participation in the annual no-smoking day campaign and various health awareness events where professional and medical advice and information has been made available to encourage staff who smoke to give it up.

  In Belfast the Department has recently organised a self help group through the local Action Cancer charity to assist staff who wish to stop smoking.

  Within the Northern Ireland Administration smoking is not permitted in any premises occupied by NIGS staff, except in designated smoking rooms. This ban includes public offices, workshops and depots and extends to all areas including single occupancy rooms, training and conference rooms, corridors, toilets, canteens, reception areas and vehicles.

  Telephone Helplines
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many telephone helplines are sponsored by his Department; and which of these helplines are charged at(a) national rate, (b) premium rate and (c) local rate. [95719]
  539W
  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The Northern Ireland Office sponsors the following Helplines:

  Women's Aid1

  Local or national rate depending on where call is from

  Confidential Telephone

  Freephone

  1 jointly funded by NIO, DHSS and the NI Housing Executive

  The Northern Ireland administration supports 43 telephone helplines. The table provides a breakdown by charge rate.

  National Rate Calls

  DVTA Theory Test minicom service

  Flood Lines Rivers Agency

  Parents Advice Centre Helpline

  Women's Aid Helpline

  Rape Crisis NI Helpline

  Premium Rate Calls

  DVLNI Dealer Information

  Local Rate Calls

  Waterline

  Waterline Textphone

  Roads Service Traffic Watch

  Local Rate Calls continued

  Rural Stress Helpline

  Forest Service

  Rural Development Programme Helpline

  540W

  Farm Census Survey

  Veterinary Service Hotline

  Peace II Helpline

  General Departmental Helpline

  Child Support Agency NI Helpline

  Child Support Agency Eastern Business Unit Helpline

  DVTA Theory Test information/booking

  DVTA MOT2 information

  DVTA fees information

  DELNI Vehicle Registration Hotline

  Non Domestic Revaluation Helpdesk

  Housing Benefit Collection

  Land Web Direct in Land Registers

  Land Register Customer Information Line

  Freephone

  Student Careline

  Course Enquiries

  Fraud Hotline

  Departmental Programmes Helpline

  New Deal for Disabled Persons Helpline

  The learndirect Helpline

  Community Relations

  Victims

  Retirement Pension

  The Organs Enquiry line

  National Drugs Helpline

  Drinkline

  Childline

  Smoking Cessation Telephone Helpline

  National AIDS Helpline

  Child Dental Health Survey

  Housing Benefit Collection Re-assessments

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Adult Education
  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many adult students in further education colleges are studying for(a) a vocational and (b) an academic qualification at (i) level 1, (ii) level 2, (iii) level 3 and (iv) level 4 or above in each of the Learning and Skills Council areas. [104078]

  Margaret Hodge
  This is a matter for the Learning and Skills Council. John Harwood, the Council's Chief Executive, will write to the hon. Gentleman with the information requested and will place a copy of his reply in the Library.

  Curriculum
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills which core subjects make up the core curriculum of the National Curriculum; and if he will make a statement. [105832]

  Mr. Miliband
  The core subjects of the National Curriculum are English, mathematics and science. The non-core foundation subjects of the National Curriculum are history, geography, design and technology, modern foreign languages, information and communication technology, art and design, music, physical education and citizenship. There is also a requirement for schools to teach religious education, sex education and careers education as part of the wider school curriculum.

  Early Years Education
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many three-year-olds had free early years education places providing five or more sessions of education per week in each year since 1997, broken down by Local Education Authority. [104599]

  Maria Eagle
  [holding answer 24 March 2003]: The information requested has been placed in the Library.

  The latest figures on early years provision in England were published by my Department in the Statistical Bulletin 08/02 "Provision For Children Under Five Years Of Age In England—January 2002", copies of which are available from the Library and my Department's web-site, www.dfes.gov.uk/statistics.

  Financial Returns
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimate he has made of the average lifetime financial return of(a) a single female, (b) a married female, (c) a married man, (d) a member of an ethnic minority and (e) those who were on full maintenance support at university. [102531]

  Margaret Hodge
  The Department has not made any estimates of the average lifetime financial return for the specific groups named. Higher education is a good 542W
  investment and the White Paper, "The Future of Higher Education", highlighted how those with higher education qualifications earn on average around 50 per cent. more than non-graduates. There will inevitably be some variation in individual lifetime returns because graduate earnings are influenced by a number of factors, including subject studied, institution attended, occupational choices, and other personal characteristics and demographic factors.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what research the Government has carried out to compare lifetime earnings of graduates with those who had the qualifications to go to university but chose not to; [102532]

  (2) what recent estimate he has made of the average lifetime financial return of (a) a university graduate and (b) a person with two A levels. [102539]

  Margaret Hodge
  The White Paper, "The Future of Higher Education", highlighted how those with higher education qualifications earn on average around 50 per cent. more than non-graduates. Higher education is undoubtedly a good investment. Our estimate of the average additional earnings of those who get two or more 'A' Levels but choose not to go to university is £120,000.

  However, nine out of 10 of those who obtain two or more 'A' Levels go to university. We have no analysis of how the small minority of one in 10 differ from the majority, so comparisons should be treated with caution.

  Jamia Rehmania
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what applications for financial help have been made to the Learning and Skills Council since its inception by Jamia Rehmania. [105353]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 27 March 2003]: Information about requests for funding received by the Learning Skills Council (LSC) is the responsibility of the Council. John Harwood, the Council's Chief Executive, will reply to the hon. Member providing the information requested, and a copy of his reply will be placed in the Library.

  Higher Education
  Jeff Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many people entered higher education from(a) Doncaster, (b) Barnsley and (c) South Yorkshire in each year since 1997. [101697]

  Margaret Hodge
  The latest available information is shown in the table.
  543W

  Accepted applicants to full-time and sandwich undergraduate course by area of home residence

  Year of entry

  Students from:

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Doncaster

  991

  1,000

  1,036

  1,005

  1,180

  1,070

  Barnsley

  685

  732

  751

  836

  856

  776

  South Yorkshire1

  5,168

  4,833

  4,803

  4,965

  5,321

  5,237

  1 Includes students from Doncaster, Barnsley, Sheffield and Rotherham.

  Source:

  Universities and Colleges Admissions Service.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what research studies are available to her Department on the educational value added of higher education courses, classified by type of secondary school attended by the student and broken down into(a) independent schools, (b) state grammar schools, (c) other state selection schools and (d) comprehensive schools, and assessed for (i) individual institutions, (ii) individual years of tertiary study and (iii) completed first degree courses. [104100]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 24 March 2003]: Research that looks at the educational value added of higher education courses, classified by type of secondary school attended by the student includes:
  "Schooling Effects on Subsequent University Performance: Evidence for the UK University Population" 2002 Robin Naylor and Jeremy Smith University of Warwick Working Paper;
  Determinants of individual degree performance in UK universities: with particular reference to Economics" 1999 Robin Naylor and Jeremy Smith University of Warwick;
  "Gender Differences in Educational Attainment: The Case of University Students in England and Wales" 2002 Robert McNabb, Sarmistha Pal and Peter Sloane Economica; and
  "Interim findings on the effects of school performance on higher education achievement" HEFCE presented at UUK's Fair Enough conference January 2003. A fuller report will be published later this year.

  This research shows that, on average, individuals that attend state schools do as well at university, for example, in terms of class of degree, as individuals who do better at A-level but attend Independent schools.

  The Department is not aware of research that looks at how the educational value added of higher education by school type varies by institution or by years of tertiary education. However, some universities have conducted their own research in this field. For example, research at Bristol University found that on the whole, of all the students who entered the University of Bristol with excellent A levels, those who came from weaker schools gained better degrees than the students from stronger schools ("School Performance and the Likelihood of getting into Bristol" by Jeff Odell in 1999).

  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the levels of participation in higher education were in each education authority in(a) 1980, (b) 1990 and (c) 2000. [102425]

  Margaret Hodge
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my right hon. Friend the Member for Tyneside, North (Mr. Byers) on 3 February 2003,Official Report, column 95W, which contains the available data on HE participation for each LEA since 1994. Comparable figures for earlier years are not available centrally.

  Infant Classes
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the average infant class size in(a) Suffolk, (b) Norfolk, (c) Essex and (d) Cambridgeshire was in each year since 1977. [104797]

  Mr. Miliband
  Information on infant class size has been collected in the September Class Size Count which started in 1998. The available figures are shown in the table.

  Maintained Primary Schools: Infant class sizes taught by one teacher

  Position in September each year

  Average infant class size

  By local education authority

  19982

  19993

  20003

  20013

  20023

  Suffolk1

  24.1

  23.1

  22.9

  22.8

  22.7

  Norfolk

  26.1

  23.5

  23.0

  22.7

  22.9

  Essex1

  26.4

  24.7

  24.2

  23.9

  24.1

  Cambridgeshire

  27.7

  26.5

  25.7

  25.5

  25.1

  1 In 2000, less than 95 per cent. of expected returns were received from these local education authorities.

  2 For Essex and Cambridgeshire, before Local Government reorganisation.

  3 For Essex and Cambridgeshire, after Local Government reorganisation.

  Source:

  September Class Size Count

  Learning and Skills Council Areas
  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) young people aged 19 or under and (b) adults are studying in further education colleges in each of the 47 Learning and Skills Council areas in England. [104079]

  Margaret Hodge
  This is a matter for the Learning and Skills Council. John Harwood, the Council's Chief Executive, will write to the hon. Gentleman with the information requested and will place a copy of his reply in the Library.

  New Deal for Schools
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) if he will list for(a) England and (b) each local education authority, the (i) number and (ii) value of fun ding bids made to his Department under the New Deal for Schools programme in each financial year since 1999–2000 for the repair of school buildings; [104598]

  (2) if he will list the total value of grants made by each local education authority in England to schools, through the New Deal for Schools, for the repair of school buildings for the latest date for which figures are available. [104596]
  545W
  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 24 March 2003]: Information available on the number of bids, their value, and the allocations made to the original bid-based New Deal for Schools (NDS 1–4) programme to 2000–01 is shown in a table which has been placed in the Library, together with formulaic allocations from 2000–01. The Department currently allocates most capital funding to schools and local education authorities (LEAs) by needs-related formulae, and it is for LEAs to assess and prioritise the capital needs of their school buildings through their asset management planning process, in consultation with local schools.

  I am also announcing today further allocations of capital funding for schools from the totals that are available over the next three years.

  There will be 15 private finance initiative (PFI) projects with a total allocation of £830 million PFI credits, in response to the invitation we made in 2002 to all LEAs to apply for this funding. I am also establishing four LEA pathfinders, to be funded through PFI credits, to help develop the Building Schools for the Future programme. In total, this represents around £1 billion of support to schools PFI projects.

  There will be Targeted Capital funding to 78 LEA projects totalling £199 million at 71 LEAs, and £146 million of support for 56 projects in voluntary aided schools at 41 LEAs, which should start in 2003–04. These projects support our educational priorities, including promoting inclusion, advancing the 14–19 agenda, and standards-led investment at schools causing concern.

  We are also allocating a new formulaic Modernisation programme of just over £1 billion in 2004–05 and £717 million in 2005–06. The new Programme brings together the existing Condition and Modernisation programmes and will include £300 million of funding in each year targeted at building needs in primary schools to encourage up to 25 per cent. more investment in that sector.

  Ofsted
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) staff and (b) staff engaged in inspection work have been employed by the Office for Standards in Education in each year since 1997. [105869]

  Mr. Miliband
  This is a matter for Ofsted. The Chief Inspector, David Bell will write to the hon. Member and a copy of his letter will be placed in the Library.

  Overseas Students
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many overseas students there were at each university in(a) 1999, (b) 2000, (c) 2001 and (d) 2002; and what percentage of the student body this represented in each case. [100393]
  546W
  Margaret Hodge
  The latest available information shown in the table has been placed in the Library.

  Qualifications
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of the working population in(a) Suffolk, (b) Norfolk, (c) Essex and (d) Cambridgeshire had (i) no qualification and (ii) no qualification above NVQ Level 2 in each year since 1997. [104833]

  Margaret Hodge
  The information requested is presented in the table.

  Table 1: The Level of Highest Qualification Held by People of Working Age1 for Suffolk, Norfolk, Essex and Cambridgeshire Local Education Authorities, Local Labour Force Survey 2000–01 and 2001–022

  Percentage

  Suffolk

  Norfolk

  Essex

  Cambridgeshire

  2001–02

  Level 23

  24.0

  23.6

  24.3

  20.6

  Below Level 24

  21.0

  24.3

  20.6

  21.8

  No qualifications

  16.7

  15.6

  17.8

  14.1

  No qualifications above Level 2

  61.7

  63.5

  62.8

  56.5

  2000–01

  Level 23

  22.7

  24.5

  23.8

  20.3

  Below Level 24

  22.6

  23.9

  21.4

  18.5

  No qualifications

  19.6

  14.8

  17.5

  13.8

  No qualifications above Level 2

  64.9

  63.2

  62.7

  52.7

  1 Working Age is defined as males aged 16 to 64 and females aged 16 to 59.

  2 The Local Labour Force Survey was first made available in 2000–01, and therefore, data prior to this year are not available.

  3 Vocational qualifications include those with RSA Diplomas, City and Guilds Craft/part 2, BTEC Firsts or trade apprenticeships and other professional or vocational qualifications at Level 2. Academic qualifications include those with one GCE A Level, five or more GCSE grades A*-C or equivalent or AS examinations/SCE Highers/CSYS at Level 2.

  4Vocational qualifications include those with BTEC general certificates, YT certificates, other RSA qualifications, other City and Guilds or other professional or vocational qualifications at Level 1. Academic qualifications include those with one or more GCSE grade G or equivalent (but less than five at grades A*-C).

  Source:

  Local Labour Force Survey (LLFS): 2000–01 and 2001–02.

  Student Finance
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley), on 24 February,Official Report, column 346W, what percentage of students were eligible for student support in the years listed; and how many and what percentage of students were eligible for student support in each region of England. [103472]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 18 March 2003]: The percentage of students domiciled in England and Wales who were assessed as eligible for full support in academic years 1996/97 to 2000/01 is shown in the table. Data do not include students who received partial support.
  547W

  Percentage of all eligible students assessed to receive full student support in England and Wales1 Academic years 1996–97 to 2000–012

  Academic year

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–012

  Student Support Scheme Students3,4

  Dependent students5

  —

  —

  35.1

  36.9

  33.6

  Independent students6

  —

  —

  87.7

  88.3

  88.6

  Total all students

  —

  —

  44.8

  45.1

  42.2

  Mandatory Scheme Students7

  Dependent students5

  33.4

  33.0

  31.7

  31.8

  29.6

  Independent students6

  84.8

  84.8

  82.3

  83.6

  83.7

  Total all students

  44.8

  43.8

  40.9

  40.1

  37.1

  All Students

  Dependent students5

  33.4

  33.0

  32.7

  34.9

  33.0

  Independent students6

  84.8

  84.8

  84.0

  86.5

  88.1

  Total all students

  44.8

  43.8

  42.1

  43.2

  41.5

  1 Support assessed by local education authorities in England and Wales to students normally domiciled in their area and studying in the UK.

  2 Provisional

  3 Includes some students (eg PGCEs) who were assessed to make no contribution to the cost of their tuition but who may have been assessed to make a contribution to other forms of support.

  4 New students in 1998–99 received support for maintenance through income-assessed grants (comprising about a quarter of the support available) and non income-assessed student loans (comprising about three quarters of the support available). (The ratio for existing students is roughly 50 per cent. means-tested grant and 50 per cent. non means-tested student loan). In 1999–2000, students who entered higher education from 1998–99 onwards received support for maintenance entirely though loans, of which three quarters of the value was non income-assessed. Loans made under these arrangements are repayable on an income contingent basis.

  5 Dependent students are assessed for support based on the income of their parents and of the students themselves.

  6 Independent students are assessed for support based on their own income and that of their spouse/partner. A student is regarded as independent if he/she is aged 25 or over before the start of the academic year for which they are applying; have been married for at least two years before the start of the academic year for which they are applying or have support themselves for at least three years before the start of their course.

  7 Students who entered higher education up to 1997–98, and those who entered in 1998–99 to whom the mandatory scheme funding arrangements applied, received support for maintenance through income-assessed grants.

  Source:

  F503G Student Support Survey

  The number and percentage of mandatory scheme students in England, shown by Government Office Region, who were eligible for full support in academic years 1996–97 and 1997–98, are shown in the tables. Data on student support are collected for publication at

  Number of all eligible students1 assessed to receive full student support in academic years 1996–97 and 1997–98 England: Government Office Region2

  Thousands

  Dependent students3

  Independent students4

  All students

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1996–97

  1997–98

  England

  186.3

  188.2

  135.7

  129.1

  321.9

  317.3

  North East

  8.9

  9.0

  6.6

  6.5

  15.5

  15.4

  North West

  27.6

  28.6

  20.5

  19.4

  48.1

  48.0

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  17.9

  17.7

  12.1

  12.4

  30.1

  30.1

  East Midlands

  14.2

  14.4

  9.2

  9.1

  23.4

  23.5

  West Midlands

  22.3

  22.2

  12.1

  11.3

  34.5

  33.5

  East of England

  16.8

  17.2

  11.6

  10.9

  28.3

  28.1

  Inner London

  12.8

  13.2

  17.4

  16.0

  30.2

  29.2

  Outer London

  19.7

  20.3

  14.5

  13.5

  34.2

  33.8

  South East

  26.7

  26.2

  18.7

  17.3

  45.4

  43.5

  South West

  19.3

  19.5

  14.0

  12.8

  33.3

  32.4

  1 Student numbers rounded to the nearest thousand.

  2 Support assessed by local education authorities in England to students normally domiciled in their area and studying in the UK.

  3 Dependent students are assessed for support based on the income of their parents and of the students themselves.

  4 Independent students are assessed for support based on their own income and that of their spouse/partner. A student is regarded as independent if he/she is aged 25 or over before the start of the academic year for which they are applying; have been married for at least two years before the start of the academic year for which they are applying or have supported themselves for at least three years before the start of the academic year of their course.

  Source:

  F503G Student Support Survey
  548W
  national level; the data collection exercise from 1998/99 does not allow the production of firm figures below this level, and therefore data by Government Office Region are not available from academic years 1998–99.
  549W

  Percentage of all eligible students assessed to receive full student support in academic years 1996–97 and 1997–98 England: Government Office Region1

  Percentage

  Dependent students2

  Independent students3

  All students

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1996–97

  1997–98

  England

  33

  33

  85

  85

  45

  44

  North East

  33

  34

  84

  86

  45

  46

  North West

  36

  36

  87

  86

  48

  47

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  35

  34

  82

  85

  46

  45

  East Midlands

  31

  31

  85

  84

  42

  41

  West Midlands

  37

  35

  87

  85

  46

  44

  East of England

  28

  28

  82

  80

  38

  37

  Inner London

  52

  52

  90

  90

  69

  68

  Outer London

  34

  34

  86

  85

  46

  45

  South East

  26

  25

  81

  79

  36

  35

  South West

  35

  35

  87

  87

  47

  46

  1 Support assessed by local education authorities in England to students normally domiciled in their area and studying in the UK.

  2 Dependent students are assessed for support based on the income of their parents and of the students themselves.

  3 Independent students are assessed for support based on their own income and that of their spouse/partner. A student is regarded as independent if he/she is aged 25 or over before the start of the academic year for which they are applying; have been married for at least two years before the start of the academic year for which they are applying or have supported themselves for at least three years before the start of the academic year of their course.

  Source:

  F503G student support survey of local education authorities

  Student Profiles
  Paul Farrelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many students in the 2002–03 intake in higher education in England and Wales are estimated to come from families with an income under(a)£10,000 and (b)£20,480 per annum. [104652]

  Margaret Hodge
  The information requested is currently not available. I refer my hon. Friend to the response given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones) on 6 February 2003,Official Report, column 357W.

  Paul Farrelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) full-time and (b) part-time students in the 2002–03 higher education intake estimated to have come from households with family income of less than £10,000 are (i) under the age of 21, (ii) under the age of 25, (iii) under the age of 30 and (iv) over the age of 30. [104706]

  Table 1—Numbers leaving service by age at 31 March

  0–25

  25–30

  30–35

  35–40

  40–45

  45–50

  50–55

  55–60

  Total

  1991

  570

  4,430

  4,620

  5,730

  5,820

  3,470

  1,880

  910

  27,420

  1992

  430

  3,700

  3,650

  4,550

  4,870

  3,220

  1,540

  860

  22,830

  1993

  350

  3,290

  2,950

  3,750

  4,270

  3,000

  1,470

  770

  19,850

  1994

  280

  3,180

  3,170

  3,410

  4,450

  3,450

  1,550

  830

  20,310

  1995

  370

  3,300

  3,250

  3,160

  3,890

  3,370

  1,540

  750

  19,620

  1996

  420

  3,650

  3,410

  2,920

  3,690

  3,600

  1,550

  750

  20,000

  1997

  410

  3,570

  3,260

  2,580

  3,170

  3,230

  1,670

  720

  18,600

  1998

  470

  4,020

  3,890

  2,930

  3,650

  4,180

  2,300

  790

  22,220

  1999

  530

  4,570

  4,040

  2,980

  3,290

  4,200

  2,860

  1,090

  23,560

  2000

  510

  4,690

  4,350

  3,380

  3,500

  4,510

  3,650

  1,440

  26,020

  2001

  530

  4,570

  4,390

  3,180

  3,030

  4,170

  4,000

  1,740

  25,610

  550W
  Margaret Hodge
  The information requested is currently not available. I refer my hon. Friend to the response given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones) on 6 February 2003,Official Report, column 357W.

  Teacher Retention
  Mr. Fabian Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many teachers stopped teaching in each of the last 10 years for reasons other than retirement; and what the average length of service of such teachers was in each of those years. [105540]

  Mr. Miliband
  Table 1 shows the number of teachers leaving1,2 full-time or part-time3 service in the maintained schools sector in England who did not enter retirement, by age at the end of the financial year in which they left service, for 1990–91 to 2000–01.

  Table 2 shows the average length of service of these teachers at the end of the financial year in which they left service, by age at the end of that year, for 1993–944 to 2000–01.
  551W

  Table 2—Average length of service ( years) of those leaving service by age at 31 March

  0–25

  25–30

  30–35

  35–40

  40–45

  45–50

  50–55

  55–60

  Total5

  1994

  1.2

  3.0

  5.9

  9.1

  11.5

  13.9

  15.9

  17.9

  9.8

  1995

  1.3

  3.1

  5.8

  9.1

  11.8

  14.1

  15.9

  18.6

  9.8

  1996

  1.2

  3.0

  5.7

  8.7

  11.2

  14.1

  15.9

  18.5

  9.5

  1997

  1.3

  3.0

  5.8

  8.7

  11.5

  14.5

  16.2

  20.2

  9.7

  1998

  1.2

  3.0

  5.8

  8.5

  11.7

  15.1

  16.9

  19.1

  10.0

  1999

  1.2

  3.0

  5.7

  8.4

  11.8

  15.4

  17.7

  20.7

  10.3

  2000

  1.3

  3.0

  5.7

  8.4

  11.6

  15.4

  18.2

  21.7

  10.7

  2001

  1.2

  3.1

  5.9

  8.7

  11.5

  15.8

  19.6

  22.8

  11.4

  1 Leavers are those qualified regular teachers who were in full-time or part-time service in the maintained schools sector in England at 31 March of the previous year, who were not in service in that sector and had not entered retirement at 31 March of the year shown.

  2 The information is from Teachers' Pension Scheme (TPS) returns. The scheme covers the maintained schools sector plus some of the independent, further education and higher education sectors. Teachers shown as leaving regular service in the maintained sector in England may have moved to: other service that is recorded on the scheme, e.g. service in some independent schools or service in Wales; service that is not recorded, for example higher education establishments that are not in the TPS, these will appear to have left teaching service. Some leavers will be taking career breaks and will return to service at a later date.

  3 Around 10 per cent. to 20 per cent. of part-timers may not be included.

  4 Length of service information is not available for years 1990–91 to 1992–93.

  5 Teachers leaving service at the age of 60 or over who are not recorded as entering retirement have not been included in Table 1, since teachers who leave the scheme after the retirement age of 60 automatically qualify for retirement benefits. However, such teachers have been included in the 'Total' average length of service calculation in Table 2.

  Mr. Fabian Hamilton:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many teachers were granted early retirement on the grounds of ill health in each year since 1998. [105541]

  Mr. Miliband
  Ill health retirements from the maintained schools sector in England are shown in

  Table 44: Retirements—Retirements from the maintained schools sector1: Type of award and sex by year of award: England

  Premature2

  Age

  Ill-health3

  Total

  Financial year (1 April to 31 March)

  Men

  Women

  Men and Women

  Men

  Women

  Men and Women

  Men

  Women

  Men and Women

  Men

  Women

  Men and Women

  1989–90

  3,220

  4,840

  8,060

  960

  2,550

  3,500

  1,270

  2,310

  3,580

  5,440

  9,700

  15,140

  1990–91

  3,000

  4,740

  7,740

  890

  2,610

  3,500

  1,420

  2,860

  4,280

  5,310

  10,210

  15,520

  1991–92

  2,470

  4,070

  6,530

  810

  2,360

  3,170

  1.390

  2,640

  4,030

  4,660

  9,070

  13,730

  1992–93

  2,760

  4,400

  7,170

  750

  2,560

  3,310

  1.440

  2,610

  4,050

  4,950

  9,580

  14,530

  1993–94

  3,180

  4,860

  8,030

  850

  2,580

  3,430

  1,840

  2,990

  4,820

  5,860

  10,420

  16,290

  1994–95

  2,730

  4,390

  7,120

  780

  2,740

  3,520

  1.970

  3,310

  5,290

  5,490

  10,440

  15,930

  1995–96

  3,360

  5,240

  8,600

  760

  2,720

  3,480

  1,870

  3,290

  5,160

  5,990

  11,250

  17,240

  1996–97

  3,840

  6,370

  10,210

  700

  2,600

  3,290

  1,810

  3,170

  4,980

  6,350

  12,130

  18,480

  1997–982

  4,400

  7,090

  11,490

  770

  2,740

  3,510

  1,210

  2,090

  3,300

  6,380

  11,920

  18,300

  1998–99

  970

  1,450

  2,420

  790

  2,950

  3,740

  860

  1,460

  2,320

  2,620

  5,860

  8,480

  1999–2000

  1,150

  1,530

  2,670

  930

  3,260

  4,190

  870

  1,480

  2,350

  2,940

  6,270

  9,210

  2000–01

  1,280

  1,910

  3,190

  950

  3,200

  4,150

  1,040

  1,610

  2,650

  3,270

  6,720

  9,990

  2001–024

  1,330

  2,160

  3,490

  970

  3,140

  4,120

  910

  1,440

  2,350

  3,210

  6,750

  9,950

  1 Excludes sixth form colleges.

  2 The effect of the change in the Teachers' Pension Scheme as from 31 August 1997 was that many more teachers took early retirement in 1997 than in previous years. Premature includes Actuarially Reduced Benefit retirements from 2000–01.

  3 Changes in the statutory regulations governing ill-health retirement came into force on 1 April 1997. To qualify for ill-health retirement benefits a teacher must now be regarded as permanently unfit to teach.

  4 2001–02 data are provisional.

  Source:

  Pensioner Statistical System (PENSTATS)

  Mr. Fabian Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of teachers were aged 45 or over in(a) 2002, (b) 1997, (c) 1992, (d) 1987 and (e) 1982. [105542]

  Mr. Miliband
  The table provides age breakdowns of teachers in full-time service.
  552W
  table 44 of the 2002 edition of 'Statistics of Education: School Workforce in England'. A copy of this volume has been placed in the Library. The table is also available on the statistics section of the DfES website at: www.dfes.gov.uk/statistics/DB/VOL/v0380/456-t44.htm.

  Percentage of teachers by age1

  Year of service (March)

  Under 30

  30–44

  45 and over

  19822

  23

  46

  31

  19873

  14

  53

  32

  19924

  13

  50

  37

  19974

  17

  40

  43

  20014,5

  19

  35

  46

  553W
  1 Age as at 31 March in each year shown.

  2 Full-time teachers in maintained nursery, primary and secondary schools in England and Wales. Includes teachers in sixth form colleges.

  3 Full-time teachers in maintained nursery, primary, secondary and special schools in England. Includes teachers in sixth form colleges.

  4 Full-time teachers in maintained nursery, primary, secondary and special schools in England. Excludes teachers in sixth form colleges.

  5 2001 is the most recent year for which these data are available.

  Note:

  Figures are rounded and may not appear to sum to 100 per cent.

  Tuition Fees
  Paul Farrelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills from which universities he has received representations recommending the setting of tuition fee levels at above £3,000 per annum; and what those representations were. [104627]

  Margaret Hodge
  We have received a number of representations on a wide range of issues. In setting the cap at £3,000 per annum, we wanted to balance giving the higher education sector the freedom to raise fees with fairness to prospective students and their families.

  Universities (Participation)
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much money will be allocated to widening participation in universities in each academic year to 2010–11. [102304]

  Margaret Hodge
  The Higher Education Funding Council for England is providing £296.2 million for widening participation in higher education in 2003–04. The Learning and Skills Council is also providing £15.6 million for widening participation in higher education in 2003–04. That is a total of £311.8 million for widening participation in higher education in 2003–04.

  These figures do not include funding for targeted student support. The Councils have not set their widening participation spending for future years.

  University Research Funding
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much HEFCE funding of research will be diverted from university departments graded(a) at 4 and (b) below 4 annually to finance enhanced payments for departments graded at 5 or above. [105303]

  Margaret Hodge
  The Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) has used extra resources provided by the Government to increase the total recurrent funding for research by £102 million in 2003–04 compared with 2002–03. HEFCE has rebalanced the funding levels between ratings to ensure better resourcing and improved quality of the best research. This did mean a reduction in funding of £21 million for departments rated 4 and a net reduction of £4.3 million for departments rated 3a and 3b. This takes into account the new capability development funding for 3a and 3b departments in subjects where there is a particular need to boost research. The Government are keen to encourage more mid-rated 554W
  departments to aspire to ratings of 5 or above and we have asked HEFCE to look at how funding for these departments can be related to potential to progress further.

HEALTH

  Delayed Discharges
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what estimate he has made of the cost of delayed discharges to the NHS in(a) the Bury St. Edmunds constituency and (b) Suffolk in the last year for which figures are available; [104804]

  (2) how much delayed discharge of patients cost the NHS (a) nationally, (b) in Suffolk West PCT and (c) in Central Suffolk PCT in the last year for which figures are available. [104834]

  Jacqui Smith
  Information is not available in precisely the form requested. In the last year for which figures are available, up to December 2002, there was an average of 5,233 delayed transfers of care of patients of all ages, on any single day, in England. However there are only figures available at a primary care trust level for the first three quarters of 2002–03, (April to December 2002) when the average number of patients delayed on any one day was 32 in Suffolk West PCT, and 18 in Central Suffolk PCT. On the same basis the average figure for all the PCTs in Suffolk was 130 per day.

  On the basis of an average cost to the national health service of £100 per day, the broad estimate of the cost to the NHS where these patients have experienced delays in an acute hospital bed for this period is around £500,000 per day for England as a whole, £3,200 per day in Suffolk West PCT and £1,800 per day in Central Suffolk PCT. The estimate for all PCTs in Suffolk is £13,000 per day.

  GPs
  Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many potential registered patients are required to justify authority for establishing a GP practice in Edenfield, Rossendale. [104948]

  Jacqui Smith
  The decision on whether there is a need to establish a general practitioner practice is at the discretion of the primary care trust.

  Head and Brain Injury Rehabilitation
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the decision was taken to devolve commissioning responsibility for head and brain injury rehabilitation services to health authorities and primary care trusts; and what assessment he is undertaking of the impact of that devolution on service provision. [104721]

  Jacqui Smith
  In October 2002 the NHS Reform and Healthcare Professions Act provided for most of the functions of the health authorities to be conferred onto primary care trusts (PCTs) and for health service resources to be allocated directly to PCTs by the Secretary of State. PCTs are expected to establish collaborative commissioning arrangements for specialised services, of which head and brain injury
  555W
  rehabilitation services are one, and strategic health authorities are expected to oversee and performance manage these arrangements.

  Health Services (East Yorkshire)
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the(a) direct and (b) indirect costs are for the (i) establishment and (ii) operation of the Strategic Health Authority headquarters in York. [105229]

  Jacqui Smith
  The creation of the North and East Yorkshire and Northern Lincolnshire Strategic Health Authority (StHA) was part of the Government's 'Shifting the Balance of Power in the NHS' proposals, which were committed to delivering savings of £100 million for re-investment in services.

  The establishment of the StHA was within this national programme and included a period of 'shadow' running during 2001–02 while the three former health authorities were dissolved and responsibilities transferred to the new organisation. During this period, temporary office space was rented in the York Science Park at a cost of approximately £3,500, to facilitate the establishment of the StHA.

  The StHA was established on 1 April 2002 with a ceiling for operating costs of £4 million set by the Department. In the financial year 2002–03, expenditure is forecast to be £3.3 million. This comprises payroll costs of £.9 million and non-pay costs of £1.4 million.

  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list(a) current and (b) proposed PFI projects for the Hull and East Yorkshire NHS Hospitals Trust. [105232]

  Patients of Unrestricted Principals and Equivalents (UPEs)1 for North and East Yorkshire and Northern Lincolnshire Strategic Health Authority as at 1 October 1997–99 and 30 September 2000–01

  Numbers (headcount)

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  England Patients of UPEs

  50,904,322

  51,110,352

  50,894,064

  51,332,917

  51,249,672

  North and East Yorkshire and Northern Lincolnshire StHA

  1,655,197

  1,631,540

  1,653,512

  1,648,770

  1,639,945

  East Yorkshire PCT

  —

  —

  147,325

  146,709

  145,743

  Eastern Hull PCT

  —

  —

  124,804

  123,813

  119,914

  West Hull PCT

  —

  —

  162,587

  160,276

  162,393

  1 UPEs include QMS Unrestricted Principals, PMS Contracted GPs and PMS Salaried GPs

  Note:

  Data has been converted to match Strategic Health Authority structures for 2002

  Source:

  Department of Health General and Personal Medical Services Statistics.

  Nursing Homes
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps his Department is taking to increase the number of nursing home beds in Suffolk. [104818]

  Jacqui Smith
  I understand that Suffolk county council has recently agreed a 5 per cent. fee increase in care home fees across the board. In 2002–03, a new investment of £92,000 enabled the council to provide 22 additional places in local council specialist provision for people with mental health needs.

  Over the next three years, the Government will increase the funding for social services by an annual average of six per cent. in real terms. Councils can use
  556W
  Jacqui Smith:
  There are three current or completed Private Finance Initiative projects for Hull and East Yorkshire Hospitals National Health Service Trust.

  The Maternity and Acute Development at Hull Royal Infirmary has a capital value of £22 million and enables the rationalisation of clinical services onto a major hospital site. The first patients are due to attend in early April 2003.

  The reprovision of out-patient, radiology and urology services at Castle Hill in Cottingham, with a capital value of £8 million, was opened in spring 2002.

  The Withernsea Community Hospital and Resource Centre, with a capital value of £3 million, opened in November 1998.

  There is one planned PFI project for the trust. The development of a new integrated oncology and clinical haematology centre at Castle Hill Hospital has a capital value of £53 million and was put out to tender in November 2002.

  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients were registered with NHS services in each of the last five years in the area covered by the Hull and East Yorkshire NHS Hospitals Trust. [105235]

  Jacqui Smith
  Information on the number of patients registered with the national health service is not available on an NHS trust basis. The table shows the number of patients registered across the North and East Yorkshire and Northern Lincolnshire Strategic Health Authority area for the last five years, and the number of patients registered with local primary care trusts since they were established in 1999.

  some of these extra resources to raise care home fees and thereby stimulate extra supply if that is what is required locally.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham can expect answers to his Questions Ref 96033, 96059 of 3 February, 97861, 97882 of 10 February and 100554, 100512, 100555, 100416 of 26 February. [106564]

  Jacqui Smith
  I refer the hon. Member to the replies that I gave him on 3 March 2003,Official Report, column 882W, on 4 March 2003, Official Report, column 460–1W, and column 996W and on 18 March

  557W
  2003, Official Report, column 672W. I also refer him to the replies given by my hon. Friend, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Mr. Lammy) on 6 March 2003, Official Report, columns. 1212W, 1215W, and 1217–8W. The remaining question was answered by my hon. Friend, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Office (Mr. Hilary Benn) on 7 March 2003, Official Report, column 1276W.

  Waiting Times
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what percentage of patients waited less than 20 minutes for thrombolysis after arriving in hospital in(a) England, (b) each strategic health authority and (c) each NHS trust at the latest date for which statistics are available; [104411]

  (2) what percentage of patients waited less than 20 minutes for thrombolysis after arriving in hospital in (a) England, (b) each strategic health authority and (c) each NHS trust in each period for which statistics have been collected centrally. [104882]

  Ms Blears
  Statistics on the time patients wait for thrombolysis are collected through the Myocardial Infarct National Audit Project (MINAP) run by the Royal College of Physicians (RCP). MINAP shows that for the last three months of 2002, 44 per cent. of clinically eligible heart attack patients in England were treated within 20 minutes of hospital arrival, an increase of 24 per cent. over the same period in 2000. The data for strategic health authorities and hospitals in England where heart attack patients are treated are available online to individual health authorities and trusts for monitoring purposes. The RCP published the data covering the first six months of 2002 on 19 November 2002 and copies of the report will be placed in the Library. The RCP plans a further publication which will include the full 2002 dataset later this year.

CABINET OFFICE

  East Timor
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what plans he has to release Cabinet Office papers from 1975–76 concerning Indonesia, East Timor and the Balebo killings. [103920]

  Mr. Alexander
  All Cabinet Office records are considered for release to the Public Record Office under the 30 year rule. 1975–76 papers are, therefore, due to be released in 2006–07. The Cabinet Office archive, however, does not contain papers relating to the Balebo killings.

  Pensions
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office 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. [104918]
  558W
  Mr. Alexander
  The Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme is an unfunded public service pension scheme made under the Superannuation Act 1972. The last scheme valuation, disclosed in the Report of the Actuary in the Cabinet Office: Civil Superannuation Resource Accounts 2001–02 (HC355), valued scheme liabilities at 31 March 2002 as £64.2 billion.

TREASURY

  Air Taxes (Northern Ireland Economy)
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of taxation on air travel upon the Northern Ireland economy and the tourist industry; and if he will abolish air passenger duty. [106048]

  John Healey
  The Government are currently reviewing their use of economic instruments in the aviation sector. As outlined in the document "Aviation and the Environment—Using Economic Instruments", it is the Government's objective that aviation should be sustainable.

  Children at Risk
  Matthew Green
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has through the plans set out in the Children at Risk Green Paper to ensure that support services for adults are provided to their families at times of crisis through(a) the criminal justice system, (b) the health system, (c) housing departments and (d) the benefits system. [104967]

  Mr. Boateng
  While it is too early to comment in detail on the content of the Green Paper, Government recognises the importance of ensuring that services for parents are sensitive to the needs of their children.

  (a) The Home Office is currently taking forward work on children of offenders and children of drug users. Both these pieces of work will feed into the Green Paper.

  (b) The supporting people programme, which begins on 1 April, will put in place a strategic framework for the planning and funding of housing-related support services at a local level. Proposals from the Children at Risk Green Paper will complement the role of supporting people to ensure that families in crisis get the support they need to live independently in accommodation.

  (c) The Children's National Service Framework (NSF) now in progress is currently developing national standards across the National Health Service and social services for children and young people. The Children in Special Circumstances Expert Working Group to the NSF is looking at how children are affected by the needs of their parents in cases where there is domestic violence, parent with mental health problems and parents in prison.

  (d) The Government is committed to tackling child poverty. As a result of personal tax and benefit reforms introduced by the Government since 1997, by April 2003, families with children in the poorest fifth of the population will be, on average, £2,400 a year better off in real terms.

  559W
  Matthew Green
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what plans he has through the recommendations in the Green Paper on Children at Risk, to ensure that every child with complex needs, with particular reference to mental health needs, has a key worker; [104968]

  (2) what plans he has to improve mental health training for professionals working with children, as part of the plans set out in the Green Paper on Children at Risk. [104969]

  Mr. Boateng
  Positive mental health is vital for children and young people's self esteem, relationships with friends and family and ability to enjoy and achieve at school and beyond. The Green Paper on Children at Risk is focusing on children from 0–19 and particularly those with complex needs.

  The Green Paper is also looking at ways to improve common training, including in mental health issues for professionals who work with children and young people. This includes considering the possible role of key workers in ensuring more integrated service provision to those most at risk.

  Matthew Green
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Green Paper Team on Children at Risk plans to introduce a transition to parenthood programme as an early preventative strategy. [104970]

  Mr. Boateng
  Government recognises that parenting and family support is a key preventative service, which is provided in order to enable parents, carers and families to use resources effectively. Local preventative strategies cover parenting support and these are ongoing at the moment.

  The Green Paper on Children at Risk will build on ongoing work across government, looking at how parents can be enabled to support their children best, from preparing for parenthood, throughout the key early years and as their children grow towards adulthood.

  Commodity Price Projections
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what research was commissioned by his Department into the future of(a) oil and (b) non-oil commodity prices as outlined in paragraph A15 in the pre-Budget report, Cm 5664. [105339]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government do not publish forecasts for oil and non-oil commodity prices. projections for the public finances are based on an oil price assumption independently audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General, which was deemed to be reasonable and to incorporate caution when audited at the time of the 2002 pre-Budget report.

  Company Profits
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assumptions have been used to form the expectation in paragraph 2.44 of the pre-Budget Report 2002 that financial company profits will return to trend in the medium term. [105321]
  560W
  Ruth Kelly
  Financial company profits have been depressed by the downturn in international capital markets and global economic uncertainty. However, there is no reason to expect these shortfalls to be permanent, and profits are expected to return towards their medium-term trends as recovery in the world economy becomes more firmly established and gathers pace.

  Crown Estate
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his answer of 14 March 2003,Official Report, column 491W, on the Crown Estate, when the Government last made an assessment of the level of charges levied by the Crown Estate. [105891]

  Mr. Boateng
  I am satisfied that the Crown Estate Commissioners exercise their statutory duties under the Crown Estate Act in the light of the commercial environment faced by Crown Estate tenants and the requirements of good management. Crown Estate and Treasury officials meet periodically to discuss matters of mutual interest.

  Customs and Excise
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer where the four new national strike teams of Customs officers, whose priority will be meat and animal products, will be based; how many officers each team will comprise; and whether they will be responsible to(a) the Department of Environment Food and Rural Affairs and (b) Her Majesty's Treasury. [106108]

  John Healey
  Customs will have responsibility for the detection of undeclared meat and animal products arriving from non-EU locations. Present assessments suggest that risk for this third-country traffic is currently highest in respect of air passengers.

  The new national detection teams will operate throughout the UK according to risk assessment.

  Customs' strategic approach to tackling this problem is agreed with DEFRA who retain the animal health policy lead.

  Customs detection staff tackling the smuggling of meat and animal products will be responsible to the Commissioners of HM Customs and Excise and to Treasury Ministers, as for all other assigned matters.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will make a statement about co-operation with the wine, spirit and beer sector and HM Customs and Excise in tackling revenue loss through freight smuggling and diversion fraud; [106035]

  (2) if he will promote the development of a Memorandum of Understanding between the wine, spirit and beer trade and HM Customs and Excise in order to combat illicit imports and inward diversion fraud. [106037]

  John Healey
  Customs and the industry currently work together via the Joint Spirits Fraud Task Force (JSFTF) and the Joint Alcohol and Tobacco Consultation Group (JATCG); both joint initiatives
  561W
  aim to identify practical and regulatory ways of tackling revenue loss through freight smuggling and diversion fraud.

  This has already resulted in a number of practical measures to tackle fraud, including providing testing kits to help Customs identify counterfeit products and allowing front-line officers to call up instant information about suspect consignments they have intercepted. Customs will build on this good initial progress and will continue to explore with the industry what new steps might be taken to keep pace with the changing tactics of fraudsters, and what further support the industry can provide.

  The drafting of a Memorandum of Understanding is part of the on-going work of the JSFTF. Although it concentrates on spirits fraud, many of the practical measures that it implements will apply equally to wine and beer.

  Equity Release Products
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what resources the Treasury has allocated to address the question of regulating reversionary equity release products, with particular reference to(a) taking the advice of Counsel and (b) engaging parliamentary draftsmen; [106523]

  (2) what steps the Government is taking in consulting on regulating reversionary equity release products; and whether it intends that the introduction of such regulation will coincide with the regulation of mortgage-based schemes; [106522]

  (3) what assessment the Government has made, in the absence of regulation of reversionary equity release products, of the risk to consumer confidence in the overall equity release market; [106524]

  (4) what assessment the Government has made of the extent to which partial regulation of equity release products is acting as a barrier to entry. [106525]

  Ruth Kelly
  As announced in the Government's Green Paper on Pensions, the Government is looking at the options to create a level playing field for the regulation of equity release and home reversion plans to protect consumers and make the market work better. No decisions have yet been taken and consequently no resources allocated for taking the advice of Counsel or engaging parliamentary draftsmen. I will make an announcement in due course.

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps the Government is taking to educate the population in the use of equity release products. [106526]

  Ruth Kelly
  Consumer education in relation to financial services is a matter for the Financial Services Authority.

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps the Government is taking to enable providers of equity release products adequately to hedge their exposures. [106527]

  Ruth Kelly
  Those firms that are authorised by the Financial Services Authority (FSA) will be regulated prudentially, that is as to their solvency and risk 562W
  management. Within FSA rules, the financial management of equity release providers is a matter for the managers of such firms.

  Euro
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) which Government officials are responsible for liaisons with officials from the Isle of Man in respect of the euro; [106251]

  (2) when the most recent discussion between Government officials and representatives of Guernsey was in respect of the euro; [106416]

  (3) whether the issue of the euro has been discussed during recent meetings between Government officials and representatives of Jersey. [106415]

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

  External Consultants
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the total cost to his Department was of the use of external consultants in 2002. [90505]

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much(a) his Department and (b) each agency and non-departmental public body spent on external consultancy in each year from 1995–96 to 2002–03 (planned); and if he will make a statement. [92234]

  Ruth Kelly
  The costs to HM Treasury for external consultants were as follows:

  Year

  £000

  1995–961

  1,900

  1996–97

  1,032

  1997–98

  1,160

  1998–99

  1,789

  1999–2000

  1,489

  2000–01

  1,667

  2001–02

  1,160

  2002–032

  1,972

  1 These figures include expenditure incurred on professional fees in connection with the privatisation programme.

  2 To date.

  The current year's figure includes an exceptional number of projects related to cyclical investment in Treasury's IT system. For example we have upgraded our financial accounting and the Economic Forecasting Database (£304,482). In previous years, spend was dominated by large policy projects, rather than replacing IT systems.

  Fiscal Projections
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when key assumptions were used in the fiscal projections of the 2002 pre-Budget report regarding(a) trend GDP growth, (b) equity prices and (c) oil prices last audited by the National Audit Office. [105331]

  Mr. Boateng
  Box B1 of the 2002 pre-Budget report (Cm 5664) set out when the key assumptions underlying the fiscal projections were last audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General: the trend GDP
  563W
  growth assumption was last audited at the time of the Budget 2002 (see HC 760, Session 2001–02); the equity prices assumption was last audited at the time of the 2000 pre-Budget report (see HC 959, Session 1999–2000); and the oil prices assumption was last audited at the time of the 2002 pre-Budget report (see HC 109, Session 2002–03).

  Inland Revenue
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many staff are employed by the Inland Revenue. [105701]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue employed 71,873 staff at 1 October 2002, equivalent to 66,400 full time units.

  Insurance
  Clive Efford
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his answer of 18 March,Official Report, column 677–8, on insurance, (1) how many responses he has had to the consultation on regulating insurance mediation; if he will place copies in the Library; and what representations he has received from travel agents and tour operators; [106543]

  (2) if he will carry out a cost benefit analysis of each of the three options proposed in the consultation on the adoption of the insurance mediation directive. [106542]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government has received some four hundred responses to the consultation on the adoption of the insurance mediation directive including many from travel agents and operators. A summary of the responses will be placed in the Library when decisions are announced in the second quarter of this year. In accordance with the usual procedure, a regulatory impact assessment will be published at the time the legislation is presented to Parliament.

  Iraq
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent assessment he has made of the effect a conflict in Iraq will have on(a) the UK and (b) the world economy. [105677]

  Mr. Boateng
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary gave to the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) on 27 March,Official Report, column 340W.

  Landfill Tax
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his statement of 3 February 2003,Official Report, column 5WS, on the Landfill Tax Credit Scheme, how the Government is ensuring that the transitional funding is applied across the UK on a basis fully compliant with European Union laws, with particular reference to laws governing state aids. [103632]

  John Healey
  The Landfill Tax Credit Scheme transitional arrangements for England allow continued funding, for a one year period, of waste projects that are on-going under the scheme, subject to EU state aid rules. A process has been put in place to make decisions on allocating funding to projects on the basis of the 564W
  criteria set out in the announcement of 3 February. Spending is subject to state aid rules if the resources not only benefit selected undertakings or sectors, but also have the potential to distort both competition and trade across the EU. Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales are responsible for ensuring that their spending programmes comply with European Union treaty obligations.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which community projects based in the Buckingham constituency have benefited from the Landfill Tax Credit Scheme in(a) 2002 and (b) 2003; and how much funding was granted for each project. [105699]

  John Healey
  Details of projects funded by the scheme are available from the scheme's regulator, ENTRUST whose address is as follows:

  ENTRUST

  Acre House

  2 Town Square

  Sale

  M33 7WZ

  I have asked ENTRUST to write to the hon. Member with a response to his question.

  Net Worth
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what assumptions were made in forming the expectation of a modest decline in net worth, as set out in paragraph 2.56 of the pre-Budget Report 2002; [105326]

  (2) what cautious assumptions are referred to in paragraph 2.61 of the pre-Budget Report 2002, on which projections of the cyclically-adjusted treaty deficit are based; [105327]

  (3) what the assumptions are on which the projections (a) concerning output and (b) in Table B3 of the pre-Budget Report 2002 are based; and what assumptions were made about (i) the state of the world economy and (ii) oil prices in compiling the data in Table B3; [105330]

  (4) what the assumptions are on which the projections concerning (a) fairness and prudence, (b) long-term sustainability, (c) economic impact, (d) financing and (e) European commitments in Table 2.6 of the pre-Budget Report 2002 are based; and what assumptions were made about (i) the state of the world economy and (ii) oil prices in compiling Table 2.6; [105323]

  (5) what are the cautious assumptions referred to in paragraph 2.62 of the pre-Budget Report 2002, which were used to make public finance projections; [105328]

  (6) what the assumptions are on which the projections of (a) surplus on current budget, (b) net borrowing, (c) cyclically adjusted surplus on current budget, (d) cyclically adjusted public sector net borrowing and (e) net debt in Table 2.3 of the pre-Budget Report 2000 are based; and what assumptions were made about (i) the state of the world economy and (ii) oil prices in compiling Table 2.3; [105316]

  (7) what assumptions were made about (a) the state of the world economy, (b) oil prices and (c) the size of automatic stabilisers in compiling the projections of the changes to the current budget since Budget 2002, as set out in Table 2.4 of the pre-Budget Report 2002; [105317]
  565W
  (8) what assumptions were made concerning (a) the state of the world economy, (b) export demand and (c) levels of foreign investment in the UK in the fiscal projections set out in the pre-Budget Report 2002. [105332]

  Ruth Kelly
  A full description of the assumptions on which the fiscal projections contained in the pre-Budget Report 2002 are based is given in paragraph B20, Table B3, and Box B1 of the same report. The key assumptions are audited by the National Audit Office (NAO) under the three year rolling review process to ensure they remain reasonable and cautious. Annex A of the pre-Budget Report 2002 presented a full discussion of economic developments and prospects, including the world economy, trade and the balance of payments, oil prices, and UK output growth.

  Projections for the cyclically adjusted fiscal balances and automatic stabilizers are based on the average impact of changes in the output gap on the public finances over the previous cycles, as set out in 'Fiscal policy: public finances and the cycle', HM Treasury, March 1999. Updated coefficients for estimating cyclically-adjusted fiscal balances taking into account changes in the corporation tax regime were set out in paragraph C14 of Budget 2001.

  Pensions
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 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. [104931]

  Mr. Boateng
  The only public body which the Treasury sponsors that has a pension scheme is the Bank of England. The Bank has a funded defined benefit scheme providing benefits based on final pensionable pay.

  The actuarial value at the valuation of February 2002, using the projected unit method, gave the Fund's assets as £1,431 million, representing 112 per cent. of the benefits that have accrued to date. There was a surplus of £150 million.

  Public Finances
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what(a) anticipated changes in asset prices and (b) other determinants of tax receipts were used in predicting changes in the output gap on the public finances, as referred to in paragraph 2.43 of the pre-Budget Report 2002; [105319]

  (2) what changes in the output gap on the public finances were anticipated in making the estimates of the changes in the size of automatic stabilisers as set out in Table 2.4 of the pre-Budget Report 2002. [105318]

  Mr. Boateng
  The relationship between the output gap and of the main components of tax receipts and public expenditure is outlined in 'Fiscal policy: public finances and the cycle', HM Treasury, March 1999,566W
  which describes the Government's methodology for producing cyclically adjusted fiscal aggregates. This methodology is based on the historical relationship between the output gap and key fiscal aggregates and therefore reflects the average impact of previous economic cycles on the public finances.

  Its application only requires estimates of the output gap.

  Stock Exchange
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the performance of the London stock exchange since January in comparison to other leading stockmarkets. [105349]

  Ruth Kelly
  Performance of UK stock market indices has been comparable with performance of US indices and better than European indices since January 2003. Between 2 January 2003 and 24 March 2003, the FTSE All-Share index declined around 7 per cent., compared with a 5 per cent. decline in the S&P 500, a 15 per cent. decline in the French CAC-40 and an 18 per cent. decline in the German DAX. Falls in UK market capitalisation since January have been smaller than in Europe but greater than in the US. Increases in the volume of shares traded on the FTSE All-Share index since January have been greater than US and German volume increases but less than French volume increases.

  Tax Credits
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many families in Hamilton South he estimates will benefit from the working families tax credit. [106577]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The numbers of recipients of Working Families' Tax Credit and Disabled Person's Tax Credit in each local authority and in each constituency are shown in "Working Families' and Disabled Person's Tax Credit Statistics. Geographical Analyses", copies of which are in the Library and on the Inland Revenue web site, www.inlandrevenue.gov.uk, under "Facts and Figures".

  Travel Costs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the cost was of travel by train by staff in his Department in 2002. [106337]

  Ruth Kelly
  Information is not held in the form requested.

  Unpaid Tax
  David Davis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the total amount of unpaid tax, broken down by major category, in(a) the East Riding of Yorkshire and (b) the Yorkshire and the Humber region in each year since 1997. [105282]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue does not hold information about unpaid tax on a local or regional basis.I gave the national figures in answer to a Question from the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) on 4 March 2003, Official Report, column 921W.

  Voluntary Sector
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the future delivery of public services by the voluntary sector. [105687]

  Mr. Boateng
  As outlined in the cross cutting review of the role of the voluntary and community sector in service delivery (available on the Treasury website), we believe that voluntary and community organisations have a crucial role to play in the reform of public services and reinvigoration of civic life. They add value to service delivery in a way that complements, but does not substitute the responsibilities of government. The Government are committed to creating a framework in which the sector can continue to flourish, be strong and independent.

  Withholding Taxes
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what the UK Government's policy is on EU policy towards withholding taxes; and which EU countries are introducing a withholding tax on savings income; [105927]

  (2) which (a) EU countries and (b) offshore investment centres under the British Crown are introducing exchange of information concerning investment income. [105922]

  Dawn Primarolo
  HM Government supports exchange of information as the best means of combating cross-border tax evasion on savings income.

  At ECOFIN on 21 January 2003, the EU reaffirmed its ultimate objective of exchange of information, on as wide a basis as possible, in respect of savings income. Political agreement was reached that all 15 member states would move to a system of automatic exchange of information, with a transitional period for Austria, Belgium and Luxembourg. During this transitional period, it was agreed that these three member states would operate a withholding tax, rising to 35 per cent., on non-resident savings income.

  EU member states assessed on 21 January that sufficient reassurances had been received that all the UK territories listed in the ECOFIN conclusions of 20 June 2000 at Santa Maria da Feira will implement the same measures as EU member states.

  Under the OECD's initiative on harmful tax competition, Anguilla, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Gibraltar, Guernsey, Isle of Man, Jersey, Montserrat and Turks and Caicos Islands have all made commitments to exchange of information on request in respect of direct tax matters.

  World Economy
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the change in the level of global economic uncertainty since November 2002. [105322]

  Ruth Kelly
  Updated forecasts for UK and G7 GDP will be presented alongside the Budget statement on 9 April 2003.

  World Trade
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what research was carried out to conclude in the pre-Budget report, Cm 5664, that world trade growth will increase by 5.25 per cent. in 2003 and by 8.75 per cent. in 2004. [105338]

  Ruth Kelly
  In the pre-Budget report the Government published forecasts of G7 GDP growth, world trade in goods and services and UK export market growth. Updated forecasts, based on all the latest available data, will be published alongside the Budget on 9 April.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Antisocial Behaviour Orders
  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what measures she is taking to ensure that magistrates receive an appropriate(a) level of training and (b) guidance as to how to handle anti-social behaviour order applications, with particular reference to the standard of proof required. [105370]

  Yvette Cooper
  The training of magistrates is the responsibility of Magistrates' Courts' Committees (MCCs). The Judicial Studies Board (JSB) advises my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor on the policy for, and content of, training for lay magistrates; and on the efficiency and effectiveness with which MCCs deliver such training.

  JSB training materials for lay magistrates on anti-social behaviour orders were revised in November 2002 as a result of the legislative changes introduced by the Police Reform Act 2002. These materials were issued to all MCCs and made available on the JSB web site. The training materials contain case studies that offer those using them an opportunity to explore the legal and practical issues arising in dealing with anti-social behaviour order applications including the standard of proof to be applied.

  Departmental Catering Services
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the cost was of(a) the in-house canteen and (b) other catering services provided by the Department in 2002. [104259]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Catering services to meet my Department's requirements are provided through contractual arrangements with specialist suppliers. The term "in-house canteen" is taken to mean facilities provided primarily for use by my Department's staff.

  My Department operates one staff canteen in its London headquarters where there is a concentration of staff. The facility is also used by visitors to the building.

  Income from sales is used to offset the cost to the Department. However, there is a need for a subsidy, the cost of which was £82,124 in 2002.

  My Department also provides catering services for jurors and other members of the public attending court buildings. These facilities are provided at 63 courts in England and Wales. In order to provide a service which supports effectively the business of the courts and

  569W
  maintains the segregation and security of the various parties, especially jurors, a subsidy is required. In 2002 the subsidy amounted to £1,237,456.

  Departmental Creche Facilities
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what creche facilities are provided by the Lord Chancellor's Department; and at what cost. [104293]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  My Department has 45 bought-in nursery places, and during the past year, provided 78 holiday playscheme places. These cost approximately £103,000 during the past year: £94,000 on subsidised nursery places (at a cost of £2,350 per child per annum); and £9,000 on subsidised playscheme places during school holidays (at a cost of £115 per place).

  We are currently conducting a review to establish whether other forms of childcare such as vouchers and after-school care could supplement existing provision. Departmental childcare subsidies were reduced to 25 per cent. of the cost in order to assist a greater number of employees with a more flexible childcare package.

  The development of a Playscheme Pack1 to support regional holiday playscheme initiatives is already underway.

  My Department has participated actively in an inter-departmental Working Party in collaboration with the Daycare Trust to develop a new childcare strategy for Civil Service employees. We are contributing to the development of a toolkit to assist Departments in making a business case for the provision of childcare and the establishment of a central database of information about setting up childcare initiatives.

  Departmental Events
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department 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. [104285]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The information requested is not readily available and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Departmental Invoices
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will list the occasions on which her departmental agencies and non-departmental public bodies failed to pay valid invoices within 30 days, or after the agreed credit period in the financial year 2001–02. [104310]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  No central record is kept of late payment of individual invoices. However, overall, during the financial year 2001–02, my Department, (excluding the Legal Services Commission (LSC)) paid 94.4 per cent. of valid invoices received within 30 days. The breakdown is as follows.
  570W
  LCD—96.2 per cent.

  Court Service—95 per cent.

  Northern Ireland Court Service—91.03 per cent.

  HM Land Registry—99.1 per cent.

  Pubic Guardianship Office—100 per cent.

  Public Record Office—99.1 per cent.

  CAFCASS—88 per cent.

  Payment performance in respect of commercial invoices by the LSC is not recorded separately by them from other kinds of payment and is therefore not available without disproportionate cost.

  Pensions
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will list the(a) funded and (b) unfunded public sector pension schemes for which the Lord Chancellor's Department, its agencies and its non-departmental public bodies are responsible; when the last actuarial valuation was of each scheme; what the value was of the assets at the last actuarial valuation of each scheme; what deficit is disclosed by the last actuarial valuation of each scheme; and if she will make a statement. [104933]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  My Department is responsible for two unfunded public sector pension schemes: for Law Commissioners; and for Immigration, and Immigration Appeal, Adjudicators. The last actuarial valuation for both was in March 2002. The schemes' liabilities at that time were £2,769,000 for the Law Commissioners' scheme; and £1,163,000 for the Immigration, and Immigration Appeal, Adjudicators' scheme. As unfunded schemes, they do not have any assets and do not show deficits.

  Youth Courts
  David Davis
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many youth court cases in the East Riding of Yorkshire have had to be abandoned because the(a) accused and (b) witnesses failed to attend in each year since 1997. [105198]

  Yvette Cooper
  This information is not held centrally, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Data on the reasons why trials fail to proceed has been collected from all Magistrates' Courts Committee (MCC) areas since 1 April 2002. In the Humberside MCC area, (which includes the East Riding of Yorkshire) 1 April and 31 December 2002, 2,043 trials were recorded. None were recorded as discontinued, but 170 had to be adjourned due to the absence of the defendant. Forty three were discontinued by the prosecution due to the absence, or withdrawal, of witnesses. A further 206 were adjourned because of the absence of prosecution witnesses. These figures include adult and youth cases and they cannot be apportioned between the two categories, without incurring disproportionate cost.

HOME

  Accreditation Awareness
  Mr. Mark Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether community safety
  571W
  accreditation schemes, established under sections 40 and 43 of the Police Reform Act 2002, will be accredited by the United Kingdom Accreditation Service. [105486]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The Police Reform Act 2002 allows each Chief Officer of Police to set up a Community Safety Accreditation Scheme in his or her force area in order to enhance community safety. It is open to individual Chief Officers to use any appropriate outside organisation to evaluate such a scheme.

  Mr. Mark Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what support his Department has given the Accreditation Awareness Campaign run by the United Kingdom Accreditation Service. [105491]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  In October 2000, my right hon. Friend, then Minister of State at the Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke), issued a statement of support for the campaign and expressed his desire to raise awareness of the value of the United Kingdom Accreditation Service (UKAS).

  Since then UKAS has, with the Association of Chief Police Officers, undertaken work on certification of security alarm installations and accreditation of the Forensic Science Service, Secured by Design, breathalysers and DMA profiling.

  Anti-war Demonstrations
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action is being taken to return truants taking part in anti-war demonstrations to school; and what the cost has been of such action. [105252]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  It is the responsibility of schools and Local Education Authorities to consider how best to prevent or deal with unauthorised absences that occur for any reason. While the police do have a power to return pupils who are truanting to school, this is exercisable only as part of a truancy sweep initiated by the Local Education Authority under section 16 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. The police do not have a general power to return truants to school. Local Education Authorities and police forces are however working together to deter school children from participating in anti-war protests during school time.

  The department also provides holiday playscheme places during the 13 weeks of school holidays each year. The playschemes are run at various locations for children age between 4 and 12 years.

  Cluster areas shown by region

  Region

  Cluster

  Region

  Cluster

  East of England

  Ipswich

  Norwich

  Cambridge

  Scotland

  Edinburgh

  Great Yarmouth

  Glasgow

  Peterborough

  South West

  Bristol

  East Midlands

  Leicester

  Gloucester

  Nottingham

  Swindon

  Lincoln

  Taunton and Bridgewater

  Derby

  Exeter

  South Central and East

  Brighton and Hove

  South Gloucestershire

  Hastings and St. Leonards

  Torbay

  Southampton

  Plymouth

  Portsmouth

  North Somerset

  572W
  Provision of childcare is one of a number of policies the Home Office has in place to help staff balance their work and home life. By supporting access to childcare the Department benefits from increased recruitment and retention of staff, a more diverse workforce and makes a positive contribution to the National Childcare Strategy. Comprehensive Information about childcare provision and the flexible working policies that can help staff to better manage their childcare arrangements are available on the Home Office Intranet.

  The department is considering the recent Cabinet Office review of childcare across the Civil Service to see how the recommendations of the review can be implemented to enhance the support currently provided for staff who are parents.

  Antisocial Behaviour Orders
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many anti-social behaviour orders have been made in the Greater London area during the last 12 months. [105269]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  From 1 October 2001 to 30 September 2002 (latest available) the number of ASBOs, notified to the Home Office, as being issued within the Greater London Magistrates' Courts Association (GLMCA) area is six.

  We are aware that the numbers of ASBOs made nationally have been consistently under reported in returns made by magistrates' courts and are considering how reporting can be improved.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his Answer of 18 March,Official Report, column 697W, if he will publish the strict specification laid down by the National Asylum Advisory Service for accommodation for asylum seekers in cluster areas. [105671]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 28 March 2003]: I have placed a copy of the relevant schedule to the model contract in the Library.

  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his Answer of 18 March,Official Report, column 697W, if he will publish the defined areas identified as suitable for the provision of accommodation of asylum seekers in cluster areas. [105672]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 28 March 2003]: The information requested is as follows:
  573W

  Cluster areas shown by region

  Region

  Cluster

  Region

  Cluster

  North East

  Newcastle

  Bath

  Middlesborough

  Wales

  Cardiff

  Sunderland

  Newport

  North Tyneside

  Swansea

  Gateshead

  Wrexham

  South Tyneside

  Bridgend and Portcawl

  Redcar and Cleveland

  West Midlands

  Birmingham

  Hartlepool

  Coventry

  Darlington

  Wolverhampton

  Stockton on Tees

  Dudley

  Manchester (Gtr Man)

  Sandwell

  Bolton (Gtr Man)

  Solihull

  Bury (Gtr Man)

  Walsall

  Oldham (Gtr Man)

  Stoke on Trent

  Rochdale (Gtr Man)

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  Sheffield

  Salford (Gtr Man)

  Bradford and Keighley

  Stockport (Gtr Man)

  Leeds

  Thameside (Gtr Man)

  Rotherham

  Trafford (Gtr Man)

  Wakefield

  Wigan (Gtr Man)

  Hull

  Burnley

  Kirklees

  Blackburn

  Doncaster

  Liverpool

  Halifax

  Nelson

  Barnsley

  Grimsby

  Northern Ireland is not a cluster area but asylum seekers making their application there can, if they request it, be provided with accommodation there.

  Cannabis
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to legalise the use of cannabis for pain relief in disease. [105827]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  We will seek Parliament's agreement to amend the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001 to permit the manufacture and use of a specified cannabis-based medicine under prescription, if the Medicines Control Agency (MCA), an agency of the Department of Health, grants marketing approval later this year to the medical preparation of cannabis developed and extensively tested by GW Pharmaceuticals. The MCA's evaluation of safety, quality and effectiveness of the preparation is one which all prospective new medicines have to go through and is designed to protect public health.

  Such legislative change would not legalise the use of cannabis as such for therapeutic purposes.

  The scheduling of prescribed cannabis-based medicine under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 will shortly be considered by the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, which will make recommendations.

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is intended that possession of prescribed cannabis medicines will be an offence contrary to the Misuse of Drugs Acts. [106109]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  We will seek Parliament's agreement to amend the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001 to permit the manufacture and use of a specified cannabis-based medicine under prescription, if the Medicines Control Agency (MCA), an agency of the 574W
  Department of Health, grants marketing approval later this year to the medical preparation of cannabis developed and extensively tested by GW Pharmaceuticals. The MCA's evaluation of safety, quality and effectiveness of the preparation is one which all prospective new medicines have to go through and is designed to protect public health.

  Chief Constable (Leicestershire)
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to meet the Chief Constable of Leicestershire. [105635]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  I will be meeting the Chief Constable of Leicestershire Constabulary at regular intervals in his capacity as the Association of Chief Police Officer's (ACPO) Representative on the Lawrence Steering Group. The next meetings are scheduled for Wednesday 21 May, Tuesday 9 September and Tuesday 25 November.

  Civil Service Travel
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what grades in the Civil Service in his Department are allowed to travel by air(a) first class and (b) business class at public expense when on official duties. [104973]

  Hilary Benn
  The Home Office is committed to ensuring that staff use the most efficient and economical means of travel which meets the operational need.

  Entitlement to first and business class air travel in the Home Office is determined by the airlines' fare structure for the flight, the grade of the member of staff travelling and the duration of the flight. Entitlements are summarised as follows.
  575W

  (Senior Executive Officer) (or equivalent) and above

  Other Grades

  Structure

  Up to 2.5 hours

  Over 2.5 hours

  Up to 2.5 hours

  Over 2.5 hours

  First/Economy

  Economy

  First

  Economy

  Economy

  Business/tourist (or equivalent)

  Business

  Business

  Tourist

  Business

  First/Business/Tourist (or equivalent)

  Business (Grades 1 and 1A may travel first class)

  Business

  Tourist

  Business

  Travel in higher classes than those set out in the table may be allowed in the following circumstances:

  (a) for journeys of up to 2.5 hours flying time outside the UK, but within Europe, if it is necessary to cover the outward and return flights within one calendar day;

  (b) the next higher class (business or first as appropriate) may be allowed where strict application of the rules might not be cost effective (perhaps because of restrictions on Tourist bookings), or when a journey of four hours or more necessarily has to be made overnight;

  (c) where there is a choice on particular routes, preference should be given to flights with a Business option when members of the Senior Civil Service are travelling, since this will normally be more economical;

  (d) where members of the Senior Civil Service travel on flights of more than four hours duration and no business tier is available;

  (e) when a member of staff necessarily travels in company with another entitled to a higher class of travel in order to discuss or deal with official business;

  (f) when a member of staff necessarily travels for official reasons in company with a person who is not a United Kingdom Civil Servant, who is travelling in a higher class.

  Crime (Humberside)
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department(a) what the detection rate for burglaries was in homes and (b) how many burglaries per 1,000 households there have been in the Humberside Police Authority area in each year since 1997; and what the detection rate for burglaries in homes was. [105228]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Details of numbers of domestic burglaries per 1,000 households are not available, but rates of all burglaries per 100,000 population are provided instead.

  Humberside

  Year

  Percentage of burglaries in a dwelling detected

  Number of all burglaries per 100,000 population

  1997

  12

  4,079

  1998–991

  12

  3,862

  1999–20002

  10

  3,650

  2000–01

  11

  2,987

  2000–02

  10

  3,006

  1 Years ending March from 1998/99.

  2 Change in counting rules for detections on 1.4.99.

  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on crime trends within the Humberside Police Authority area. [105230]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The most recently published recorded crime figures show that in the 12 months to March 2002, overall crime levels in the Humberside Police Authority area rose by 6.5 per cent. However, taking into account the counting rule changes for recorded crime on 1 April 1998, overall recorded crime in the area in 2001/02 was 13.3 per cent. lower than in 1997/98.
  576W
  The Government is also supporting a number of initiatives specifically aimed at reducing crime in Humberside. Under the safer communities initiative and communities against drugs, the four crime and disorder reduction partnerships of the Humberside Police Authority area have been allocated £343,511 and £897,900 respectively for 2002/2003. This is being used for a number of initiatives such as CCTV schemes, projects which target public disorder, drug and drink related crime and targeted policing.

  There are also now record police numbers in Humberside. There were 2,114 police officers in Humberside in September 2002 (the most recent figures available)—an increase of 123 more police officers compared with September 2001.

  Departmental Creche Facilities
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what crèche facilities are provided by his Department; and at what cost. [104306]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Department currently provides 180 nursery places for children under the age of five years. These places are available to Home Office staff (including the agencies) at a variety of locations. These arrangements involve a subsidy of up to 50 per cent. of the contractual running costs depending on local circumstances. The cost to the Department for providing these facilities is approximately £369,000 per year, depending on take up of the places available.

  In addition to these facilities the United Kingdom Passport Service, the Forensic Science Service and the Police Information Technology Organisation run child care voucher and allowance schemes, which provide staff with the opportunity to receive a contribution towards professional child care fees.

  Departmental Events
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the(a) conferences, (b) seminars, (c) workshops, (d) exhibitions and (e) press conferences which have been sponsored by his Department and which took place on non-departmental premises in the last 12 months, broken down by title, purpose, date and cost. [104272]

  Hilary Benn
  Information is not held centrally on sponsored events run on behalf of the Department on non-departmental premises.

  A breakdown of expenditure on this basic could be supplied only at disproportionate cost.

  Domestic Violence
  Stephen Hesford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to seek new powers to combat domestic violence to bring more offenders to justice; and if he will make a statement. [103926]
  577W
  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  A consultation paper, setting out proposals to prevent domestic violence, deal with perpetrators and provide increased support to victims, will be published this year. The paper will build on the initial consultation on domestic violence in the "Justice for All" White Paper published last year. It will aim to generate a comprehensive response from the public, voluntary sector and others, to ensure the widest possible agreement on what needs to be done to prevent and deal with domestic violence.

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimates he has made of the need for funding to combat domestic violence against women in Surrey. [104095]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  [holding answer 21 March 2003]: The Government are committed to tackling domestic violence in all parts of the country. It is a serious and abhorrent crime that accounts for one quarter of all violent crime and claims the lives of two women a week. The Government will do everything they can to tackle it and ensure that victims receive support and protection.

  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has announced that £14 million will be made available over the next three years to support work to develop mainstream responses to domestic violence. We will also be providing funding for a new post at the Local Government Authority (LGA) to support this work. We have also announced a consultation paper setting out proposals to prevent domestic violence, which will be published this year. This consultation will build on the initial consultation on domestic violence in the White Paper, 'Justice for All', and the on-going work of the inter-departmental Ministerial Group on Domestic Violence, which is focusing on five priority areas for action. These are:
  Increasing safe accommodation choices for women and children;
  Developing early and effective health care interventions;
  Improving the interface between the criminal and civil law;
  Ensuring a consistent and appropriate response from the police and Crown Prosecution Service; and
  Promoting Education and Awareness Raising.

  Tackling the problem means more than just providing initial support for victims. We want to ensure that offenders are prosecuted, help the police to prevent repeat victimisation, and protect the lives of the vulnerable.

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what sources of Government funding are available for councils to combat domestic violence who do not receive money under the Violence Against Women initiative. [104097]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  [holding answer 21 March 2003]: Government funding may be available from a variety of sources, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has recently announced that £14 million will be made available over the next three years to support local partnerships in developing mainstream responses to domestic violence. He also announced that the Home Office will be funding a post at the Local Government Authority (LGA) to support this work.
  578W
  In addition, for example, the Children's Fund allocates money to local partnerships which commission services which have been agreed as a local priority, and which will include support for children who are living with domestic violence. During last summer there were 158 services funded by the Children Fund that explicitly targeted children suffering from domestic violence. To provide safe accommodation for those suffering domestic violence the Homelessness Directorate has announced a £7 million capital investment programme through the Housing Corporation to extend the national network of women's refuges in England. The Directorate is planning to invest similar amounts over the course of the following two years, bringing the total amount to £21 million over three years. Initial allocations for Registered Social Landlords (RSLs) are being agreed with the Housing Corporation for 2003–04 and it is hoped that further schemes, drawn up by RSLs in collaboration with local authorities, will be supported in the following two years.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has offered every local housing authority in England an allocation to assist them in the implementation of the Priority Need for Accommodation (England) Order 2002 and they could, if they wish, utilise this money to support domestic violence projects.

  Supporting people, which comes into effect from 1 April 2003, will provide £1.4 billion funding in its first year for local authorities to provide housing-related support. One of the key principles of Supporting People is that support should be offered regardless of the type of accommodation in which people live. So for people experiencing domestic violence, Supporting People may be used for housing-related support whether this is offered within a refuge, in temporary accommodation or in the home.

  Domestic Violence (North Yorkshire)
  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures the Government is taking to tackle domestic violence in north Yorkshire. [102646]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The Government is committed to tackling domestic violence in all parts of the country. It is a serious and abhorrent crime that accounts for one quarter of all violent crime and claims the lives of two women a week. The Government will do everything it can to tackle it and ensure that victims receive support and protection.

  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has announced that £14 million will be made available over the next three years to support work to develop mainstream responses to domestic violence. We will also be providing funding for a new post at the Local government Authority (LGA) to support this work. We have also announced a consultation paper setting out proposals to prevent domestic violence, which will be published this year. This consultation will build on the initial consultation on domestic violence in the white

  579W
  paper, Justice for All, and the ongoing work of the inter-departmental Ministerial Group on Domestic Violence, which is focussing on five priority areas for action. These are:
  Increasing safe accommodation choices for women and children;
  Developing early and effective healthcare interventions;
  Improving the interface between the criminal and civil law;
  Ensuring a consistent and appropriate response from the police and Crown Prosecution Service; and Promoting Education and Awareness Raising.

  Tackling the problem means more than just providing initial support for victims. We want to ensure that offenders are prosecuted, help the police to prevent repeat victimisation, and protect the lives of the vulnerable.

  Firearms
  Mr. Tom Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to limit the number of shotguns owned by a person under a single licence. [105068]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  We have no plans at present to introduce a limit. There is a requirement under current legislation to notify transactions thereby ensuring that the police are kept informed of the acquisition of any shotguns after a certificate has been granted.

  Mr. Tom Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to relax the existing controls on the ownership of handguns for sporting purposes. [105069]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  None.

  Gurkhas
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take into account the 15 years service in this country of Gurkha soldiers when assessing applications from such soldiers for the right to settle in the UK. [105411]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 28 March 2003]: As part of Her Majesty's forces, Gurkhas are exempt from immigration control while serving in the UK, and therefore, the 1971 Immigration Act does not apply to them. Accordingly, no leave can be conferred on a Gurkha soldier during their service here. The question of conferring indefinite leave to remain upon termination of service does not arise, as Gurkhas are discharged in Nepal in accordance with their terms and conditions of service.

  Heroin
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to ensure the security of supplies of heroin in pharmacies which may be required to prescribe it. [105828]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Diamorphine (heroin) is already one of those controlled drugs to which the Misuse of Drugs (Safe Custody) Regulations 1973 apply. Pharmacies are covered by these Regulations, which oblige them to hold controlled drugs in such a way as to prevent any unauthorised access.
  580W
  These Regulations require that pharmacies keep controlled drugs in a locked safe, cabinet or room, as specified in the Regulations, or alternatively, in premises certified by the local chief officer of police as providing an adequate degree of security.

  Mr. Henry Olonga
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make an immediate offer of political asylum to Mr. Henry Olonga. [105413]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 28 March 2003]: The duty of confidentiality does not allow me to disclose in a written answer whether an individual has applied for asylum, nor the actual or likely outcome of any claim. This is provided for in the Code of Practice on Access to government Information Part 2 (Sub Section 12).

  Police (Retirement Procedures)
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will undertake a survey of the operation by police forces of the Home Office's non-negotiable processes of applications by officers seeking retirement on the grounds of ill-health retirement; whether he will amend the process to enable a speedier conclusion; and if he will make a statement. [105301]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Police officers are a valuable resource and one of our priorities is to ensure that their skills and expertise are retained by forces as long as practicable. Under the Police Pensions Regulations it is the responsibility of the police authority for the force concerned to decide whether to retire or retain an officer who has been assessed as permanently disabled by their selected medical practitioner. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary reviewed the management of ill-health retirement of police officers in their thematic inspection report of 1997, 'Lost Time'.

  As part of the police reform process the Police Negotiating Board agreed in May 2002 ways to deliver a fair and more consistent approach towards early retirement due to ill health. Following the May Agreement the Police Negotiating Board agreed on 30 January changes to the Police Pensions Regulations to help support good practice, and joint guidance on the procedures for considering ill-health retirement. The new regulations come into force on 1 April and the joint guidance should be applied from 1 July. Under the guidance each case should be handled as expeditiously as possible consistent with a properly informed decision as to retirement or retention, with cases involving imminent death or severe disablement being given expedited treatment.

  Police Numbers
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the number of police officers in(a) each police force in England and Wales and (b) in total on 31 March in each year since 1992. [104843]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  [holding answer 25 March 2003]: The information requested is set out in the table.
  581W 582W

  Police strength in England and Wales—total police strength for ordinary duty

  March

  Police force

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  Avon and Somerset

  3,081

  3,068

  3,033

  3,000

  2,981

  2,989

  Bedfordshire

  1,093

  1,188

  1,151

  1,126

  1,128

  1,094

  Cambridgeshire

  1,250

  1,265

  1,263

  1,261

  1,238

  1,302

  Cheshire

  1,874

  1,908

  1,902

  1,932

  1,998

  2,046

  Cleveland

  1,477

  1,478

  1,429

  1,438

  1,420

  1,459

  Cumbria

  1,179

  1,196

  1,174

  1,167

  1,115

  1,144

  Derbyshire

  1,706

  1,830

  1,820

  1,797

  1,763

  1,791

  Devon and Cornwall

  2,898

  2,910

  2,914

  2,877

  2,899

  2,865

  Dorset

  1,289

  1,302

  1,297

  1,288

  1,263

  1,284

  Durham

  1,389

  1,381

  1,383

  1,353

  1,401

  1,461

  Essex

  2,898

  2,936

  2,937

  2,921

  2,884

  2,961

  Gloucestershire

  1,174

  1,149

  1,159

  1,163

  1,133

  1,133

  Greater Manchester

  7,061

  7,060

  6,967

  7,037

  6,938

  6,922

  Hampshire

  3,211

  34275

  3,270

  3,256

  3,347

  3,452

  Hertfordshire

  1,695

  1,700

  1,682

  1,703

  1,712

  1,759

  Humberside

  2,026

  2,032

  2,039

  2,029

  2,041

  2,045

  Kent

  3,074

  3,146

  3,145

  3,117

  3,120

  3,260

  Lancashire

  3,198

  3,207

  3,170

  3,212

  3,171

  3,247

  Leicestershire

  1,845

  1,805

  1,825

  1,839

  1,908

  1,949

  Lincolnshire

  1,196

  1,200

  1,205

  1,199

  1,145

  1,196

  London, City of

  808

  825

  893

  885

  869

  859

  Merseyside

  4,621

  4,669

  4,693

  4,659

  4,411

  4,230

  Metropolitan

  28,154

  27,867

  27,699

  27,480

  27,343

  26,677

  Norfolk

  1,414

  1,440

  1,447

  1,395

  1,401

  1,432

  Northamptonshire

  1,158

  1,199

  1,170

  1,156

  1,153

  1,177

  Northumbria

  3,464

  3,563

  3,598

  3,606

  3,668

  3,677

  North Yorkshire

  1,398

  1,393

  1,318

  1,300

  1,324

  1,338

  Nottinghamshire

  2,331

  2,327

  2,328

  2,319

  2,318

  2,323

  South Yorkshire

  3,008

  3,032

  3,023

  3,040

  3,073

  3,159

  Staffordshire

  2,176

  2,179

  2,208

  2,231

  2,209

  2,211

  Suffolk

  1,218

  1,241

  1,208

  1,191

  1,138

  1,180

  Surrey

  1,706

  1,693

  1,669

  1,676

  1,644

  1,620

  Sussex

  2,984

  3,008

  3,009

  2,931

  3,074

  3,085

  Thames Valley

  3,772

  3,840

  3,908

  3,854

  3,674

  3,695

  Warwickshire

  990

  1,020

  1,046

  1,013

  979

  926

  West Mercia

  2,034

  2,054

  2,059

  2,046

  2,017

  2,040

  West Midlands

  6,941

  6,953

  7,014

  7,019

  7,145

  7,113

  West Yorkshire

  5,087

  5,037

  5,046

  5,050

  5,142

  5,209

  Wiltshire

  1,221

  1,265

  1,264

  1,261

  1,218

  1,154

  Dyfed Powys

  947

  967

  965

  976

  991

  1,005

  Gwent

  1,009

  1,004

  993

  997

  1,044

  1,243

  North Wales

  1,347

  1,360

  1,352

  1,366

  1,378

  1,369

  South Wales

  3,168

  3,176

  3,131

  3,014

  3,027

  2,976

  Total 43 forces

  125,570

  126,128

  125,806

  125,180

  124,844

  125,051

  Total England and Wales

  127,627

  128,290

  127,807

  127,222

  126,901

  127,158

  Police force

  1998

  1999

  March 2000

  2001

  2002

  September 2002

  Avon and Somerset

  2,976

  2,999

  2,934

  2,960

  3,096

  3,119

  Bedfordshire

  1,079

  1,041

  1,028

  1,036

  1,069

  1,086

  Cambridgeshire

  1,291

  1,274

  1,237

  1,296

  1,362

  1,398

  Cheshire

  2,042

  2,071

  2,011

  2,002

  2,059

  2,075

  Cleveland

  1,483

  1,416

  1,404

  1,407

  1,461

  1,488

  Cumbria

  1,164

  1,126

  1,084

  1,048

  1,100

  1,112

  Derbyshire

  1,772

  1,759

  1,777

  1,823

  1,848

  1,970

  Devon and Cornwall

  2,962

  2,887

  2,841

  2,934

  3,053

  3,145

  Dorset

  1,310

  1,279

  1,306

  1,354

  1,381

  1,402

  Durham

  1,515

  1,568

  1,558

  1,595

  1,614

  1,655

  Essex

  2,928

  2,891

  2,806

  2,887

  2,946

  2,988

  Gloucestershire

  1,104

  1,104

  1,114

  1,173

  1,183

  1,171

  Greater Manchester

  6,949

  6,810

  6,795

  6,909

  7,217

  7,352

  Hampshire

  3,490

  3,473

  3,419

  3,435

  3,480

  3,592

  Hertfordshire

  1,740

  1,724

  1,767

  1,922

  1,825

  1,902

  Humberside

  2,021

  1,974

  1,932

  1,917

  2,058

  2,114

  Kent

  3,251

  3,201

  3,204

  3,319

  3,355

  3,434

  Lancashire

  3,257

  3,245

  3,179

  3,255

  3,304

  3,378

  Leicestershire

  1,983

  1,993

  1,993

  2,033

  2,100

  2,086

  Lincolnshire

  1,191

  1,140

  1,115

  1,202

  1,198

  1,214

  London, City of

  825

  778

  732

  703

  764

  777

  Merseyside

  4,216

  4,211

  4,085

  4,081

  4,125

  4,118

  583W

  Police force

  1998

  1999

  March 2000

  2001

  2002

  September 2002

  Metropolitan

  26,094

  26,073

  25,485

  24,878

  26,223

  26,868

  Norfolk

  1,430

  1,381

  1,381

  1,420

  1,468

  1,481

  Northamptonshire

  1,169

  1,137

  1,117

  1,157

  1,214

  1,202

  Northumbria

  3,769

  3,840

  3,788

  3,857

  3,929

  4,006

  North Yorkshire

  1,367

  1,337

  1,283

  1,305

  1,417

  1,404

  Nottinghamshire

  2,323

  2,225

  2,204

  2,212

  2,330

  2,397

  South Yorkshire

  3,182

  3,168

  3,163

  3,197

  3,199

  3,217

  Staffordshire

  2,292

  2,238

  2,170

  2,129

  2,133

  2,169

  Suffolk

  1,186

  1,190

  1,145

  1,133

  1,203

  1,228

  Surrey

  1,608

  1,662

  1,785

  2,066

  1,992

  1,986

  Sussex

  2,996

  2,847

  2,822

  2,855

  2,893

  2,933

  Thames Valley

  3,776

  3,748

  3,740

  3,703

  3,762

  3,830

  Warwickshire

  924

  908

  900

  926

  969

  1,007

  West Mercia

  2,010

  2,025

  1,887

  1,951

  2,018

  2,048

  West Midlands

  7,156

  7,321

  7,194

  7,423

  7,618

  7,855

  West Yorkshire

  5,155

  4,982

  4,822

  4,815

  4,889

  4,999

  Wiltshire

  1,156

  1,151

  1,118

  1,120

  1,157

  1,167

  Dyfed Powys

  1,002

  1,026

  1,040

  1,055

  1,132

  1,144

  Gwent

  1,233

  1,247

  1,264

  1,274

  1,333

  1,327

  North Wales

  1,396

  1,391

  1,403

  1,444

  1,506

  1,496

  South Wales

  2,986

  2,981

  2,926

  3,100

  3,222

  3,153

  Total 43 forces

  124,756

  123,841

  121,956

  123,313

  127,267

  129,494

  Total England and Wales

  126,814

  126,096

  124,170

  126,682

  129,603

  131,548

  Note:

  Total for England and Wales includes secondments to NCS, NCIS and central services.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent research his Department has undertaken on the proportion of police resources deployed for frontline use compared to other countries; and if he will make a statement. [104431]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The Home Office Public Service Agreement 2 involves assessing the proportion of time spent on front line duties by forces in England and Wales.

  Work to agree a definition of duties and their measurement is being undertaken. International comparisons are not currently available.

  Police Vehicle Accidents
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been(a) killed and (b) injured by police vehicles in the Greater London area in each of the last three years. [105271]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Available information is given in the table. Figures for deaths and injuries refer to police forces not geographical areas and are available only for collisions where the police vehicle was providing an immediate response to an emergency call or in pursuit of another vehicle.

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Metropolitan Police

  Numbers of fatalities

  1

  6

  2

  Numbers of serious injuries

  39

  40

  51

  Numbers of slight injuries

  465

  628

  607

  Number of offences recorded by Kent police per 100,000 population

  19971

  1998–992

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Violence against the person

  478

  792

  825

  827

  769

  Sexual offences

  49

  59

  55

  61

  63

  Robbery

  46

  45

  53

  63

  63

  Total violent crime

  573

  897

  933

  951

  895

  584W

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  City of London Police

  Numbers of fatalities

  0

  0

  0

  Numbers of serious injuries

  0

  0

  1

  Numbers of slight injuries

  0

  2

  6

  Total

  Numbers of fatalities

  1

  6

  2

  Numbers of serious injuries

  39

  40

  52

  Numbers of slight injuries

  465

  630

  613

  Recorded Crime (Kent)
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the recorded crime rate in Kent was in each year since 1997, broken down by major category of crime. [105192]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The requested information is in the table.

  There was a change in counting rules for recorded crime in 1 April 1998, which would have the tendency to increase the number of crimes counted. Crime rates before and after this date are therefore not directly comparable.

  The Kent County Constabulary adopted the principles of the National Crime Recording Standard on 1 April 2000, in advance of its national implementation on 1 April 2002. This may have inflated its recorded crime figures, and so crime rates before and after this date may not be directly comparable.
  585W

  Number of offences recorded by Kent police per 100,000 population

  19971

  1998–992

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Burglary

  1,653

  1,467

  1,253

  1,209

  1,093

  Theft and handling stolen goods

  3,827

  3,660

  3,323

  3,367

  3,067

  Fraud and forgery

  188

  363

  469

  502

  371

  Criminal damage

  1,544

  1,472

  1,575

  1,761

  1,796

  Drug offences3

  —

  248

  231

  185

  191

  Other offences

  110

  152

  149

  114

  106

  1 Recorded on a calendar year basis up to 1997, and years ending March thereafter.

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

  3 Prior to 1998–99, the only drug-related offence recorded was "Trafficking in controlled drugs". This was recorded within the "Other offences" offence group.

  Street Crime
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how his Department intends to evaluate the Street Crime Initiative in the relevant police force areas; and if he will publish the evaluation. [105313]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The Street Crime Initiative is ongoing and as part of its day to day management there is regular identification and exchange of good practice across the various agencies involved. At local level a number of specific evaluations of projects or initiatives have been commissioned. These are a matter for the local partners.

  In addition, various strands of activity contributing to reducing street crime are being examined by a number of independent inspectorates, including Her Majesty's Inspectorates of Constabulary, Prisons, and Probation, and the Social Services, Crown Prosecution Service, and Magistrates Courts' Inspectorates. Findings are expected to be made available in the summer.

  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether there is evidence to show that the street crime initiative has displaced such crimes into areas not subject to the initiative. [105314]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  It is not currently possible to make an assessment of displacement effects from areas subject to the Street Crime Initiative to areas that are not part of the initiative. It should not be assumed that decreases in crime in a particular force area are at the cost of increases elsewhere.

  Criminal statistics are published on a quarterly and annual basis. The latest figures for England and Wales show that robbery fell by 10 per cent. in July to September 2002 compared to the year before.

  Terrorism
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the vulnerability of public and government buildings to attack from a helicopter; and if he will make a statement. [101147]

  Mr. Blunkett
  All flights over central London take place within controlled airspace and require clearance from air traffic control. Pilots are required to comply with air traffic control instructions at all times.
  586W
  There are a number of designated helicopter routes through the London Control Zone. For example, for safety reasons single-engined helicopters must follow a fixed route, including along the Thames, away from built up areas.

  Restrictions on helicopter movements, and security requirements at airfields, in London and elsewhere, are kept under constant review and can be expected to be varied from time to time.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) men and (b) women accused of being involved in terrorist activities are being held in prisons in England and Wales; and how many of those being held have appeared before a magistrates court. [104637]

  Hilary Benn
  There are currently 44 male prisoners being held in prisons in England and Wales accused of being involved in terrorist activities. There are no female prisoners currently being held in any prison accused of being involved in terrorist activities. Of these 44, 12 have not appeared before a magistrates court; these 12 prisoners are being held under the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Benefits
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what estimate his Department have made of the number of people who opted for payment of benefits and pensions into a(a) bank or building society account and (b) post office card account by 28 February; and how many of those are (i) child benefit, (ii) veterans agency and (iii) pensions claimants. [105256]

  Malcolm Wicks
  As at 28 February 2003 1,218,916 customer invitation letters had been issued. This is made up of 1,086,301 child benefit customers, 107,651 Veterans Agency customers and 24,964 pensions customers.

  From the invitation letters issued, over 447,226 customers have responded to our letters and opted for payment into a bank or building society account: this is made up of 393,847 child benefit, 51,806 Veterans Agency and 1,573 pensions.
  587W
  Over 90,711 customers have responded with a request for a post office card account. This is made up of 49,178 child benefit customers, 35,622 Veterans Agency customers and 5,911 pensions customers. As planned we have now started to issue personal invitation documents to customers who have requested a post office card account.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many persons aged 65–70 receive disability living allowance or attendance allowance; and of these how many(a) receive a mobility payment and (b) do not do so on account of their having become disabled after the age of 65. [105273]

  Maria Eagle
  The numbers of people aged 65–70 receiving (i) disability living allowance, (ii) the mobility component of disability living allowance, and (iii) attendance allowance are shown in the table. Figures for the number of attendance allowance recipients in that age group who might satisfy the entitlement conditions for the disability living allowance mobility component are not available because the walking difficulties of attendance allowance claimants are not assessed.

  Numbers of people in Great Britain aged 65–70 on 31 August 2002 receiving (i) disability living allowance; (ii) the disability living allowance mobility component; and (iii) attendance allowance

  Benefit

  Number of recipients aged 65–70

  Disability living allowance1

  340,600

  Disability living allowance mobility component2

  314,100

  Attendance allowance3

  60,000

  1 Disability living allowance is available to people who claim help with their disability related extra costs before age 65. Once in payment, the care component or the mobility component of disability living allowance (or both) can continue to be paid after age 65 for as long as the entitlement conditions are satisfied.

  2 People receiving a mobility component may also be receiving a care component.

  3 Attendance allowance is available to people aged 65 and over when they claim help with their disability related extra costs. Attendance allowance does not have a mobility component.

  Note:

  Figures are in thousands rounded to the nearest hundred.

  Source:

  IAD Information Centre, data taken from 5 per cent. sample at 31 August 2002.

  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) if he will estimate the number of pensioners eligible for benefits in the East Riding of Yorkshire, broken down by benefit category; [105278]

  (2) how many pensioners receive state benefits in the East Riding of Yorkshire, broken down by benefit category. [105277]

  Mr. McCartney
  Estimates of eligibility are available at national level only.

  Information about the number of pensioners receiving state benefits in the East Riding of Yorkshire is in the following table.
  588W

  Number of recipients by benefit type in the East Riding of Yorkshire local authority area

  Benefit

  As at:

  Number of claimants (thousand)

  Minimum Income Guarantee1

  November 2002

  10.3

  State Pension

  September 2002

  69.0

  Disability Living Allowance2

  August 2002

  3.8

  Attendance Allowance

  August 2002

  7.5

  Winter Fuel Payment

  2001–02

  72.3

  1 MIG claimants are defined as any live Income Support benefit unit where the claimant and/or partner are aged 60 and over.

  2 DLA figure is for claimants over state pension age (age 60 + for women/age 65 + for men).

  Notes:

  1. Minimum Income Guarantee (MIG), State Pension (SP), Disability Living Allowance (DLA), and Attendance Allowance (AA) are based on a 5 per cent. sample therefore subject to sampling variation. Winter Fuel Payment is 100 per cent. data.

  2. Local authorities are allocated using the relevant ONS postcode directory.

  3. Figures are in thousands rounded to the nearest hundred.

  4. Figures are for individual benefits and a person in receipt of more than one benefit will be included in each benefit count. Figures cannot therefore be summed to give a total number of claimants.

  Sources:

  1. Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiry, November 2002.

  2. 5 per cent. sample from the Pension Strategy Computer System, September 2002.

  3. IAD Information Centre, data taken from 5 per cent. sample at 31 August 2002.

  4. Matching Intelligence Data Analysis Service Winter Fuels Payment 2001–02 exercise 100 per cent. data.

  Information about Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit is only available at Government Office Region level and is in the following table:

  Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit case loads for recipients aged 60 and over—Yorkshire and the Humber—May 2001

  Number

  HB recipients

  162,000

  CTB recipients

  230,000

  Notes:

  1. The figure is based on a 1 per cent. sample and therefore subject to a degree of sampling variation.

  2. The data refers to benefit units, which may be a single person or a couple.

  3. The figures are rounded to the nearest thousand cases.

  4. Council Tax Benefit data excludes any Second Adult Rebate cases.

  5. Housing Benefit data excludes any Extended Payment cases.

  6. The figures are for benefit units where the claimant and/or partner are aged 60 or over.

  7. There will be an overlap in the figures as a claimant may be in receipt of both Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit.

  Source:

  Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit Management Information System, Annual 1 per cent. sample, taken in May 2001.

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many staff in his Department and its agencies have been(a) disciplined, (b) suspended, (c) dismissed, (d) prosecuted and (e) convicted for

  589W
  matters relating to benefit fraud in the current year and each of the previous three years; how much was (i) defrauded and (ii) recovered in each case, broken down by type of benefit; at what level in his Department and its agencies the decision is made on whether (A) to take no action, (B) to take internal disciplinary action or (C) to prosecute; what the policy of his Department and its agencies on the prosecution of staff suspected of benefit fraud is; and if he will make a statement. [88474]

  Staff Involvement in benefit fraud

  Case number

  Value of fraud (£)

  Outcome1

  Benefit type

  1999–2000

  1

  210,000

  Prosecution resulting in custodial sentence

  Income support

  2

  30,000

  Prosecution

  Income support

  3

  75.80

  Officer dismissed

  Income support

  4

  1,753.00

  Prosecution resulting in probation and community service

  Income support

  5

  4,462.97

  Information no longer available

  Income support/jobseekers allowance

  6

  8,820.77

  Prosecution resulting in custodial sentence

  Jobseekers allowance

  7

  144.20

  Officer resigned

  Incapacity benefit

  8

  134.41

  Officer resigned

  Incapacity benefit

  9

  4,224.28

  Officer resigned

  Incapacity benefit/disability living allowance

  10

  957.56

  Prosecution resulting in fine

  Family credit

  11

  17,880.80

  Prosecution resulting in 150 hours community service order

  Family credit

  12

  1,947.08

  Information no longer available

  Family credit

  13

  3,690.80

  Officer dismissed

  Invalid care allowance

  14

  3,255.54

  Officer dismissed

  Housing benefit

  15

  3,186.00

  Officer resigned

  Housing benefit

  Total

  290,533.21

  2000–01

  1

  3,963.00

  Disciplinary action not yet completed

  Income support

  2

  4,272.33

  Officer resigned

  Income support

  3

  218.57

  No disciplinary action taken

  Income support

  4

  887.18

  Prosecuted, conditional discharge officer resigned

  Jobseekers allowance

  5

  426.14

  Formal reprimand for five years

  Family credit

  6

  1,807.10

  Downgraded, formal reprimand and promotion bar

  Family credit

  7

  3,697.06

  Information no longer available

  Housing benefit

  8

  2,820.18

  Prosecuted by Police resulting in community service and order to repay

  Housing benefit

  9

  7,631.37

  Prosecuted resulting in probation and community service

  Housing benefit

  10

  2,140.00

  Information no longer available

  Housing benefit

  11

  9,535.84

  Prosecution resulting in community service and probation

  Incapacity benefit

  Total

  37,398.77

  2001–02

  1

  2,346.00

  Written reprimand valid for 5 years

  Income support

  2

  2,660.72

  Officer dismissed

  Housing benefit council tax benefit

  3

  5,000.00

  Officer resigned

  Income support/incapacity benefit

  4

  2,904.00

  Officer resigned

  Income support

  5

  3,005.00

  Officer dismissed

  Income support working families tax credit

  6

  180,000

  Prosecution resulting in custodial sentence

  Incapacity benefit

  Total

  195,915.72

  2002–032

  1

  1,807.00

  Formal reprimand, downgraded, promotion ban for 2 years

  Family credit

  2

  5,300.00

  Officer dismissed

  Incapacity benefit

  Total to date

  7,107.00

  1 Following prosecution, disciplinary action is taken and may lead to dismissal.

  2 There are limited details available for the current financial year, as a number of potential cases of benefit fraud involving staff have not been concluded.

  590W
  Malcolm Wicks
  Information is not available in the exact form requested. Such information that is available is shown in the tables. The tables show value of fraud, the outcome of investigation activity and the benefit subjected to the fraud. Information on amounts recovered is not routinely captured centrally. It is normal practice to recover wrongly paid sums. This can either be through the courts following prosecution or through departmental action.
  591W
  Departmental Policy on prosecution in benefit fraud cases.

  For any cases of staff suspected of benefit fraud the decision maker would be at least a Deputy District Manager (Grade 7 or SMPB2) and they would decide whether or not to take any internal disciplinary action.

  The Department's policy on prosecution in relation to benefit fraud considers various factors. However, where the person involved was in a position of trust such as a member of staff, prosecution would always be considered.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what his estimate is of the total amount of fraud by each category of benefit in(a) the latest year available and (b) 1996–97; and if he will make a statement on the Government's strategy to reduce benefit fraud. [101515]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Our estimates of levels of fraud and error in income support and jobseeker's allowance are published in the series of reports "Fraud and Error in Claims for Income Support and Jobseeker's Allowance" which are placed in the Library.

  In April 2001 we also set up the housing benefit review which will deliver an on-going measurement of fraud and error in housing benefit. Fraud in other benefits is examined in our programme of National Benefit Reviews.

  Our current estimate is that £2 billion is lost annually through all benefit fraud. We do not break this figure into separate benefit categories nor hold figures for previous years.

  We are taking positive action to reduce fraud by making it harder to commit fraud, improving detection of fraud, and deterring those who might be thinking of committing fraud.

  We have made excellent progress in the fight against fraud and error. By March 2002 we had reduced fraud and error in income support and jobseeker's allowance by 24 per cent., significantly outperforming our target of 10 per cent.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to his answer of 9 December 2002,Official Report, column135W, how many custodial and non-custodial punishments were imposed in (a) 2001–02, and (b) each of the previous three years, broken down by type of disposal; and in how many cases in each year the offender was ordered to pay compensation. [89918]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information requested is not available. Pursuant to the answer given to the hon. Member on 9 December 2002,Official Report, column 135W, corrected figures are shown in the tables.

  Targeting Fraud Website (launched May 2000)

  Period

  Investigations completed

  Successful prosecutions

  May 2000 to March 2001

  184

  0

  April 2001 to March 2002

  673

  4

  April 2002 to December 2002

  828

  14

  Source of information:

  Fraud Information By Sector system1
  592W

  National Benefit Fraud Hotline2

  Period

  Investigations completed

  Successful prosecutions

  1999–2000

  28,582

  335

  2000–01

  33,134

  492

  2001–02

  32,943

  703

  April-December 2002

  25,081

  546

  Source of information:

  National Benefit Fraud Hotline

  1 The fraud database shows completed cases commenced in the relevant period. Due to the elapsed time between commencement of an investigation and completion of a prosecution there are cases that are inserted into previously completed data for earlier periods. All totals are therefore correct at the time when quoted but subject to adjustment at a later date.

  2 Full information on the number of investigations and successful prosecutions resulting from calls to the National Benefit Fraud Hotline is available only from April 1999.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many persons have been gaoled for benefit fraud since 1997. [101551]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information is in the table.

  Custodial sentences1 following investigations by Departmental Investigators

  Number

  1997–98

  551

  1998–99

  643

  1999–2000

  636

  2000–01

  653

  2001–02

  646

  1 Imprisonment, Young Offenders Institute or custodial and fine.

  Source:

  Fraud Information By Sector and data from Counter-Fraud Investigation Division (Operations)2

  2 The fraud database shows completed cases commenced in the relevant period. Due to the elapsed time between commencement of an investigation and completion of a prosecution there are cases that are inserted into previously completed data for earlier periods. All totals are therefore correct at the time when quoted but subject to adjustment at a later date.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what his estimate is of the amount of benefit fraud in each year from 1990–91 to 2002–03 (estimated)(a) in total and (b) broken down by (i)housing benefit, (ii) council tax benefit, (iii) disability benefit, (iv) pensions and (v) jobseeker's allowance; and if he will make a statement. [97354]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Our most recent estimate is that £2 billion is lost annually through benefit fraud in Great Britain.

  We have in place systems to provide an on-going measurement of loss in the three main income-related benefits Income support, jobseeker's allowance and housing benefit that between them account for about two-thirds of the fraud loss. The levels of fraud and error in income support and jobseeker's allowance are published in the "Area Benefit Review and the Quality Support Team reports on Fraud and Error in Claims for Income Support and Jobseeker's Allowance", copies of which are in the Library. The first publication of findings from the housing benefit review is expected in autumn 2003. Our programme of National Benefit Reviews provides snapshot estimates of the level of

  593W
  fraud in other benefits, most recently covering incapacity benefit in 2000 and has been placed in the Library.

  Employment Action Teams (Portsmouth)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what data on working age employment rates in each ward of the Portsmouth area informed the selection of wards for employment action team status; and if he will make a statement; [104914]

  (2) where peripatetic employment action team advisers are based in the Portsmouth area; how regularly they use these locations; if he will estimate the number of users at each location; and if he will make a statement. [104941]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Action Teams for Jobs focus on the most disadvantaged jobless people in the most employment deprived areas of the country. They target the wards within these areas which have the lowest overall employment rates and the highest rate of people claiming all benefits.

  There are no Action Teams for Jobs based in the Portsmouth area. However, through Jobcentre Plus, we offer a wide range of help for jobless people in the city. For example, the New Deals have helped almost 3,000 people in Portsmouth move from welfare into work. This has played an important part in increasing employment and reducing unemployment in the city. Since 1997, the working age employment rate has risen to over 75 per cent. and remains above the national average, claimant unemployment has been cut by 60 per cent., and the number of people unemployed for 12 months or more has fallen by 90 per cent.

  Benefit Payment Methods
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pensioners in the Havant constituency have migrated from over-the-counter benefit payments to automated credit transfer in each of the last 12 months. [104577]

  Mr. McCartney
  The information is not available in the format requested. Information on migration from "over the counter methods of payment" to payment directly into a bank or building society account is not recorded monthly. A comparison of the limited data available at 25 January 2003 with the same records from 2 November 2002, indicates that just under 100 pensioners in the Havant constituency have migrated at least one benefit from payment at a post office to payment directly into a bank or building society account. These figures will be influenced by people moving away from or into the area during the period of the comparison.

  Benefit Statistics
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many(a) men aged 55 to 64 and (b) women aged 55 to 59 who are not in full or part-time employment (i) receive one or more benefit and (ii) are not in receipt of any benefit. [90823]
  594W
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The available information is in the table.

  Estimated number of people not in work

  Thousand

  Total1

  Benefit recipients2

  Non-recipients2

  Men aged 55–64

  1,100

  900

  300

  Women aged 55–59

  700

  300

  400

  1 Figures are from the LFS—estimates have not been adjusted for the results of census 2001.

  2 Figures are based on the proportions of those out of work and receiving benefits from the FRS, applied to the figures from the LFS.

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest hundred thousand.

  2. Figures may not sum due to rounding.

  Sources:

  Labour Force Survey (LFS) Summer 2001 to Spring 2002. Family Resources Survey (FRS) 2001–02. Benefit-receipt is assessed at the individual level and includes all benefits in payment.

  Burnt Oak Jobcentre
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many of the clients of Burnt Oak jobcentre live in Hendon constituency; what proportion of the total clientele of Burnt Oak jobcentre live in Hendon constituency; who was consulted about the jobcentre's proposed closure; in what way they were consulted; why the hon. Member for Hendon was not included in the consultation; when the jobcentre will close; why the hon. Member for Hendon was not informed of(a) the decision to close the jobcentre and (b) the date it was to be closed; if he will defer its closure to allow the hon. Member for Hendon to make representations; and if he will make a statement. [105037]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The administration of Jobcentre Plus is a matter for the acting Chief Executive of the Jobcentre Plus, Clare Dodgson. She will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Clare Dodgson to Mr. Andrew Dismore, dated 27 March 2003:
  As Jobcentre Plus is an Executive Agency, I have been asked to reply to your question concerning Burnt Oak Jobcentre and the creation of Jobcentre Plus facilities in your constituency. This falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Acting Chief Executive of the Agency.
  As part of the rollout of Jobcentre Plus we are taking the opportunity to rationalise the estate previously occupied by the Benefits Agency and the Employment Service. Burnt Oak Jobcentre did not have a customer base of jobseekers of its own but offered job broking facilities for people claiming benefits through Mill Hill Jobcentre and Wembley Jobcentre Plus as well as people already in employment.
  As part of the roll out of the full Jobcentre Plus service in Brent, Harrow & Hillingdon District, we examined alternative means to deliver our services rather than just through Jobcentres. These include Jobseeker Direct and the Jobcentre Plus website. We are also putting Jobpoints into Burnt Oak library and an outreach service at the local Careers Library. Employers will also be able to use the employer suite in Wembley Jobcentre Plus.
  We wrote to stakeholders, including local MPs, about the closure of Burnt Oak Jobcentre on 28 June 2002 asking for comments on the service delivery plan for Brent, Harrow and

  595W
  Hillingdon District by 19 July 2002. We wrote again confirming our plans on 17 September 2002. Burnt Oak Jobcentre closed on 21 March 2003.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Child Support Agency
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what has been the cost to the Exchequer of the Child Support Agency in each year since 1997. [105781]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The figures are in the table.

  £ million

  Year

  Administration costs of the Child Support Agency

  1997–98

  225.220

  1998–99

  230.534

  1999–2000

  260.333

  2000–01

  250.046

  2001–02

  285.468

  Notes:

  1. The figures are drawn from the Annual Reports and Accounts of the Child Support Agency for the years 1997–98 to 2001–02.

  2. The figures represent:

  For 1997–98 and 1998–99; the total operating costs for the year

  Loss to public funds identified by investigations

  £

  2001–02

  2000–01

  1999–2000

  1998–99

  1997–98

  Benefits Agency

  208,823

  44,309

  389,874

  430,780

  918,790

  Employment Service

  1,045,977

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Contributions Agency

  —

  —

  —

  1,824

  2,572

  War Pensions Agency

  —

  3,583

  1,500

  0

  0

  Information Technology Services Agency

  —

  —

  8,325

  10,942

  20,959

  Department of Social Security HQ

  —

  —

  8,317

  0

  0

  Child Support Agency

  4,111

  9,200

  8,950

  418

  57

  Departmental Directorates

  620

  14,019

  —

  —

  —

  Appeals Service

  203

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total Departmental Losses

  1,259,734

  71,111

  416,966

  443,964

  942,378

  (b)Theft:

  The following table, based on calendar years, is a summary of information already provided in response to earlier PQs.

  £

  2002

  2001

  2000

  1999

  1998

  1997

  Benefits Agency

  —

  24,700

  2,900

  24,400

  26,300

  39,900

  Employment Service

  —

  89,500

  55,100

  —

  —

  —

  Contributions Agency

  —

  —

  —

  7,100

  12,900

  13,100

  War Pensions Agency

  —

  160

  0

  7,000

  1,200

  —

  Information Technology Services Agency

  —

  —

  6,500

  23,400

  16,200

  4,600

  Department of Social Security HQ

  —

  —

  21,100

  60,500

  57,700

  —

  Child Support Agency

  23,400

  211,700

  71,700

  58,700

  58,000

  82,300

  Job Centre Plus

  441,700

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Pensions Service

  5,100

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Departmental Directorates

  79,900

  125,100

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Appeals Service

  10,500

  8,800

  3,000

  —

  —

  —

  Total departmental losses

  560,600

  459,960

  160,300

  181,100

  172,300

  139,900

  Notes:

  1. Departmental Directorates were formed in 2000.

  2. Contributions Agency transferred to Inland Revenue from April 1999.

  3. Department of Social Security HQ was subsumed into Departmental Directorates in 2000.

  4. The Information Technology Services Agency (ITSA) ceased to be an executive agency in April 2000.

  5. 2001 and 2002 relate to the Department for Work and Pensions, previous years to Department of Social Security only.
  596W
  For 1999–2000 and 2001–01; the net operating costs

  For 2001–02; the net administration costs

  Costs increased by 26.8 per cent. between 1997–98 and 2001–02. By comparison, in the period from May 1997 to February 2002, the number of live cases with full maintenance assessments rose by 94.5 per cent. from 530,400 to 1,031,800.

  Departmental Fraud
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much money has been lost by his Department and its agencies and non-departmental public bodies through(a) fraud and (b) theft in each year since 1996–97. [92477]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Information in the exact form requested is not available. Such information that is available is shown in the following two tables.

  (a) Fraud

  The following table is an extract from the Department for Work and Pensions Annual Fraud Return to HM Treasury. It shows losses due to confirmed internal fraud only.

  No information is available relating to internal fraud in non-departmental public bodies.

  No information is available relating to theft in non-departmental public bodies.

  Departmental Invoices
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list the occasions on which(a) his Department, (b) agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department failed to pay valid invoices within 30 days or after the agreed credit period in the financial year 2001–02. [104319]

  Mr. McCartney
  Information on the occasions where the Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies failed to pay valid invoices within 30 days or after the agreed credit period can be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, the percentage of bills which were paid by the Department within 30 days of receipt of a valid invoice was 93 per cent. for the financial year 2001–02. The average percentage of bills paid by my Department's agencies was 94 per cent. over the same period. There were no executive non-departmental public bodies in that year.

  Departmental Phone Directory
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when the most recent internal phone directory for the Department was published; how often it is updated; and if he will place a copy in the Library. [101782]

  Mr. McCartney
  The internal phone directory for the Department for Work and Pensions was last published on Wednesday 5 March 2003. It is published monthly. We are currently investigating data protection issues regarding future publication of the directory.

  Departmental Running Costs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the running costs in 2002 were of(a) his Ministers private offices, separately identifying expenditure on staff, and (b) his Department. [105988]

  Mr. McCartney
  The Department accounts for its expenditure on the basis of a financial year ending 31 March. Figures for the financial year April 2002–March 2003 are therefore not yet available.

  Departmental Website
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the total cost of his Department's website was in the last 12 months; and how many hits it received in the same period. [104204]

  Mr. McCartney
  The total cost of the Department for Work and Pensions website over the last 12 months is not fully available. The site is maintained by an in-house team as part of their general duties, and we would be unable to break these costs down without incurring disproportionate cost.

  Web hosting and provision of web services is provided by the Department's IT contractor. However, internet services are not accounted for separately and it is not possible to disentangle the costs from overall IT services.

  Hits to the site between March 2002 and February 2003 total 65,407,012. The number of unique visitors was 883,754. The number of page impressions was 7,841,865.

  External Consultants
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the cost of external consultants was to his Department and its predecessors in each of the last four financial years for which figures are available, broken down by firm. [94054]

  Mr. McCartney
  The information requested cannot be provided without incurring significant disproportionate cost.

  Home Responsibilities Protection
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to his answer of 24 March,Official Report, column 105W, on home responsibilities protection, in which year the special insert was placed in child benefit books. [105977]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The insert "Information for Women with Reduced Liability for National Insurance Contributions" was included in 1979.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions which local authorities have yet to implement an agreement with the post office not to redirect housing benefit payments. [101384]

  Malcolm Wicks
  90 per cent. of all local authorities now use the Do Not Redirect scheme, which is helping to tackle fraudsters claiming from a false address.

  In the written answer given to the hon. Member on 2 May 2002, Official Report, column 982W, it was incorrectly stated, as a result of a clerical error, that 367 local authorities out of 408 were participating in the Do Not Redirect Scheme. The correct figure for the number of local authorities currently participating in the Do Not Redirect scheme is 366 out of 408.

  The 42 local authorities listed below currently have not entered into an agreement with Royal Mail Plc.

  Argyll and Bute

  Falkirk

  North Warwickshire

  Blaenau Gwent

  Fenland

  North West Leicester

  Bromley (LB)

  Gateshead

  Perthshire and Kinross

  Broxbourne

  Harborough

  Rugby

  Charnwood

  Inverclyde

  South Gloucester

  Dartford

  Isles of Scilly

  South Holland

  Daventry

  Kettering

  South Kesteven

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Maidstone

  Southwark (LB)

  East Dorset

  Malvern Hills

  Sutton (LB)

  East Dunbartonshire

  Mid-Devon

  Swindon

  East Hertfordshire

  Mid-Suffolk

  Wandsworth (LB)

  East Staffordshire

  Newport

  West Dunbartonshire

  Ellesmere Port

  North Norfolk

  West Somerset

  Exeter

  North Somerset

  Weymouth and Portland

  Jobcentre Plus
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how many employees have been given(a) an oral warning, (b) a written warning and (c) a final warning for contravening the guidance on dress codes for Jobcentre Plus employees since its introduction; and if he will make a statement; [100306]
  599W
  (2) how many employees reprimanded for contravening the guidance on dress codes for Jobcentre Plus are (a) frontline employees and (b) non frontline staff; and if he will make a statement; [100307]

  (3) how many employees reprimanded for contravening the guidance on dress codes for Jobcentre Plus are (a) former Benefits Agency employees and (b) Employment Service employees; and if he will make a statement; [100308]

  (4) what legal advice he was given concerning the implications of the introduction of the new guidance on dress codes for Jobcentre Plus employees; and if he will make a statement; [100309]

  (5) if he will place a copy of the guidance on dress codes for Jobcentre Plus employees in the Library; and if he will make a statement; [100310]

  (6) what consultation was held when drawing up the new guidance on dress codes for Jobcentre Plus employees; and if he will make a statement. [100311]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The administration of Jobcentre Plus is a matter for the acting Chief Executive of the Jobcentre Plus, Clare Dodgson. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Clare Dodgson to Paul Holmes, dated 31 March 2003:
  As Jobcentre Plus is an Executive Agency, I have been asked to reply to your six questions concerning our dress standard. This falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Acting Chief Executive of the Agency.
  A copy of the Jobcentre Plus dress standard has been placed in the Library.
  Our dress standard requires all our staff to dress in a professional and business like way. It reflects our role as a gateway to the labour market for people of working age and in providing vacancy-filling services for employers. It is consistent with the approach adopted by many other service delivery organisations and is entirely appropriate for us as a highly visible public-facing service. It is also an important element in promoting a single, integrated culture within our organization—which was created from staff of the former Benefits Agency and Employment Service.
  Our records from July 2002 show that 47 staff have received oral warnings, of whom 21 went on to receive written warnings, and 10 went on to receive disciplinary penalties.
  You asked how many of these were from the former Benefits Agency and from the former Employment Service, and how many were frontline and non frontline employees. This information is not available, and to gather it would involve a disproportionate cost.
  At present there are 23 people failing to comply with the dress standard, out of the approximate 82,000 staff of Jobcentre Plus; around half of whom are claiming exemption on medical grounds.
  Consultation on the dress standard took place in the lead up to the introduction of integrated Pathfinder offices, which preceded Jobcentre Plus, and on the launch of Jobcentre Plus itself. The Public and Commercial Services Union was formally consulted and some of their comments were incorporated into the standard though, regrettably, we were unable to reach full agreement with them.
  In developing our dress standard, we took extensive legal advice which has led us to be firmly of the view that our dress policy is not discriminatory, is reasonable and does not contravene the Human Rights Act.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Lister Group
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what consultations he has had with the liquidators of the Lister Group regarding the level of pension to be paid to former employees of the firm. [105184]

  Mr. McCartney
  No consultations have been held with the liquidators of the Lister Group regarding the level of pensions to be paid to scheme members. But we are aware of the difficult situation faced by members of the Lister pension scheme, and I sympathise with their position.

  We are concerned about instances when the employer sponsoring a pension scheme becomes insolvent and the pension scheme winds up under-funded. We are aware of the impact this has, and we are determined to protect the long term security of pensioners and other scheme members in occupational pension schemes.

  That is why we have consulted on proposals in our Green Paper, 'Simplicity, Security and Choice: Working and Saving for Retirement' (Cm5677), published on 17 December, aimed at improving protection for scheme members on wind up. This includes proposals to share out scheme assets more fairly, introduce a centralised "clearing house" or some form of insurance, remove the restrictions on the amount of compensation payable under the compensation scheme and strengthen protection for members whose solvent employer chooses to wind up its scheme.

  The Government want to ensure that when a scheme winds up, the assets are divided among scheme members as fairly as possible. Through the Green Paper we have consulted on:

  1. whether people who are approaching retirement age should be given a higher priority when scheme assets are distributed on wind-up, than at present;

  2. whether people who have been members of their pension scheme for a number of years should be given a higher priority; or

  3. whether there should be a fairer sharing of assets between those with larger and smaller pensions when a scheme winds up, possibly setting a cap on the level of pension that those with the highest pensions might receive, if there are limited assets available in the scheme.

  We are considering moving pension schemes up the order of priority for payment, possibly creating a new category of creditor, which would give pension schemes higher priority than at present.

  We have sought views on other approaches to dealing with under-funded defined benefit schemes that are wound up because their sponsoring employer becomes insolvent. Possibly:
  1. a form of insurance (perhaps a central discontinuance fund) that enables members to be more confident that, if their employer becomes insolvent with an under-funded pension scheme, they will receive the benefits promised; or

  601W
  2. a centralised arrangement or "clearing house" into which people whose employer became insolvent could pay the funds that they receive on wind-up. The "clearing house" would seek to buy the best available deferred annuity from an insurance company and should be able to negotiate better annuity rates.

  Insurance or a centralised "clearing house" might have advantages, providing better protection for scheme members where a company becomes insolvent and is forced to close its under-funded scheme. However, the costs would need to be balanced against the greater overall level of security offered.

  A compensation scheme already exists to provide compensation for losses caused by dishonesty where the employer is insolvent. Nonetheless, we are seeking views on removing the restrictions on the amount of compensation payable under the compensation scheme.

  Income Support, Jobseeker's Allowance (income-based), Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit recipients by family type, May 2001

  Thousands

  Income Support/Income-based JSA

  Housing Benefit

  Council Tax Benefit

  Single (no children)

  2,932

  2,247

  2,704

  Couple (no children)

  394

  443

  733

  Single parent (one child)

  475

  413

  403

  Single parent (two children)

  324

  294

  298

  Single parent (three or more children)

  212

  183

  187

  Couple (one child)

  102

  98

  120

  Couple (two children)

  92

  101

  120

  Couple (three or more children)

  99

  96

  109

  Total benefit units with at least one person receiving benefit

  4,629

  3,874

  4,673

  Total number of adults in benefit units where at least one person is receiving benefit

  5,316

  4,611

  5,756

  Total number of children in benefit units where at least one person is receiving benefit

  2,507

  2,278

  2,393

  Notes:

  1. IS/JSA numbers are based on per cent. sample. HB/CTB numbers are based on a 1 per cent. sample and are subject to a degree of sampling variation.

  2. Numbers have been rounded to the nearest thousand.

  3. Figures relate to benefit units and not households.

  4. A benefit unit may be a single person or a couple.

  5. Children are defined as children aged under 16 and young persons aged 16 to 18 in full-time education.

  6. HB figures exclude extended payment cases.

  7. CTB figures exclude Second Adult Rebates.

  8. The HB/CTB totals for Great Britain includes estimates for local authorities that have not responded. This estimate is based on historical and regional data. These types of estimates are standard practice in reporting totals where there have been non-respondents.

  9. There will be a significant overlap between the figures as most people receive both HB and CTB, and a significant proportion also receive IS or JSA.

  10. Single parents are defined as all claimants with dependants and without a partner.

  Sources:

  1. Housing Benefit (HB) and Council Tax Benefit (CTB) Management Information Annual 1 per cent. sample inquiry, May 2001.

  2. Income Support (IS) Quarterly Statistical Enquiry, May 2001.

  3. Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA) Quarterly Statistical Enquiry, May 2001.

  Medical Services
  Kevin Brennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to his answer of 25 February 2003,Official Report, column 496W, on medical services, how many grade C medical reports were generated by random audits in each year since 1998; and how many have been judged to be fit for the purpose. [103117]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  A total of 134,144 cases have been randomly audited since 1 September 1998, of which 5,440 were found to be C grades, a proportion of 4.1 per cent.
  602W
  Also, we are seeking views on changes to the debt on the employer provisions that might result in more funds being put into a scheme when a solvent employer chooses to wind it up.

  The consultation period ran until 28 March 2003.

  Means-tested Benefits
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will update the table on the number of households claiming means-tested benefits set out on 28 February 2001,Official Report, column 697W, broken down by household type and the number of children. [95226]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Updated estimates for the number of families claiming income-related benefits are in the table.

  Random audit is carried out before reports are sent to decision makers and any audited report found not fit for purpose is corrected before being submitted to the decision maker.

  The figures for each year are:

  Number of C grades

  September 1998 to August 1999

  1,670

  September 1999 to August 2000

  1,590

  September 2000 to August 2001

  1,165

  September 2001 to August 2002

  709

  September 2002 to February 2003

  306

  603W
  The information requested in relation to the number of C grade reports judged to be fit for purpose is not available. SchlumbergerSema Medical Services do not keep records of this information.

  New Deal (Fraud)
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to his answer of 20 March 2003,Official Report, columns 925–26W, on fraud and the New Deal, (1) if he will make a statement on the nature of the frauds committed by contractors in relation to the New Deal; and what steps his Department has taken to prevent such frauds; [105351]

  (2) if he will list, in each year in which an estimated total loss was given in his answer, the cases in which fraud was found to have occurred, and the precise level of the fraud in each case. [105352]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 27 March 2003]: Allegations made against contractors delivering New Deal programmes fall mainly into two broad categories: allegations that the claimed outcomes were fabricated or mis-stated, and allegations that the claimed training delivered was not in fact provided.

  New Deal providers are subject to thorough contractual and quality audits. These specifically consider the delivery of training against the requirements set out in the contract between Jobcentre Plus and providers. Contractual terms and conditions include appropriate clauses requiring parties to the contract to use all reasonable endeavours to safeguard Jobcentre Plus funding of the New Deal against fraud generally and, in particular fraud on the part of the provider's directors, employees or sub-contractors.

  The Department investigates all such allegations, of which some are false, some are true but caused through clerical or administrative error and others are caused by fraud.

  Where evidence of fraud is found, it is reported at the earliest opportunity to the police, who are responsible for any subsequent criminal law investigation. Some reported fraud is suspected to be corporate, but most cases are investigated as internal frauds by employees of the contractor.

  Since the Department's action following investigation is often a referral to outside bodies, such as the police, it is not possible to state the outcome of each case.

  New Deal for Young People
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Northavon, on 26 February 2003,Official Report, column 609W, what assessment he has made of why the number of people leaving the New Deal for Young People for unknown destinations is growing; and what plans the Department has for increasing the information available about leavers. [103058]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Jobcentre Plus and New Deal providers have mechanisms in place that aim to maximise information about the destinations of those leaving the programme and Jobcentre Plus is working to ensure that best practice is shared across different districts and providers.
  604W
  Later this year we are planning to conduct further research into people whose destination on leaving NDYP was unknown. Previous surveys of this kind have shown that the destinations of this group mirror that of people leaving to known destinations, with a large number of these young people entering sustained employment.

  However, individuals are not obliged to inform us of their destination on leaving the New Deal for Young People (NDYP) and following up all of these cases can be very time consuming. The priority is to provide the help and support that young people need to move into work. This may mean that less time has been spent following up and recording the destination of people after leaving NDYP.

  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many and what proportion of those on each option of the New Deal for Young People went into a sustained job in the East Riding of Yorkshire(a) since the scheme began broken down by year and (b) in the last quarter for which figures are available. [104524]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  In the latest quarter for which information is available (October to December 2002) 40 young people left the New Deal Options for unsubsidised, sustained jobs in the East Riding local authority area. This is 43 per cent. of all leavers from the Options in that period. Due to the small volumes involved, figures for individual New Deal Options for the latest quarter cannot be published because of the risk of identifying individuals.

  The information requested on the New Deal for Young People since the programme began is in the table.

  New Deal for Young people in the East Riding of Yorkshire

  Option/year1

  Number of people entering unsubsidised, sustained employment2

  Number of leavers2

  Proportion of leavers entering unsubsidised, sustained employment (percentage)3

  Employment

  1998

  10

  20

  55

  1999

  80

  130

  63

  2000

  70

  100

  67

  2001

  70

  110

  61

  2002

  50

  120

  45

  Education and Training

  1998

  10

  10

  38

  1999

  60

  160

  39

  2000

  70

  190

  37

  2001

  50

  130

  40

  2002

  40

  110

  37

  Voluntary Sector

  19984

  —

  —

  —

  1999

  30

  70

  47

  2000

  20

  80

  25

  2001

  20

  40

  49

  2002

  20

  50

  45

  Environment Task Force

  19984

  —

  —

  —

  1999

  30

  80

  41

  2000

  20

  60

  34

  2001

  30

  70

  35

  2002

  30

  60

  48

  1 Years relate to January to December (except for 1998, which is April to December).

  2 All figures are rounded to the nearest 10.

  605W
  3 Proportions are based on unrounded figures and hence cannot be derived from the rounded figures used in the table.

  4 Due to the small volume involved, the 1998 figures for the Voluntary Sector and the Environment Task Force Option cannot be published because of the risk of identifying individuals.

  Pensions
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what arrangements are in place to credit pension payments paid into a bank account(a) weekly and (b) in advance rather than arrears; whether changes in method of payment are made only on request; and how such a request can be made. [105378]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Pensioners who are currently paid weekly in advance will continue to be paid this way after the move to Direct Payment.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions 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. [104923]

  Mr. McCartney
  The Department is not responsible for any funded or unfunded pension schemes in respect of its staff.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will review the advice given to pensioners by the Pension Service on form BR2199(RP) in respect of hospital downrating. [105254]

  Mr. McCartney
  There are no current plans to amend the advice on form BR2199(RP).

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people of working age were not making second tier pension arrangements(a) in 1997 and (b) in the last year for which figures are available. [105825]

  Mr. McCartney
  In 1997, we estimate that 11.9 million working age people were not members of SERPS or making private pension arrangements. In 2001–02, this figure was 11.4 million. We estimate that state second pension, introduced from April 2002 will reduce the number to about 7 million. These figures have been estimated using the Family Resources Survey, 1997–98 and 2001–02.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people were in approved personal pensions in each year since 1988; and what proportion of members were accruing no additional pension rights in each year. [105826]

  Mr. McCartney
  Information is not available in the format requested. However, available estimates of the number of personal pension arrangements for employees are contained in the table. The estimates are 606W
  based on administrative returns made to the Inland Revenue by personal pension providers and show the number of arrangements for employees which have received a contribution in the year.

  It is not possible to estimate how many individuals these relate to. Neither is it possible to say how many of those with only minimum contributions have made no further contributions to a private pension as, for example, an appropriate personal pension may have been used by an individual to contract out while a member of an employer's occupational scheme. Alternatively, the individual could have arrangements with other personal pension providers to which they are making contributions.

  Number of Personal Pension Arrangements for Employees

  Thousand

  Total number of arrangements

  Number where a minimum contribution only has been received

  1989–90

  5,000

  2,450

  1990–91

  6,250

  2,750

  1991–92

  7,300

  3,050

  1992–93

  8,100

  3,050

  1993–94

  8,050

  2,900

  1994–95

  8,700

  3,070

  1995–96

  8,570

  3,020

  1996–97

  8,530

  2,960

  1997–98

  9,150

  2,930

  1998–99

  9,630

  2,950

  1999–2000

  10,010

  2,980

  2000–01

  9,950

  2,890

  Due to the simplified regime introduced from April 2001 for personal and stakeholder pensions, estimates on a comparable basis are not available from 2001–02 onwards.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions under what circumstances pensioners who receive their pensions weekly in cash will be able to receive weekly payments if they opt to receive their pensions by automated credit transfer into a bank account. [105545]

  Malcolm Wicks
  I refer the hon. Member to the written answer I gave the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) on 11 March 2003,Official Report, column 187W.

  Post Office Card Accounts
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what arrangements have been made to ensure that a Post Office card account holder who has nominated a named carer or home care worker is able to have their pension collected when the carer or home care worker changes unexpectedly. [105257]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Customers in these circumstances may find that the Post Office card account is not the most suitable account for them. However, if a customer finds themselves in this situation the customer can apply for a second card in the name of their new carer.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when the exception scheme for the post office card account will be in place; and what it will cover. [105261]
  607W
  Malcolm Wicks
  The Department have always recognised that there will be a small number of people who cannot manage to access their benefit or pension via an account, including the post office card account. An alternative method of payment will be used for this group and will be in place when it is required.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many(a) retirement pensioners and (b) recipients of child benefit will be able to arrange weekly payments to a bank or Post Office card account from next month. [105272]

  Malcolm Wicks
  There will be no change to payment frequency following the move to Direct Payment for retirement pension and child benefit recipients. This means that those customers paid weekly now will continue to be paid weekly after the move to Direct Payment.

  Strikes
  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many days have been lost in strikes in his Department, including local job centres and social security offices, in London in each year since 1996. [105568]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The information requested is not available in the format requested.

  Theft/Fraud
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what his estimate is of the cost of theft and fraud to(a) his Department, (b) its agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies in 2002. [89891]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Department treats very seriously any instances of theft or fraud. In instances where a member of staff is proven to have committed fraud against the Department, disciplinary penalties, including dismissal, will be considered in addition to any criminal proceedings. The Department has put a number of measures in place to deter theft and fraud including working with property managers to make buildings more secure, internal fraud investigators actively operating in each government region, security specialists assessing internal security risk within a number of business units, awareness training for staff on internal security, a Whistleblowers hotline for staff to report instances of internal fraud, a portfolio of fact sheets on fraud and securty for staff and regular bulletins to middle managers on internal fraud matters.
  608W
  The following tables show the estimated cost of theft and fraud in Department for Work and Pensions and its agencies in the period April 2001 to March 2002. Information on non—departmental public bodies is not available:

  Thefts in DWP, by Agency, April 2001 to March 2002

  The approximate cost to the DWP of theft in 2001–02

  Items

  Valued at £

  Department (Corporate Directorates and Services)

  1—

  1—

  Jobcentre Plus2

  58

  55,475

  Child Support Agency

  14

  13,037

  Appeals Service

  8

  6,675

  Health and Safety Executive

  22

  21,420

  Non-Departmental Public Bodies

  3—

  3—

  Total

  96,607

  1 None reported

  2 Including ex-BA and ex-ES

  3 Not recorded by DWP

  Internal Fraud in DWP, by Agency, April 2001 to March 2002

  The approximate cost to the DWP of Internal Fraud in 2001–02

  £

  Department (Corporate Directorates and Services)

  620.20

  Ex-Benefits Agency

  208,823.90

  Ex-Employment Service

  1,045,977.40

  Child Support Agency

  4,111.49

  Appeals Service

  203.51

  Non-Departmental Public Bodies

  1—

  Total

  1,259,736.50

  1 Not recorded by DWP

  External Benefit Fraud:

  The Department estimates that approximately £2 billion is lost through benefit fraud.

  Winter Fuel Payments
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) for what reasons those who receive winter fuel payments in excess of their entitlement are not required to repay the money; [104742]

  (2) how much money has been received during 2002–03 from voluntary repayments of excess winter fuel payments; and what the sum was in 2001–02. [104743]

  Mr. McCartney
  In the vast majority of cases, the amount of winter fuel payment is determined by the information held by the Department, which is regularly updated. The winter fuel payment therefore reflects the person's circumstances as known to the Department in the qualifying week, which determines entitlement.

  There are a variety of reasons why payments are returned to the Department, including cases where entitlement is queried and change of address.

  We are currently unable to give a specific amount, which relates to voluntary excess repayments.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  O'Hare Report
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Ian Pearson)
  I am today announcing my decision on recommendations contained in the O'Hare report on the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development's arrangements for the provision of agri-food education and R&D in Northern Ireland. I first announced my proposals on 25 November 2002, at which time I issued the proposals for public consultation. Having taken account of this consultation, I am now confirming the final decisions. These are detailed in the appendix below.

  FURTHER INFORMATION

  The Government's response to the O'Hare report was issued for public consultation until 28 February 2003, after their announcement on 25 November 2002.

  The O'Hare review was conducted by an independent panel, consisting of three ministerial appointees. The team's report was completed in April 2002.

  APPENDIX

  Details of the Government's final decisions on the way forward in response to the O'Hare report are listed below.

  CENTRAL DECISION TAKING PROCESS

  An advisory board on R&D and technology transfer will be set up, consisting of independent expert advisors from science and industry and with some additional membership nominated by the Rural Stakeholders Forum. Appointments to the board will be made through a transparent process using pre-set criteria. Strategic advice on the formulation of the R&D and technology transfer programme will be provided to the Department.

  TRANSFER OF THE SCHOOL OF AGRICULTURE AND FOOD SCIENCE TO EITHER THE QUEEN'S UNIVERSITY OF BELFAST (QUB) OR THE UNIVERSITY OF ULSTER (UU)

  The educational provision currently delivered at the School of Agriculture and Food Science at QUB will be transferred to one of the two NI universities. The process of selection of the university will be conducted by a panel consisting of internal and external members which will oversee the competitive exercise. The funding will be ring-fenced for an initial period of three years. Suitable transitional arrangements will be put in place for both funding and students.
  36WS
  Full legal protection will apply to terms and conditions of any staff who transfer to the chosen university. Full consultation with unions, staff and the receiving university will be an integral part of the process.

  RATIONALISATION OF THE THREE DARD COLLEGES INTO A SINGLE COLLEGE ON THREE SITES

  The three DARD Colleges will be combined to form a single college within DARD leading to greater efficiency in service delivery. The single DARD college, under a single Principal, will have a separate business plan, targets and budget and will produce separate accounts.

  It will continue its advisory, teaching and lifelong learning provision.

  A Management Committee will be appointed with external representation. Representatives will be chosen according to pre-set criteria.

  In addition, the single college will have overall responsibility for the delivery of knowledge and technology transfer and adoption and will liaise closely with the new NDPB, the retained Science Service, universities, research institutes and other providers to ensure cohesive and comprehensive delivery.

  The arrangement will be reviewed after 3 years.

  ESTABLISHMENT OF A NON-DEPARTMENTAL PUBLIC BODY (NDPB)

  A new NDPB will be set up to deliver R&D and analytical and diagnostic services currently provided by DARD Science Service. However, core provision will be retained within DARD to provide an emergency response capability. This arrangement will be reviewed after 3 years.

  A board will be appointed to manage the new NDPB. Appointments will be made using a transparent process and according to pre-set criteria. The NDPB will continue to provide R&D services for other Government Departments under suitable contractual arrangements.

  Full legal protection will apply to terms and conditions of any staff who transfer to the new NDPB.

  INCLUSION OF THE AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF NORTHERN IRELAND (ARINI) WITHIN THE NEW NDPB

  ARINI will be abolished and its functions and staff transferred to the new NDPB. Negotiations will be undertaken with the existing ARINI Board and the relevant trade unions on the arrangements for transfer.

  Full legal protection will apply to terms and conditions of any staff who transfer from ARINI to the new NDPB.

  OVERALL RESPONSIBILITY FOR TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER FACILITY WITHIN THE SINGLE DARD COLLEGE

  Overall responsibility for knowledge and technology transfer and adoption will be the responsibility of the single DARD College which will liaise closely with the new NDPB, the retained emergency core, universities, research institutes and other providers to ensure

  37WS
  cohesive and comprehensive delivery, irrespective of the delivery location. I recognise the concerns expressed in the consultation exercise that the continuation of comprehensive technology transfer provision is essential to the future development of the agri-food industry.

  This arrangement will be reviewed in three years.

  INTRODUCTION OF A COMPETITIVE BIDDING PROCESS FOR DARD FUNDED R&D

  Competitive tendering will be developed for DARD funded R&D. However, an R&D programme of sufficient size and quality will be core-funded at the NDPB to ensure that the required skills base is maintained. Core funding will also be provided for the analytical, diagnostic and surveillance functions carried out by the NDPB.

  LINKS

  Clear links will be developed between DARD, the DARD college, the new NDPB, the universities and other research providers to ensure that R&D, technology transfer and education are delivered as effectively as possible.

  Youth Justice Agency
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Paul Murphy)
  The report on the Review of the Criminal Justice System in Northern Ireland, which flowed from the Belfast agreement, recommended in the area of youth justice that the Juvenile Justice Board, a statutory non-departmental public body with responsibility for the provision of youth justice services in custodial and community settings, should be replaced by a next steps agency. This statement announces the creation of that agency within the Northern Ireland Office, to be known as the Youth Justice Agency, on 1 April 2003.

  A full consultation exercise was undertaken in relation to all the recommendations in the Criminal Justice Review. There was broad support for the creation of an agency.

  The agency will play a central and leading role in addressing youth crime in Northern Ireland, by facilitating the development of a strong professional management team responsible for the provision of youth justice services and an increased emphasis on accountability, transparency and effective service delivery.

  The agency will also implement a range of new diversionary measures for dealing with child offenders, including youth conferencing arrangements based on restorative justice principles, new community orders and bail support schemes. The agency will build on partnerships with others that already exist in helping young people to avoid crime.

  In taking these developments forward, the agency will provide the appropriate structures, supported by challenging targets and key performance indicators, to ensure that the best value and outcomes are obtained from the substantial investment being made in youth justice provision in Northern Ireland.
  38WS
  The agency will concentrate on service delivery. The continuing task of developing policy and monitoring the agency's performance against targets will be undertaken by a small unit within the core Department.

  The agency's Framework Document and Corporate and Business Plan have been published and are now available in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament.

  The relevant documents are also available on the NIO website at http://www.nio.gov.uk/.

TREASURY

  Landfill Tax
  The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Healey)
  Legislation will be introduced in the Finance Bill 2003, to take effect from 1 April 2003, which will increase the standard rate of landfill tax from £13 per tonne to £14 per tonne. The increase is part of a series of £1 per tonne escalator increases, announced in the Budget 1999. These increases have been publicised in the landfill public notice (LET1). HM Customs and Excise is writing to all landfill operators registered for the tax to confirm the date of the change.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Nuclear Decommissioning Authority
  The Minister for Energy and Construction (Mr. Brian Wilson)
  Following detailed analysis of a number of potential locations, I am able to announce that the Government have decided on West Cumbria as its preferred location for the head office of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority.

  The Government believe that—while a number of other locations could offer similar benefits in terms of the operational needs of the NDA—the NDA will bring significant benefits to the community of West Cumbria by providing a catalyst for economic growth and diversification. These benefits are particularly important to a community that has suffered significantly from economic setbacks and recent job losses. West Cumbria is already a high priority area for economic regeneration and has a long history of engagement in the nuclear business.

  The decision is the outcome of a two-stage assessment process. The first stage conducted by the Department of Trade and Industry compared eight locations throughout the UK and concluded that the North West was the region of choice.

  The second stage, conducted by the North West Development Agency, compared two areas within the region—West Cumbria and the area west of Manchester. The results showed that while there were some differences in the two locations, both locations would deliver against the operational needs of the NDA. Hence, their respective needs for investment and economic regeneration became the deciding factor and on this basis I have chosen West Cumbria.
  39WS
  Today's decision clearly demonstrates the Government's commitment (made in the White Paper on Managing the Nuclear Legacy) to support the communities in which the NDA will operate and in particular, to generate new growth and opportunities in areas such as West Cumbria.

HEALTH

  Children in Care
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Jacqui Smith)
  The Department's Public Service Agreement (PSA), published July 2002, included a commitment to review the target on the education of children in care, in light of the Social Exclusion Unit (SEU) project on that subject. Work on the SEU project is nearing completion, and I am now in a position to announce the new target, which is to:Improve life chances for children, including by substantially narrowing the gap between the educational attainment and participation of children in care and that of their peers by 2006.

  This target will have been achieved if, by 2006:

  outcomes for 11 year olds in English and maths are at least 60 percent as good as those of their peers;

  the proportion who become disengaged from education is reduced, so that no more than 10 per cent reach school leaving age without having sat a General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE) equivalent exam: and

  the proportion of those aged 16 who get qualifications equivalent to GCSEs graded A*-C has risen on average by 4 percentage points each year since 2002; and in all authorities at least 15 per cent. of young people in care achieve this level of qualifications.

  The elements of the PSA target relating to the level of education, training and employment outcomes for care leavers aged 19, the proportion of children in care who are cautioned or convicted, and the under-18 conception rate, remain unchanged.

  In developing the target I have been keen to encourage action to support attainment by all children in care. This includes younger children, those who are able and have the potential to achieve at a high level, and those with difficulties who need support to remain engaged with education at all.

  I therefore welcome the SEU's proposal that as part of the existing planning process, individual education targets should be set for all children in care and local authorities should monitor both the appropriateness and the achievement of these targets. We will be consulting stakeholders on how best to achieve this.

  In order that the target reflects the influence of the care system on attainment, it will apply only to children who have been in care for one year or more. Nonetheless, I believe that promoting the attainment of children who spend a shorter time in care is important. I have therefore agreed with My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills that he will put in place arrangements to analyse data from the pupil level annual school census, in order to improve our understanding of outcomes for those young people who have spent any time in care. The results of this analysis will be used to inform the development of future policy.
  40WS
  Copies of the technical note accompanying the new PSA target have been placed in the Library.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Regional Planning Guidance (North-West)
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Tony McNulty)
  RPG 13 sets out the spatial development strategy that encompasses proposals for the development of the Region's economy, housing and transport infrastructure, and other land uses. Within the terms of the strategy, priority is to be given to sustainable development and investment within the North West Metropolitan Area (especially the Regional Poles of Manchester/Salford and Liverpool), together with defined Regeneration Priority Areas. RPG13 also sets out proposals for the conservation, management and enhancement of the Region's natural and cultural environment.

  I am pleased that much of the vision, objectives and core strategy of RPG 13 carries forward to a great extent what was proposed in the original draft RPG prepared by the North West Regional Assembly (NWRA). RPG 13 reflects the effective working that was achieved between the NWRA, local authorities and other stakeholders, all of which have made valuable contributions to refine and enhance the original draft guidance through public consultation. It builds on the inclusive process for preparing RPG that the Government have put in place. Many of the comments received in response to the consultations carried out earlier have made a positive contribution to the overall strategy for sustainable development and have been taken on board.

  The North West Regional Assembly, in its role as the Regional Planning Body, will work with partners—including the business community—to ensure its effective implementation, monitoring and review.

  Housing Bill
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Tony McNulty)
  The Government is today publishing as CM 5793 a draft Housing Bill for consultation. This aims to tackle some of the most pressing difficulties in private sector housing. The draft Bill will ensure action against unacceptably low housing standards, the impact bad landlords can have on some local communities and the stress in buying and selling a home. These proposals are part of our drive to deliver sustainable communities as set out in the Deputy Prime Minister's long-term action programme"Sustainable Communities: Building for the Future" published in February this year.

  The draft Bill sets out specific legislation in five main areas:

  replacing the existing housing fitness standard with the evidence-based Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) as a more effective basis for enforcement against unacceptable housing conditions;

  41WS

  improving the controls on Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs), including a mandatory national licensing scheme, to tackle poor physical and management standards;

  giving local authorities powers to license all landlords in areas of low housing demand or similar areas where the growth and poor management of the private rented sector frustrates efforts to create sustainable communities;

  requiring anyone marketing a home to assemble a home information pack (HIP), so that the information needed by buyers and sellers is available when the property is marketed, and abortive costs on the buyer are reduced;

  modernising the Right to Buy scheme by tackling profiteering and emphasising purchasers' responsibilities so that it contributes more effectively to the supply of affordable housing.

  There are additionally clauses introducing a new office of Social Housing Ombudsman for Wales to investigate complaints against registered social landlords in Wales. There are also proposals to give local authority landlords the flexibility to continue introductory tenancies by up to six months, adding to the armoury of measures to tackle anti social behaviour by tenants.

  The consultation period will run until 9 June. The draft Bill, together with the explanatory notes, Regulatory Impact Assessments and issues for consultation, has been published as a Command Paper and will also be available on the website for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. Copies of all the consultation material have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  The Government have also today published consultation documents on the Home Information Pack, covering its contents and its applicability in areas of lowest housing demand. There will also be separate consultation on possible changes to the powers of the Housing Corporation and National Assembly for Wales to regulate registered social landlords.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  UK-US Bilateral Extradition Treaty
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett)
  I am today, together with US Attorney General John Ashcroft, signing a new bilateral extradition treaty between the United Kingdom and the United States of America.

  The current UK-USA extradition treaty was agreed in 1972 and ratified in 1976 with supplementary provisions from 1986. It is outdated and can be significantly improved.

  The new treaty reflects best modern practice in extradition. In particular, it provides that any crime attracting a maximum sentence of 12 months' imprisonment or more in both the requesting and the requested state is extraditable rather than containing a list of offences which are extraditable, as the present treaty does. The advantage of that is that it encompasses offences, such as computer related crime, which did not exist when the 1972 treaty was drawn up.
  42WS
  The new treaty brings the evidential rules for requests from the United States into line with those for European countries and simplifies the procedures for the authentication of documents.

  As with the existing treaty, the new treaty provides that in death penalty cases, extradition may be refused unless an assurance has been received that no death sentence will be carried out.

  The new treaty also maintains the present position that political motivation cannot be used to block extradition in the case of terrorist or other violent crimes. The treaty stipulates that neither nationality nor statutes of limitations will be a bar to extradition. The treaty also provides the standard speciality protection against onward extradition or surrender, and we have confirmed our understanding that this covers surrender to the International Criminal Court.

  Before the treaty can come into force it needs to be ratified by the United States Senate. It will be brought into force in the United Kingdom by Order in Council. Such an order will be made under the existing Extradition Act 1989 and will carry over when the Extradition Bill, which is currently before Parliament, comes into force. At that point the United States, like all of our extradition partners, will benefit from the new streamlined extradition procedures which the Bill seeks to put in place.

  The United States is one of our key extradition partners and there is a significant volume of extradition business between the two countries. It is therefore important that our bilateral extradition treaty should be as effective as possible. I am pleased that it has been possible to reach agreement on the new treaty and that I have the opportunity in person to affirm our commitment to the closest possible co-operation in the fight against terrorism and other serious crime.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Employer Pensions Task Force
  The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Andrew Smith)
  Today, I am pleased to announce that Sir Peter Davis, Group Chief Executive of J Sainsbury PLC has agreed to chair an Employer Task Force on Pensions.

  A vital part of the proposals set out in our pensions Green Paper "Simplicity, security and choice: Working and saving for retirement", Cm 5677, is the renewal of the partnership between individuals, employers the financial services industries and Government.

  There is no doubt that the people retiring today with the best pension have been helped to do so by their employer. We want the Task Force to help build on that success and encourage more employers large and small to recognise the value of good pension provisions and to identify and promote good practice in providing and promoting pensions. The Task Force will also provide advice to me on the role of the employer in the pensions partnership.
  43WS
  With the appointment of Sir Peter Davis we are putting the right leadership in place to fulfil this remit. His extensive business experience will be a valuable asset in helping to make a success of future pension provision.

  I will be considering comments in response to consultation on the Green Paper on the Task Force, and will report back to the House on the wider membership, terms of reference and timetable in due course.

  Jobcentre Plus
  The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Andrew Smith)
  I am delighted to be able to announce that as part of the development of the service provided to working age people, we will be opening a Jobcentre Plus contact centre at the site of the former ITV Digital operation in Pembroke Dock, West Wales. This new venture will create 250 new jobs and will not only offer a major boost to the area but will also help Jobcentre Plus in our aim of delivering a modern, efficient service.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH

  Diplomatic Representation (Africa)
  The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw)
  Changing strategic priorities require the Foreign and Commonwealth Office constantly to adapt and amend its pattern of representation overseas. In order to free resources to strengthen the UK's diplomatic network in other parts of the world now more critical for UK interests, I have decided to make the following adjustments to our diplomatic representation in West Africa. With effect from early summer, the Embassy in Bamako will be closed. We intend to retain a UK office there. Given the importance the UK attaches to stability and peace in the Mano River region, we intend to open a one-person office in Monrovia later this year, and upgrade our office in Conakry to an Embassy.

DEFENCE

  Defence Medical Education and Training Agency
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie)
  In line with the recommendation of the Medical Quinquennial Review (MQR), which I announced on 11 April 2002, the Defence Medical Education and Training Agency (DMETA) will be established on 1 April 2003. I will arrange for copies of the new Agency's Framework Document, Corporate Plan and Key Targets for 2003–2004 to be placed in the Library of both Houses. The Chief Executive for DMETA will be Rear Admiral Peter Kidner.

  On formation, the new Agency will subsume the existing Defence Medical Training Organisation (DMTO). The Defence Secondary Care Agency (DSCA) will be disestablished on 31 March 2003 with its
  44WS
  responsibility for training and placement of Service medical personnel transferring to DMETA. Responsibility for commissioning secondary care for Service personnel will transfer to a new Healthcare Directorate within the Defence Medical Services Department (DMSD), formerly the Surgeon General's Department. The overseas hospitals in Cyprus and Gibraltar will transfer to the Permanent Joint Headquarters (PJHQ) by 1 April 2005, but during the interim period DMSD will have responsibility.

  DMETA will make available nominated Secondary Care personnel for deployments and exercises, and deliver appropriate medical, dental and military training and education to specified standards to meet the operational requirement. It will bring together Defence medical education and training including the Royal Centre for Defence Medicine (RCDM), the Defence Deanery., the five Ministry of Defence Hospital Units and the Defence Medical Rehabilitation Centre (DMRC) at Headley Court.

  Key Targets have been set for 2003–04 to provide a. balanced, challenging but achievable package covering the full range of DMETA's areas of business. These are:

  DEFENCE MEDICAL EDUCATION AND TRAINING AGENCY—KEY TARGETS FOR FINANCIAL YEAR 2003–04

  Key Target 1—Deployable Personnel

  To meet 100 per cent. of the Commander in Chiefs' requirement for Secondary Care personnel for operational deployments, major exercises and collective training.

  Key Target 2—Training Success (Quality and Quantity)

  a. Academic. To achieve an overall academic success rate of 95 per cent. across all training in the customer-approved Annual Agreed Training Requirement, based upon those students that successfully complete the required pre-course assessment where appropriate.

  b. Military. Ensure that 80 per cent. of all DMETA personnel, whose medical category permits, achieve their Service's annual mandatory individual military training.

  Key Target 3—Academic Success (Timeliness)

  To maintain the index of average time taken for trainees to pass through to the end of Phase II training at less than 1.05.

  Key Target 4—Defence Systems Approach to Training

  Ensure the application of Defence Systems Approach to Training (DSAT) to a minimum of 65 per cent. of DMETA courses within Financial Year 2003–04 and thereafter achieve a year on year improvement of 15 per cent. until a steady state of at least 95 per cent. is achieved.
  45WS
  Key Target 5—Efficiency

  Ensure the efficient rationalisation and usage of the current DMETA estate, reducing the agreed Balance Sheet value of the estate as at 1 April 2003 by at least 50 per cent. by 2010, thereby reducing the cost of training.

  DEFENCE DENTAL AGENCY (DDA)

  In respect of the Defence Dental Agency, the MQR recommended that it should continue in its present form except that it would lose some training functions to the new DMETA. It also recommended that the DDA should develop more challenging targets including a new system of Dental Risk (DR) categorisation. This has now been achieved and the Key Targets for the DDA for 2003–04 are as follows:

  DEFENCE DENTAL AGENCY—KEY TARGETS FOR FINANCIAL YEAR 2003–2004

  Key Target 1—The Operational Requirement

  To meet 100 per cent. of the Commander in Chief's requirements for DDA personnel for operational deployments, major exercises and collective training.

  Key Target 2—Dental Risk

  To achieve 90 per cent. of all Service personnel in Dental Risk categories A and B by 31 March 2004.

  Key Targets 3—Treatment Needs

  To reduce the Treatment Need Index for each Service to the following: RN at or below 400; Army at or below 600; RAF at or below 330 by 31 March 2004.

  Key Target 4—Military Training

  To ensure that 80 per cent. of all DDA personnel, whose medical category permits, achieve their Service's annual individual, mandatory, military training.

LORD CHANCELLOR
  National Archives
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Ms Rosie Winterton):

  THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS 2003–04*
  EFFICIENCY
  KPI 1—Unit Costs of Key Activities
  KPI 1A—Selecting and preserving the public records per metre: To ensure that the unit cost does not rise above £96.00.
  KPI 1B—Giving Access Onsite: To ensure that the unit cost per information transaction with customers onsite does not exceed £9.90.
  KPI 1C—Giving Access Online: To ensure that the unit cost per information transaction with customers online does not exceed £0.11.
  KPI 2—Backlog of records in departments reported as being over 30 years old and awaiting review: To reduce the backlog, assessed in January 2003 as 2165 metres, by 247 metres.
  QUALITY OF SERVICE
  KPI 3—The achievement of Public Service Standards:

  (A) to achieve the Public Service Standard Targets for the National Archives as follows:-

  (i) To make newly opened records and their catalogues available to users in accordance with specified time targets

  (ii) To answer 98.5 per cent. of written correspondence within 10 working days

  (iii) To deliver 90 per cent. of records requested by users for consultation in the reading rooms in accordance with specified time targets

  (iv) To supply 98.5 per cent. of copy orders in accordance with the specified targets and standards

  (v) To answer 85 per cent. of telephone calls within 20 seconds

  (vi) To keep 98.5 per cent. of appointments which visitors have made with us within 10 minutes

  (B) to carry out three onsite satisfaction surveys and to achieve assessments of "good" or "excellent" from 90 per cent. of those expressing a view; to carry out three online satisfaction surveys and to achieve assessments of "good" or "excellent" from 80 per cent. of those expressing a view.

  INCOME GENERATION
  KPI 4—To increase revenue generated by commercial activity to £1,000,000
  MODERNISING GOVERNMENT
  KPI 5—Electronic Records Management:
  To support other government departments in achieving the government target for electronic records management by 2004 by:

  (i) monitoring progress in departments against milestones and reporting to the Lord Chancellor, the e-Government sub-group and departments every six months and to others as appropriate to the level of action required

  (ii) targeting under-achieving departments and developing action plans to accelerate progress

  (iii) delivering a programme of workshops to support the action plans.

  KPI 6—Electronic Service Delivery:
  To develop digital access to popular records so that 60,000 digital record images are delivered to customers
  KPI 7—To raise an awareness of the NA's holdings among under-represented groups in our user profile by means of a rigorous social inclusion programme the chief components of which are:

  (i) To make available 150,000 images online in four galleries as part of the "Moving Here" project

  (ii) To commence the first stage of the project to redesign PROCAT public interface screens in order to improve their usability, partly based on the finds of the usability evaluation exercise completed in 2002–03

  (iii) To broaden the ethnic, cultural and social mix of school groups visiting the National Archives by organising 10 workshops in partnership with the Tower of London and Cross River Partnership.

  * More information on these and other key targets is published in the Corporate and Business Plans.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Cattle Movement Service/Rural Payments Agency Merger
  The Minister for Rural Affairs and Urban Quality of Life (Alun Michael)
  Following the Better Quality Service (BQS) review of the British Cattle Movement Service (BCMS), published in November 2000, Ministers announced that they would be looking carefully at how BCMS could best work with the paying agencies in England, Scotland and Wales, to ensure effective interfaces with each other and with their farming customers. The 2001 Foot and Mouth Disease epidemic deferred action.

  Since then we have learnt lessons from the first year of operating the bovine premium schemes on the basis of cross-checks by the Rural Payments Agency (RPA) and the other GB paying agencies with the BCMS Cattle Tracing System database. These cross-checks threw up a significant level of inconsistencies which adversely affected payment of premium to a large number of farmer customers. This experience highlighted the need for close working between the GB paying agencies and
  48WS
  BCMS and raised the question whether potential synergies between BCMS and RPA systems are being fully exploited to provide a better service to all those who use the database.

  Having examined the options we concluded that there are strong strategic and organisational advantages for Defra's customers in having similar systems run under single management and providing a single point of customer contact through the merger of RPA and BCMS as from 1 April 2003. This would, in turn, ensure that BCMS is in a good position to meet the requirements of all its GB stakeholders. At the same time merger will help both organisations meet their respective business objectives by drawing on each others skills and experiences in improving services and efficiency through investment in significant e-government initiatives. Full realisation of these benefits however, will require a high. degree of integration and consolidation over time.

  This outcome is consistent with the findings from the BQS review which concluded that BCMS: should assume Agency status; should be retained within the public sector; should achieve efficiency gains through internal restructuring; and should remain on the Workington site.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Guildford.

The Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, before business begins, I take the opportunity to inform the House that I will be undertaking a ministerial visit to the Channel Islands on Monday 7th, Tuesday 8th and Wednesday 9th April. Accordingly, I trust that the House will grant me leave of absence.

NHS: Sports Facilities
2.36 p.m.
Lord Addington Lord Addington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to ensure that primary care trusts, health authorities and National Health Service trusts promote and safeguard facilities for physical activity and sport.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, primary care trusts have an important role in the delivery of local and effective policies to increase physical activity. They are supported in that by the wider NHS and work with other organisations through local strategic partnerships to ensure the best possible local infrastructure for physical activity and sport.
Lord Addington: My Lords, is it not slightly strange that there is no statutory right of consultation for the NHS in any of its facilities to advise on recreational physical activity, especially when we consider that it often prescribes physical activity as a treatment? Does that not display a considerable lack of joined-up government and imply increased costs in future?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, the noble Lord is right to say that there is no statutory responsibility, but the NHS is proactively involved in many different ways. For example, 93 per cent of local strategic partnerships, which are responsible for developing local infrastructure, now have the chief executive of the local PCT on the board.
Another example relates to the sale of school playing fields, which has significantly reduced as a result of the Government's regulations in 1998. We have there seen that the third criterion, which means that community interests must be served, invites the PCT to have a view. Its role may not be statutory, but
1040
the PCT can certainly play a role by saying that such open spaces are important for a community for health reasons.
Baroness Billingham: My Lords, can the Minister update us on the impact of the New Opportunities Fund programme—especially its positive effect on promoting sport across all age groups and in all communities? It has been especially successful in that area.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, sport has been a major priority for the Government and the NOF programme has taken a significant lead. For example, £581 million has been provided for infrastructure and development—school playing fields, sports halls, and so forth—and £300 million has been provided for healthy learning centres, which are a splendid innovation driven by the community. They invite people in to discuss how their health needs can best be met through diet, activity, and so on. My favourite is the out-of-school learning programme, whereby major expansion of after-school and out-of-school activities for young people has been taking place, especially in sport.

Hospitals: Single-Sex Accommodation
2.39 p.m.
Baroness Noakes Baroness Noakes asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why they will not publish the names of National Health Service trusts which have not met the single-sex accommodation standards.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, the majority of NHS trusts were successful in eliminating mixed-sex accommodation by the target date. More than 98 per cent of wards now meet our guidelines; the remainder will comply once private finance initiative and other building projects are completed. Those projects affect only 2 per cent of 10,000 wards. To name those would give a false impression that the whole trust was not compliant when that is clearly not the case.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I remind her that in February 1998, the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, then a health Minister, said:
"We promised we would end the unacceptable practice of mixed sex hospital accommodation, and we stand by that promise".
Has not that promise been broken? Have not wards been excluded from the Government's figures on a massive scale by allowing screens and other dubious devices to mask the real picture? Is not that the real reason for not disclosing non-compliant hospitals?
Baroness Andrews: Absolutely not, my Lords; I could not disagree more. The overall target set stated that we should have eliminated 95 per cent of mixed-sex accommodation by December 2002. That meant complying with three standards: single-sex sleeping accommodation, bathroom and toilet facilities, and

1041
additional safety for patients who are mentally ill. Our figures now show that 98 per cent of trusts have met the first standard; 93 per cent have met the second; and 95 per cent have met the third. Huge effort has gone into meeting those targets and we are pleased with the result.
The most important figure I can give the House is that 164 wards out of 10,000 do not meet the guidelines. What constitutes segregation is not flimsy screens but strong segregated facilities which mean that patients are not overheard or overlooked.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, it is now nearly six years since the Government made their pledge on single-sex accommodation. Why is it not now 100 per cent? Successive Ministers have made that pledge. The extra 2 per cent surely cannot be far away. There is confusion about whether the target relates to single-sex wards or single-sex accommodation. Can the Minister clarify that?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, two big questions have been asked. The first is why we are not now at 100 per cent. Of the 24 trusts that remain outstanding, 22 are involved in major-scale conversion or building programmes. Those take time. We are expecting 97 per cent compliance by April 2004, but a few hospitals have even bigger projects scheduled after that.
On definitions, we use the term accommodation rather than wards because accommodation involves not just wards but single bedrooms, groups of single bedrooms and mental health units—the whole range. By single sex, we mean proper segregation within all those different forms of accommodation.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that it is now well over seven years since I introduced a Bill to the House, which it was good enough to pass through all its stages, to outlaw mixed-sex wards throughout the National Health Service? That has still not been achieved, because, I believe, of resistance within some trusts and hospitals. Even if only 164 wards remain, we should surely be told in what hospitals so that pressure can be brought on the trusts to eliminate them forthwith.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, it pains me to disagree with the noble Lord, but there is no question of resistance. As I explained, the 164 wards remain mixed sex because of the new build coming on stream. The noble Lord will admit that we have made extremely good progress considering the position on single-sex accommodation that we inherited seven years ago.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, does the Minister not think there is good reason for naming and shaming the national health trusts? The Government name and shame everyone else—schools, et cetera—so why not trusts? I am sure that it would create the impetus whereby there would be only single-sex wards after very few months.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, as I explained, we do not name and shame because there is no shame attached. Twenty-two trusts are involved in new build conversions and major development programmes, which is something to be proud of. The issue of the remaining wards is not being neglected. Privacy and decency are high priorities. We attempt to provide patients with what they want in different ways, not least by having modern matrons and ward housekeepers. The fact that 164 wards are outstanding is not neglect.
Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: My Lords, my noble friend mentioned privacy and dignity. Having just come out of hospital, I have heartfelt views on that. Can the Minister say more about what has been happening in relation to privacy and dignity?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, privacy and dignity do not depend entirely on single-sex accommodation, although it is an important factor. The training given to nurses and the success of the role of the almost 2,000 modern matrons now in place make a difference to the dignity accorded patients. A benchmarking document, The Essence of Care, helps nurses, patients and everyone else on a ward to understand the importance of respecting patients' feelings, their particular concerns and how they wish to be addressed. Standards in that respect are being driven up significantly.
Earl Howe: My Lords, when the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, announced earlier this year that 98 per cent of NHS trusts met the single-sex accommodation standards, he added the rider that that achievement was in relation to planned admissions. What about unplanned, emergency admissions?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, we must be realistic. There must be scope in hospitals to manage unplanned admissions and to treat patients quickly and appropriately. The guidelines suggest that when people are admitted on an emergency or unplanned basis they enter admission wards, which are sometimes mixed sex but within 48 hours they must be found single-sex accommodation. If the noble Earl asked any patient to choose between waiting until a bed in a single-sex ward became available and receiving the treatment that they need, I think I know which they would choose.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, the noble Baroness mentions modern matrons. What is the difference between a modern matron and an old-fashioned matron?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I dread the perspicacious questions of the noble Baroness. I think that it is because matrons have been recreated.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, what is the current situation as regards adolescent residents in mental health units? To what extent are they divided between sexes?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, 96 per cent of NHS trusts have met the additional criteria for mentally ill patients. It is very important, particularly for women and young people, that we develop the best possible quality mental health accommodation. A range of issues, including safety, surround the treatment of turbulent and disturbed adolescents. We are making good progress, but it would be good if we hit the 100 per cent target as soon as possible.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, further to the noble Baroness's reply to my noble friend Lady O'Cathain, and accepting, for the sake of the question, that the vast majority of the 2 per cent of mixed-sex wards exist because of massive new building projects—as a former NHS trust member, I understand that—rather than name and shame, would it not be a good thing just to name and give the reason? If that happened, the country would have a fair idea why the 2 per cent were not meeting the target.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, as I said in my first Answer, it is difficult for people to grasp that such a small number of wards in the 22 trusts are involved. It is too easy to extrapolate that, if a ward is not compliant, the trust has not complied. It is a subtle process.

NHS Waiting Lists
2.49 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking to shorten hospital waiting lists and the waiting times for patients on those lists.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Baroness Andrews: My Lords. I am grateful for the encouragement. We have put in place a major program me of investment, modernisation and reform designed to shorten waiting times. As a consequence, by the end of 2005, we will see maximum waiting times of 13 weeks for a first outpatient appointment and six months for inpatient treatment.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her reply, particularly as she is so busy today. Apart from emergency cases, are patients offered available beds in other establishments, as a press report indicates today, even if they are some distance from their homes?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, in the case of coronary heart disease, in particular, if there is a possibility of getting the patient into hospital faster, there is a choice scheme, whereby the patient can be offered treatment in a different hospital. I believe that a high proportion of patients make that choice.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, the recent Audit Commission report referred to widespread errors and
1044
deliberate misreporting of waiting lists and waiting time figures. The Audit Commission said that there should be an open debate in the NHS about what led to such behaviour, so that lessons could be learnt and measures taken to avoid repetition. What can the Minister say about that? What is the department doing to implement the Audit Commission's recommendation?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, it is important that we put it in perspective. Three of the 41 hospital trusts on which spot checks were carried out were found to be seriously in default. The Government want to see an end to such situations, and Nigel Crisp described them as reprehensible and unacceptable. I endorse that view. Some other trusts were discovered to have system reporting failures that were essentially technical.
In the case of the three trusts mentioned, we set up investigations immediately before the report came through. Two reports are still outstanding. There have been suspensions, and some people have resigned. More generally—I stress that the Audit Commission emphasised that its findings did not affect the validity of the aggregate data and said that such figures were robust—we have introduced a code of conduct for managers to make it clear that giving in to any temptation to alter figures will be a serious matter. We are examining ways of supporting better systems, and we have set up a better investigative framework for responding when things go wrong.
Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that there is a problem, in trying to get waiting lists and waiting times down, with patients who have admission and appointment dates but do not keep them—the "no shows"? In that regard, does she consider that the Government's programme of informing and empowering patients through the patient and public involvement programme will have an effect on the behaviour of patients?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, we are already beginning to see that effect. The programme is called "Waiting and Choosing", I believe, and the difference is that patients can decide when they go into hospital; it will be at their convenience. That makes it much less likely that they will cancel. That is a positive step.
Another positive step is for GPs to develop special interests—for example, skeletal disorders—so that, instead of having to go into the hospital, the patient can be treated at home by the GP. It is not just a question of managing the waiting list more effectively; there must be a range of strategies to support better referral and appointment systems.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, behind all the rhetoric, the fact in Somerset, where I come from, is that elderly people needing a hip replacement must wait nine months to a year? They are crippled. In spite of all that the Minister said, I do not think that she is aware of the distress that exists in the health service.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, a number of your Lordships have waited for orthopaedic surgery, and it

1045
is good to see those people back with us. Orthopaedics is a particular challenge, to which we have responded by setting up what we call an "action on" programme. That is a priority programme to speed things up. There are 43 projects in process at the moment addressing the particular question of timescales in orthopaedics. We are well aware of the situation.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, does the Minister share my concern that, although the Government have put more resources into the National Health Service, that huge increase in resources has not been matched by a huge increase in output? The best way to get waiting lists and waiting times down is to treat more patients. Why, despite the huge sums of public money being put into the health service, do we not see outputs increase? Instead, we see large numbers of people whose job it is to produce the Figures that Ministers want.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I could answer the question simply by referring the noble Lord to the modernisation board's report, which shows how much progress we are making on outputs across the board. The waiting lists are lower by 104,000 people than those that we inherited in 1997. In itself, that speaks volumes for the way that the money is being used and the effectiveness of our funding and investment.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, is the Minister aware of another category of people, some of whom are in their 60s, who are refused hip replacement treatment in the National Health Service because they are too young?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, in this House, we know how young one can be at 60. I know of no cases of the kind to which the noble Lord refers. If he writes to me, we can follow it up.
Lord Turnberg: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the sooner we bring the Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc.) Bill into effect, the sooner it will have an effect on the waiting lists?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, at this time this week, I can certainly agree with my noble friend.
Earl Howe: My Lords, a fundamental worry about the Government's waiting list initiative remains. It produces a system in which hospital managers are under greater pressure to deliver on government targets, which is rather a different thing from saying that they should be under pressure to deliver the right patient care and treating the sickest patients first. Is not that a fundamental worry about the initiative?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, that claim is often made about waiting lists. The Modernisation Agency has worked out a clinically prioritised waiting list that addresses that precise issue and puts the patients in
1046
most urgent need at the top of the list. The agency works with clinicians in trusts to make sure that clinical priorities are observed and delivered on.
Lord Blackwell: My Lords, does the Minister accept that experience suggests that waiting time objectives are more likely to be met by freeing up doctors and local managers through programmes such as the Government's foundation hospital programme, rather than through centralised initiatives, and by freeing up patients to take their treatment elsewhere? What do the Government expect the rate of development of the use of non-NHS facilities by NHS patients in the next year to be?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that it is not simply a question of delivery through the hospitals and through centralised systems. One of the reasons why we are so pleased to see GPs develop special interests is that it means that we are taking a whole-system approach. We attach priority to getting people treated and out of pain, and we are considering various ways of doing that. I cannot, however, put timescales or figures on it, in the way that the noble Lord suggested.
Lord Acton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of what an outstanding performance she has just given? If she was not aware before, is she aware now?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I simply cannot answer that question.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that what the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, said about people being refused treatment because they were too young is true? I speak as somebody who has two false knees. If somebody has that operation at the age of 60, it is possible that the replacements will wear out. Going through such an operation again is something to be avoided.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, the point is well taken. The sooner we treat people with deteriorating conditions, the better.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I have just blown my reputation.
Baroness Howells of St Davids: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House what the primary care trusts do specifically to end waiting lists?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, because of the devolution of power and the shift in the balance of power, primary care trusts have greater responsibility to work with GPs, including specialist GPs, and to inform and support patient choice. That means that the whole system works more effectively together.

Waterways Regulator
2.59 p.m.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale Lord Corbett of Castle Vale asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will appoint a waterways regulator to monitor charges for moorings on canals, rivers, marinas and inshore waters.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, I feel that I should apologise to the House and to my noble friend Lady Andrews for preventing her achieving a grand slam today.
We are not convinced of the need for a waterways regulator. British Waterways and other navigation authorities are already subject to the law against anticompetitive practice. However, I know that British Waterways is discussing with the Inland Waterways Association the procedure for dealing with appeals against decisions on mooring and on other charges. I think that that should be fully explored.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that response. But does he acknowledge that canal boat owners question the independence of an ombudsman appointed and paid for by British Waterways and that users of marinas and river berths have nowhere to go when faced with rises in charges of up to 300 per cent in a single year? Will the Minister tell the Inland Waterways Association and the National Association of Boat Owners, which see the need for an independent regulator, where they should go to seek redress, when complaint now can, and does, lead to the loss of moorings?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as regards British Waterways, the largest operators, the Inland Waterways Association has some complaints about British Waterways because it has moved away from a national matrix of affixing charges to a more locally developed one which is, in effect, making it more commercial. However, the Inland Waterways Association is not in favour of a regulator. It is discussing a more effective appeals system with British Waterways. It is important to note that by and large these charges are fixed only once every five years and that the average increase of British Waterways's mooring charges last year was only 6 per cent.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, does the Minister agree that mooring charges should be levied at a sustainable rate to all who enjoy boating? Certainly, they should be affordable. The appointment of a regulator would help to achieve that good objective.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I agree with the first part of the noble Lord's question. Because there is a demand on certain moorings and the facilities for some of those moorings have been improved, it is reasonable that the
1048
navigation authorities should charge a somewhat higher rate than previously. I do not accept the argument for a regulator on what are essentially commercial transactions. I accept that there is some scope, particularly in relation to British Waterways, for boat owners to expect a better system of appeal. That is under discussion at the moment.

Communications Bill
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Blackstone, I beg to move the Motion standing in her name on the Order Paper,
Moved, That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Sexual Offences Bill [H.L.]
3.3 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Rape]:
Lord Campbell of Alloway Lord Campbell of Alloway moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 6, leave out ", anus or mouth" and insert "or anus"
The noble Lord said: In substance, Amendment No. 1 is reflected by subsection (2) of Amendment No. 8. Amendment No. 8 would leave out Clause 1 and set up a new regime. If Amendment No. 8 were to commend itself, all amendments tabled to Clause 1 would fail. There is a conflict of conception, which I hope may be resolved in favour of this and other amendments. There is no pre-emption and, indeed, notice has been given of the intention to move that Clause 1 do not stand part.
Against that background, the amendment would remove what is a grave sexual assault, hitherto not understood or defined as rape, from the redefinition of rape proposed by Clause 1(1)(a). The Oxford Latin dictionary renders rapio as ravishment, rape of the Sabines, and fellatio as a sexual perversion which, according to in-house medical advice of the highest order, carries the dire risk of infection from both old and new-age diseases.
Without consent, or if enforced, it is a serious sexual assault which should constitute a specific offence, but it is not rape as ordinarily understood or defined, nor is it readily intelligible as such to any jury. Albeit that the structure of the Bill affords an opportunity to set up the specific offence, such is not the concern of this amendment. That opportunity will be considered on Amendment No. 11.
The main distinction between the specific offence and rape is the risk of pregnancy and—without becoming emotional or too detailed—everything that that entails; all the consequences of that risk. On Second Reading, noble Lords who have had the conduct of rape cases and who have had to direct—oh dear, we are doing it again. This is the third time that the noble Baroness has intervened when I am trying to address the House.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I do beg your pardon.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I am so sorry to have to do that. I was trying to make quite a serious point. On Second Reading, noble Lords who have had the conduct of these rape cases and have had to direct juries in them spoke about the unacceptable effects of proposed redefinition. No doubt they will speak again today. Your Lordships may wish to take due account of the practical experience of such noble Lords, including the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, whose hallmark of approval for this amendment is acknowledged with gratitude, and even more gratitude that he is in his place.
The Government want to change the law. What is the justification? As yet, none has been adduced. There is concern about the conviction rate in the consent cases of rape as now and hitherto defined. But that bears no kinship with this proposed redefinition. Is this some form of placebo? If not, what is the justification? As yet, there is no justification. I have read the report of Second Reading more than twice. There is none. Let us hear what it is today.
There is little else to be said. In the end, it is a lay question—not a legal question—as to what your Lordships feel is a due and fair way of administering justice. It is a matter of perspective. The perspective of the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, recorded in her Second Reading speech, may commend itself to your Lordships as it did on that occasion. She said that rape is the more serious offence and that,
"To extend the definition [of rape] in that way is to diminish the seriousness of the label attached to a serious offence".—[Official Report, 13/2/03; col. 851.]
I beg to move.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: I put my name to the amendment for the reasons given by the noble Lord. Lord Campbell of Alloway, and for the reasons so well stated on Second Reading by the noble Baroness. Lady Mallalieu. I then expressed my complete agreement with her and I am pleased to see her in her place. I can put the reason in one sentence. It is almost always a mistake to allow the statutory definition of a crime to depart too far from the general understanding of that crime, especially in a crime so serious as rape.
For centuries, rape has been understood as sexual intercourse by force, fear or fraud, or—as we would now say, putting it the other way round—sexual intercourse without the full and free consent of the woman. That is what rape still means to the man in the
1050
street. For centuries, penetration per anum has been known as buggery. Non-consensual buggery was always a very serious offence, but it was not regarded as the same offence as rape.
I remember well a case at the Old Bailey when I was a judge—it was not a case I was trying—in which the defendant denied with indignation that he had raped the complainant. But he went on to say, almost as an after-thought, that he had buggered her instead. Sadly for him, the indictment was immediately amended and there was not much he could do to avoid a hefty prison sentence. But for him, and I suspect a great majority of his fellow citizens, rape was rape and buggery was buggery.
Nevertheless, I understand and fully accept the reason why rape had to be redefined in law so as to include the non-consensual buggery of a man. And once that was accepted, it had also to include the nonconsensual buggery of a woman. But why should it include the non-consensual penetration of the mouth? That is the question we must consider in dealing with the amendment.
The change in respect of buggery was brought about by Section 143 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, but not everyone realises—I certainly did not—that the original draft of that clause included penetration of the mouth as well as penetration of the anus as part of the definition of the crime of rape. However, penetration of the mouth was not accepted by the Conservative government when Mr Michael Howard was Home Secretary, and it was not pressed by the Labour opposition.
Therefore, the question I must ask both Front Benches is: why have they changed their minds? What has happened since 1994 in respect of forcible penetration of the mouth to show that the law has not been working? If there is no reason to believe that the law has not been working, I am wholly unpersuaded of the need for a change now unless we are simply going to change the law for the sake of changing the law.
I doubt whether the Minister remembers, but on Second Reading he suggested it might be useful for me to read the whole of the voluminous evidence contained in Part 2 of Setting the Boundaries. I regarded that suggestion as a challenge, which I duly accepted. As a result, I can say that the only evidence I can find in the whole of that volume which relates to the forcible penetration of the mouth came from a research project carried out in 1994—it happens to be the same year as the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act—referred to at page 203.
That case concerned a research project carried out among homosexuals. Out of the 219 cases considered, 90 per cent were charged as rape—that is, penetration per annum—and in only 10 per cent of the cases was the offence confined to penetration of the mouth. Obviously, that would be insufficient to make a change of the law now necessary. That is the only evidence which supports the move now proposed by the Government.

1051
I turn to the reason for leaving the law as it is. It is simply this: most people would accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, that while nonconsensual penetration of the anus is a serious offence, it is less serious than penetration of the vagina. The reason generally given—and the reason given by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell—is the risk of pregnancy or the transmission of venereal disease or AIDS. But I believe that the real reason lies deeper than that. Penetration of the vagina is the more serious because the worst is always the corruption of the best. And forcible penetration of the vagina is a corruption of the deepest and tenderest of emotions of which human beings are capable. If I am right about that, and if penetration of the mouth is indeed less serious than penetration of the vagina, as I believe it to be, by including penetration of the mouth in the crime of rape, one is, as the noble Baroness said, diminishing the crime of rape itself. We should not do that without very good reason.
I accept that there are some countries where forcible oral sex has been included in the definition of rape. The South African Law Commission proposed that it should even include penetration of the nose and the ears, although I am hound to say I find that hard to imagine. In any event, whatever other countries have done is no reason for us to follow.
No doubt in reply the Minister will say that oral penetration is a serious offence. So it is and we all agree about that. But why is it not sufficient to include it in Clause 3, since that clause also carries with it a life sentence? Surely, that will send out a sufficient signal—something which Ministers are always anxious to do—if a signal is indeed needed.
I have not put my name to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell. on that point because I am not altogether happy with the drafting and I would in any event keep the sentence to one of life imprisonment. Doing that, a new subsection (1) to Clause 3 would be so easy to draft. It would not even mean that the heading of the clause must be changed. It would read something like:
"(1) A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a) he intentionally penetrates the mouth of another person (B) with his penis,
(b) B does not consent to the penetration, and
(c) subsection (3) applies".
I hope that the Minister will give serious thought to that way of approaching the matter. It will achieve all he wants.
3.15 p.m.
Baroness Mallalieu: I rise to speak briefly in support of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, and to support what has just been said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick. At present, non-consensual oral sexual intercourse is dealt with in the courts in one of two ways: either as an indecent assault—which already carries heavy penalties—or, if rape has taken place, as an aggravating factor that will increase the ultimate penalty imposed. It may be that that is not sufficient
1052
and that a separate offence should be created to mark the gravity of this type of indecent assault, but for the reasons that have just been set out before the Committee, I believe that it would be wholly wrong simply to take the particular activity and put it in with the definition of rape.
I say that for two reasons. First, ordinary members of the public, in particular young people, draw a clear distinction between the two acts. I know that to be the case from my experience in the criminal courts, often dealing with young offenders in relation to sexual offences and thus learning something of the somewhat curious world—one that is remote from mine—of young people today. As I have said, a clear distinction is made. For example, a young girl may well be ready to consent to what is known in the estates of south London as "giving a shiner", whereas not for a moment would she dream of having full sexual intercourse.
Secondly, the legislation will deal primarily, although not completely, with younger people. However, the legislation must also speak to those ordinary people who serve on juries. They will have to look at a particular set of facts and decide whether what they have found fits the label of rape, which is something that juries take extremely seriously. I fear that an act is to be included which, for ordinary people, is not rape. I have discussed this with a number of people since the matter was raised at Second Reacting. The usual response has been, "What planet are those people living on? Of course it is something quite different. It is serious, but different". Once you begin to import a set of facts which in the minds of those who will be trying such cases does not meet the label of rape, then difficulties will arise. I am sure that people serving on juries will acquit when there should not be an acquittal. There should be a specific conviction for a specific offence.
A number of suggestions have been made about how that might be done. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, has suggested one way, while another is that set out by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, in Amendment No. 11.
I understand that the Minister has come under pressure from victims of such offences. They regard the offence as being as unpleasant as rape, and they may be right about that. If they are right, then we must accept it and ensure that the law is able to meet their concerns. But it is also different from rape. That is why I say that the two should not be put together.
The Minister also has the police telling him to follow this course, but to that I can say only that the Criminal Bar Association and many other bodies feel that it will be a mistake, for the reasons I gave at Second Reading. The change would alter the label of rape in a way which I believe would weaken the seriousness of that offence. Furthermore, I think that we could face a real danger of seeing acquittals in cases where juries feel that the label is not deserved in light of the particular facts of the case.
Despite what he may have been told by his officials, by pressure groups and by others, I hope that the Minister will see a way to meet the concerns of victims

1053
which does not undermine the prospect of correct convictions. That can be done by setting out in the way other noble Lords have suggested a separate, serious offence to mark the gravity of this kind of behaviour.
Earl Russell: The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, asked a fair question which deserves a fair answer. He asked what has changed since 1996 to justify a change in the definition of the crime. We have here a case where the law is adapting, as the law has done for centuries, to a change in the culture within which it operates. It is adapting to a change in what is perceived as rape.
The noble and learned Lord stressed that what is distinctive about rape is that it carries the risk of pregnancy. But of course thereon he makes his own argument felo de se as soon as he includes penetration of the anus, which does not carry any such risk. That recognises immediately that there may be something akin to rape which does not carry that risk.
Part of this change in the culture has been an increasing recognition of the fact that there is such a thing as male rape and that, qualitatively, that kind of assault has a great deal in common with the other kind of rape. Thus treating them as the same offence is permissible. Furthermore, there has been a real change in the perception of the offence of rape against a woman. It concerns not only the risk of pregnancy, which because of effective contraception has lessened somewhat. Rather, rape is now perceived more as an assault against a woman's privacy, her dignity, her self-respect and her right to be herself. In those respects, in the forcible invasion of privacy, intercourse through the mouth or through the anus may partake of many of the characteristics of the other kind of rape. It is an assault against a woman's dignity.
The noble and learned Lord might like to consider the parallel of indictments for treason, which technically involves pursuing the king's death. Early indictments for treason tended to set out specifically that the acts were undertaken to "the danger of the life of the said Lord King". But as we come into the 17th century, increasingly the indictments state that acts of treason are those committed, "against our sovereign Lord the King, his Crown and dignity". One understands perfectly well what is meant by that.
Over the past 10 years our concept of rape has changed, as indeed I have changed my own mind. The concept of rape is now an act against a lady or, as it might be, a gentleman—if I may so put it—against their crown and dignity. I would be happy to see the Bill remain as it is.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: I wish to refer briefly to those organisations not mentioned by my noble friend Lady Mallalieu which believe that this amendment should not be carried. I cite bodies such as Justice, the Rape Crisis Federation, the Campaign to End Rape and Women Against Rape. People in those groups work at the sharp end of the problems. They do
1054
not sit in a courtroom arguing the facts of a case; they have experienced them. They feel that the amendment should not be carried.
I should like to mention in particular the Metropolitan Police, which supports the widening of the definition of rape to include penetration of the mouth. From the experience of the police—it has a great deal—this is as serious an offence as rape under the current definition and should be recognised as such. The police believe that it is equally as damaging and traumatic as vaginal or anal penetration and should not be seen as a lesser offence.
I accept that all noble Lords have made the point that this type of assault is a very serious offence. However, I am concerned that if it is removed from this clause, in effect it will become a lesser offence. I do not believe that that is right. We must send a clear message to those who have suffered, to those who work at the sharp end of these problems and to the lay people referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. All those parties say that the Government have got it absolutely right.
I do not believe that the matter is a question of the risk of pregnancy or disease; in a sense those issues are peripheral to the central point. We are discussing here the suffering, trauma and problems of women who have faced this kind of assault. The amendment should not be supported.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: Something has been pointed out to me that I want to mention to noble Lords. As far as oral penetration is concerned, most people have a set of teeth. Clenched teeth can provide quite a good defence. Indeed, not only can they provide a good line of defence, they can be an aggressive form of defence because teeth can also bite. For that reason, it is possible that oral penetration should be considered a lesser offence than the other two.
3.30 p.m.
Viscount Bledisloe: Everyone is rightly agreed that forcible oral penetration is a serious offence. The only question is how it should be labelled. At the outset of the Bill, the noble and learned Lord. Lord Falconer, has a simple choice about whether or not to accord to common sense and continue to use the word "rape" in the sense in which it is understood by the populace.
When we are told what is the generally accepted attitude and understanding of the ordinary man in the street—and, particularly, the young man in the street—I find the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, more convincing. and her experience more telling, than that of the noble Earl, Lord Russell.
We all know what rape is. The Government can either use "rape" in the way in which it is understood by the populace and have a separate crime for forcible oral penetration; or they can pervert the word "rape", as the Bill does at the moment and have people going around saying, "It is ridiculous. I have been convicted of rape but I didn't rape her at all; I penetrated her mouth". As the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, made plain, people will not understand.

1055
I urge the noble and learned Lord, at the very outset of the Bill, to display a little common sense and give way to this extremely sensible amendment.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: I hesitate to speak again, hut does the noble Viscount believe that victims, the rape crisis people and the Metropolitan Police do not understand the consequences of the act? They understand them clearly. There may well be people on the street who do not consider it a serious act—but it is, and people who have experienced it know that it is.
Viscount Bledisloe: The noble Baroness clearly did not listen to me. I did not say it was less serious; I said it was different. You do not improve a crime of robbery by calling it arson. It may be equally serious, but mislabelling it with a word that people do not attach to it is silly.
Lord Skelmersdale: In considering the problem I have tried to put myself in the position of a juror, something that I have never been. It seems to me that, whichever way round it is, I would like to be directed by the judge at the end of the trial as to whether or not "rape" includes forcible oral sex. We are talking about forcible sex and the dangers attached thereto.
As to which side of the argument I would come down on, I believe that all forcible sex should be classed in the same category. Whether it is called "rape" or anything else does not particularly matter; to me, it is exactly the same.
Baroness Noakes: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway for raising the issue of whether oral penetration should be included within the definition of rape. We debated the subject at Second Reading and we should debate it fully as the Bill proceeds. As at Second Reading, I have listened carefully to the different views expressed.
I find this a difficult area. I have no doubt that nonconsensual oral penetration is equally as unpleasant, serious and traumatic for the victim as non-consensual vaginal or anal penetration. That was the finding of the report Setting the Boundaries. I do not know on what evidence the finding was based, but the report certainly came to that conclusion. It is a serious issue from the victim's perspective. We on these Benches do not object to the formulation of the offence of rape as it stands in Clause 1, although, equally, we would not object if a separate offence of non-consensual oral penetration was devised.
I know that my noble friend has tabled another amendment on the creation of a separate offence. As the noble Baroness, Lady Gould said, it is very important that if a separate offence is created it should not be considered a lesser offence, as indeed my noble friend's amendments currently have it. If it is decided that the word "rape" cannot encompass oral penetration, a separate offence could proceed provided it was regarded as a very serious offence.
I question the Government's approach to oral sex. In the Bill they have placed non-consensual oral penetration on a par with non-consensual vaginal and
1056
anal penetration. But elsewhere, the Government—in the guise of the departments for health and education—are backing a scheme pioneered by the University of Exeter to teach children about the so-called levels of intimacy that can exist short of full sexual intercourse. Oral sex is one of those levels of intimacy.
Schoolchildren are being taught that consensual oral sex is of a lesser order than consensual vaginal or anal sex. They are being taught that it is not full sex. So how can we expect those children to grow up to see non-consensual oral penetration on the same basis as non-consensual vaginal or anal penetration? If a generation grows up believing that it is of a lesser order, we shall see the law fall into disrepute.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I apologise to my noble friend. I am intervening only because the Committee should not, quite innocently, be misled. I took the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Walt on of Detchant, and of my noble friend Lord McColl. Having read the Exeter story, I said, "What about it?" They said that the dire risk of infection is precisely the same. I shall not go into details, but I gather that it is. I hope that my noble friend will forgive me for intervening.
Baroness Noakes: I am grateful to my noble friend for that information. As I understand it, schoolchildren are being taught that oral sex is permissible as a lesser order than full sex in order to restrict the risk of pregnancy. The issue of sexually transmitted diseases may be part of it, but the drive to reduce teenage pregnancies is the major issue.
If we are teaching children, on the one hand, that consensual—
Earl Russell: When the noble Baroness says that it is for the purposes of restricting the risk of pregnancy, is she not making very clear the distinction between the purposes of health education and those of the criminal law?
Baroness Noakes: I am grateful for that thought. On the one hand, the Government are saying one thing in relation to health education and the teaching of attitudes towards certain sexual behaviours, and, on the other, enshrining a different approach to different kinds of sexual behaviours in law. That may cause a conflict because, in due course, these children will grow up and, potentially, commit these offences not understanding the differences, or they may find themselves on juries not understanding the distinctions that have been made.
These are very important points in relation to the workability of the Bill. It is an issue that will be raised in amendments to several clauses. It is most important that we produce a Bill that is workable in practice. The concern I raise is that if society evolves an attitude towards oral sex which is different to the one that exists in the way in which the offences are framed in the Bill,

1057
we shall be storing up trouble for the future. I raise my concerns on that basis. I shall listen carefully to what the Minister has to say about them.
Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: I had not intended to speak in the debate. The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, mentioned one way of perhaps being able to stop oral sex being forced upon one; she suggested that we all have teeth we can clench. But we have to think very carefully about the circumstances in which rape takes place and the feelings of the person being raped, whether it is a vaginal, anal or oral rape. Victims are undoubtedly traumatised; they are in great fear and, very often, in great danger. Unless someone actually bit off the man's penis, which I have no doubt would incapacitate him, I suggest that it would be a very dangerous thing to do. It would enrage whoever was perpetrating the crime and, I fear, make matters much worse for the victim.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, asked about the need for change. In 1990, the recorded crime statistics show that there were 3,391 complaints of rape, with a conviction rate of 25 per cent. That may not seem particularly high, but that was the figure in 1990. The figures for 2001–02 show that complaints of rape increased to 9,008. Those complaints have not been withdrawn but have been pursued. But by now the conviction rate is 7 per cent, not 25 per cent. It is clear that the framework of the law needs to be adjusted and improved.
For those of us who say and will continue to say throughout these proceedings that the Government should trust the judge and trust the jury to do their job, they can do their job only if the framework is right. Our main criticism of the Government's proposals is not that they are attempting to change things—we think that the framework has to be changed—but that their mechanisms are wrong and confusing, and will lead to fewer convictions rather than more.
On the specific amendment, the Committee will see when we reach Amendment No. 8 that we have attempted, in dealing with labels, to move away to a degree from the bare charge of rape—which, in itself, is a disincentive to conviction—and have included the phrase,
"sexual violation by unlawful connection"
which is where the oral sex comes in. Indeed, in subsection (4)(b) of the proposed new clause, sexual connection means,
"connection between the genitalia of any person and any part of the mouth or tongue of any other person".
I believe that that meets the objections that have been voiced on this amendment which are concerned with making clear precisely what sort of conduct is being punished.
Members of the Committee will also observe that in the new clause proposed in Amendment No. 8 and that proposed in Amendment No. 10, the sentence of imprisonment for sexual violation by rape and by
1058
unlawful connection is precisely the same. As previous speakers have pointed out, the same dangers, including HIV infection and others, can result from penetration of the mouth by the genitalia of anybody, as well as the use of other objects.
I had not intended to speak on this amendment, but this is a lead-in to what I propose to say on Amendments Nos. 8 and 10. There has to be an improvement, but we want the legislation to be effective, so that the guilty are punished and the innocent are not wrongly convicted.
Lord Lucas: I am at all times reluctant to agree with the Liberal Party, but I find myself entirely at one with the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, on that point. It is not only in the streets of south London that the difference between oral sex and full sex is understood; it is also understood at the very highest levels—indeed, in the office of the President of the United States, as noble Lords will remember.
It seems ridiculous to try and expand a crime to include all sorts of other things which are not the same. It is possible to do things that are nastier and worse than rape. I would include genital mutilation as such a crime, but it is not rape just because it is horrible and sexual. It is much better to keep these things in separate pots, to address the jury in a language they understand, to make the crime just as serious and deal with the perpetrator just as seriously, but to keep the English straight.
3.45 p.m.
The Earl of Listowel: I wish to clarify one point that has arisen on several occasions. It is my understanding that penetration through the anus gives rise to a higher risk of transfer of HIV/AIDS than through the vagina or the mouth. I may be incorrect; if there are medical practitioners here, perhaps they can correct me. It is important to be clear on that point.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: I support the point of the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, with regard to looking at the issue from the position of the victims. I am quite prepared to be called silly after what I say. However, having spent most of my life dealing largely with child sexual abuse as well as other forms of abuse, I feel I can speak from the victims' point of view. Although I have not been a victim myself, for which I am grateful, I can see that there may be great value in specifying these issues. I have spent time in court too and think that if the offences are absolutely clear we have a much better opportunity of getting convictions than if there is any obscurity. I have talked to many young women who have lost their case on a technical point, so clarity is essential.
It is also essential for us to understand the trauma and pain of young women and children who have experienced penetration in the mouth by the penis. Many men know that that is one way of making sure that victims do not show certain signs. Thankfully, DNA is taking us further, but many men believe that if

1059
they assault a young woman or a child without leaving marks, they are much more likely to get away with the offence.
We have to have a real understanding of this matter, not a person-in-the-street understanding. We all have a view about what we read in the newspapers and may feel that some young men have been treated worse for a hit of roughness they should have got away with. Many young women who have suffered describe the trauma that it leaves them with for the rest of their life. They cannot make relationships, their marriages break down and they have difficulty with their children. When making these decisions, we must bear them clearly in mind.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Members of the Committee have indicated that the amendment would remove non-consensual penile penetration of the mouth from the rape offence as it presently stands in Clause 1. Under existing legislation, forced oral sex is charged as an indecent assault. According to the evidence submitted to the sexual offences review by victims and victim support groups, forced penile penetration of the mouth is a very serious form of assault that can be as horrible, as demeaning and as traumatising as other forms of forced penile penetration and is as psychologically harmful as vaginal and anal rape, if not more so in some cases. It is not unusual for women and children who have been violated in this way to develop long-term difficulties in eating and drinking. They may also have difficulty in visiting the dentist and a whole range of psychological trauma on which the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, has only touched.
I should like to indicate some of the evidence that was received by the sexual offences review. Quotes included:
"Rape should be extended to include oral penetration because it validates the seriousness of the offence, the impact and effects, ie sexually transmitted disease of the mouth and the throat".
"Defining oral penetration as rape is really important—it is just as had to be forced to have oral sex. This will mean there will need to be a new way of thinking".
"The trauma caused by penetration without consent of other than the vagina is directly comparable and defining oral penetration as rape is appropriate".
"Adult abusers commit sexual assaults by penetration of the mouth in the knowledge that there is a lesser penalty".
Other pieces of evidence confirm the trauma caused by such acts.
If that is so, there are three options open to us. First, we include oral penetration within the definition of rape. What are the reasons given against that'? The reason given almost exclusively by lawyers is that ordinary people do not understand rape to mean oral penetration. I say with the greatest respect that the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, gave the answer to that. As regards proceedings, if the judge gives a direction as to what is meant, just as there was no difficulty in relation to anal intercourse, there would be no difficulty in that regard in relation to oral penetration of the sort described. Therefore, I do not think that there is force in the argument that juries would not convict in that respect.
1060
Secondly, I refer to the argument that what we are discussing is too far away from the common man's understanding of what the word "rape" means. The purpose of the redefinition of "sexual offences" is that they should reflect victims' experiences. If after listening to what victims have said the view is reached that what they have suffered is just as serious as rape, just as anal intercourse has been appropriately described as rape, so too can oral penetration be so described.
Lord Lloyd of' Berwick: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. Anal intercourse had to be brought within the definition of rape for reasons of discrimination. Those reasons had nothing whatever to do with oral penetration.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I say with the greatest of respect to the noble and learned Lord that I believe he is missing the point. The point is whether the judicial system is able to describe oral penetration as rape. In my view it is, just as it was, for whatever reason, in relation to anal intercourse.
The next reason given for not including the provision we are discussing is that it diminishes the importance of vaginal or anal intercourse on the ground that oral penetration is not as serious. It is for the House to judge the evidence put before it, particularly by the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, as to how seriously victims regard oral penetration. I say with the greatest of respect that, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, said, it is an issue to be decided not necessarily on a lawyer's view of the most appropriate way to deal with it, but on the basis of granting justice to the victims of that particular crime.
We have thought long and hard about the matter. As the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, said, it is a difficult issue. We believe that the right course is to treat oral penetration as one form of rape as that indicates its seriousness, does not lead to problems in relation to the way in which proceedings are dealt with in court and reflects the concerns of victims. An alternative is advanced; namely, in effect to create a new offence of oral penetration. We believe that that over complicates the situation, separates out oral penetration from rape, which is traditionally the most serious sexual offence, and that it is unnecessary. We have listened carefully to the debate both inside and outside the House. Indeed, I was privileged to have a conversation with the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu. As I say, this is a very difficult issue but we believe that we are taking the right course in this regard. Therefore, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I wish to make a very short speech. I am grateful to all Members of the Committee who have spoken. I totally agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, that this is in effect a lay matter for the judgment of this House as to what constitutes due administration of justice. It is not a legal matter. I agree with the noble and learned Lord that as this is a matter for the House to decide, it would be quite wrong for it to have to

1061
decide it today. There has been a constructive debate. There is a balance of opinion. I shall not deal with those Members of the Committee who spoke on one side of the argument and those who spoke on the other, but there is a balance of opinion. I should like to have the opportunity to consider the speeches in some detail. In begging leave to withdraw the amendment, I may return to it, if so advised, on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Campbell of Alloway Lord Campbell of Alloway moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 9, leave out "or (3)"
The noble Lord said: I am afraid that this amendment is far more complicated. Amendment No. 2 seeks to leave out the words "or (3)". It is a paving amendment to Amendment No. 3 which seeks to leave out subsection (3) of Clause 1. In the context of that amendment, I beg leave to speak to Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 in the name of my noble friend Lady Noakes as they are sandwiched between my Amendments Nos. 3 and 6. However, I speak to them briefly at this stage.
Those amendments of my noble friend oblige an accused to match his own characteristics with those of an abstract reasonable person in substitution for proof of his actual intent. That defeats the presumption of innocence and fails wholly to mitigate the manifest injustice of subsection (3) of Clause 1, unamended, which removes the defence of honest but mistaken belief as to consent.
Amendment No. 2—a paving amendment—also serves as a paving amendment to Amendment No. 6, which seeks to leave out subsection (4) of Clause 1. Subsection (4) of Clause 1 applies Clause 78. Notice has been given of the intention of certain Members of the Committee to oppose the Question that Clause 78 stand part of the Bill. In that context, I beg leave to speak briefly to Amendment No. 7 in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton.
I am advised that I have to explain that Amendment No. 2, which I move as a paving amendment to Amendment No. 3, renders Amendment No. 3—to leave out subsection (3) of Clause 1—consequential. However, the paving amendment to leave out subsection (4) of Clause 1—Amendment No. 6—is not consequential and has to be moved separately.
Having got over that, I turn to the merits of the argument. The broad merits of the argument to leave out subsections (3) and (4) of Clause 1 had the general support of your Lordships on Second Reading, save as to leave out subsection (3) of Clause 1, which was not spoken to by this Front Bench. The object of the subsections is, apparently, to meet the concern of the low conviction rate—to which the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, referred—in consent cases and to bolster up convictions.
This morning, I read one of those sad pamphlets from Women Against Rape, which said that they could not count,
"on the reasonableness of those who conduct the trials—judges, lawyers, defence or prosecution".
It is difficult to meet that type of concern and I do not propose to try to do so. However, there is another concern on the other side of the balance. One has to take into account the erroneous convictions based on entirely false accusations. One does not find Women Against Rape or other such organisations writing much against those.
On the balance of what is due and fair administration, one may well ask whether the real victim is not the person who has an erroneous conviction. Dire consequences may follow, including loss of his job and marriage. When he comes out of prison after seven years, he may find that, by some method such as DNA, he can prove that he was falsely convicted—and the Court of Appeal may so decide. Are such men not worthy of consideration? They are the real victims of these consent cases. Let us not overlook the concern and disappointment of the complainants who are unable to convince the jury of their evidence. I have sympathy for them, but one cannot disturb the entire balance of justice to accommodate sympathy.
Where does the true balance of due and fair adjustment lie between the parties in these cases? Members of the Committee may find that the assessment of the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, commends itself. On Second Reading, she said:
"False allegations are usually made in the context of a preexisting relationship … Juries rightly see that such allegations are easy to make and difficult to disprove. Juries are correctly wary of convicting unless there is other evidence or evidence of violence".
On Clause 1(3) and (4), she said that moving the goalposts to try to correct what is seen as an imbalance would not work. She added:
"We are importing trouble and difficulties which will lead … to appeals, to test cases and to redefinition".—[Official Report, 13/2/03; cols. 850–51.]
On Clause 78, which shifts the burden of proof, the noble Baroness expressed her ultimate degree of alarm. Her speech on that part of the Bill is to be found at cols. 850 and 851 of Hansard.
I return to the question of erroneous convictions because we must keep a balance here the whole time. Members of the Committee may have read an article in The Times on 18th March about the British Airways pilot who was convicted of rape by a stewardess on a false allegation. He was sentenced to imprisonment, lost his job and so forth. By chance, he found the flight log, which proved that the allegation was false. His appeal succeeded and the conviction was set aside. Can one just ignore such cases? That man had lost everything. I do not know his present circumstances, but imagine the plight of someone who has lost several years from his life.
I draw attention to the speeches made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours and the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, in this context. Those speeches commended themselves to your Lordships on

1063
Second Reading, and I believe that they will commend themselves again now. There was no dissent at Second Reading.
Amendment No. 3 would leave out subsection (3). The defence of honest mistaken belief is abolished. It was established in 1976 by the Appellate Committee of your Lordships' House. The Crown no longer has the overall burden of proof. The defence is hobbled by conclusive presumptions as to non-consent under Clause 78 (5) to (8). As to establishing consent, the burden on the defence relates to an abstract concept—the conduct of a reasonable person under Clause 78(2). There is no need any longer to prove actual intent. That was the fundamental objection of the noble Lords, Lord Carlile of Berriew, and Lord Thomas of Gresford, on Second Reading. They made that point far better than I could, and I hope that they return to this pitch again today. The sensitive speech made by my noble friend Lord Astor of Hever on mental disability, IQ, autism and so forth in effect torpedoed the concept of a reasonable person as a substitute for the actual intent of the man accused.
Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 to Clause 1(3) enhance the obscurity of subsection (3), as implemented by subsection (4), and in no way mitigate the unfairness. I shall deal with the main objections to those amendments when they are moved.
The question is whether subsections (3) and (4) should be amended or left out. Those subsections afford manifest injustice and unfairness, enhancing the prospect of erroneous convictions and a spate of appeals against conviction on grounds of misdirection, which surely must lead to redefinition. The criticisms as to Clause 1(4), on Amendment No. 6, have already been dealt with in outline. I am anxious not to go over the traditional time for a speech. I beg to move.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I apologise for speaking at this point. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, makes a number of very important points about the reasonableness element in relation to consent and the rebuttal of presumption in Clause 78. Those issues need to be addressed in detail. They will be addressed in detail in the debate on the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, in the next group of amendments. They will be considered again in the following group of amendments, headed by Amendment No. 7, and again in the following group, headed by Amendment No. 13. Speaking for myself, I intend to save my detailed response to the important points made by the noble Lord until we reach that point. It will be much easier for the Committee to understand the detail of the argument at that point. I hope that the noble Lord will not think that I am behaving disrespectfully when I say that I believe it would be better if we waited until those later groups.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. We have to deal sensibly with this complex affair and his suggestion is entirely appropriate. I am taking the same line as that in my noble friend's amendments—which I am opposing. If we are going to deal sensibly with this, it would be
1064
quite inappropriate to take the opinion of the Committee tonight, as we would not have gone through the process in the objective way to which the noble and learned Lord referred. Is he content?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Yes, my Lords.
Lord Ackner: The last thing that I want to do is incur the displeasure of the Committee by being premature or jumping the gun. However, my objection to Clause 1(3) is that this clause is beyond redemption; and that goes from 1(3) right the way through. In a nutshell, I believe that the present law is perfectly sound and sustainable and that what is proposed will confuse a jury and undermine what is known as the "golden thread"—namely, that you must prove a guilty mind in an accused before you can convict. I do not want to run the risk of being told that I should reserve this for a later stage, if that is what the Committee would wish, but I do not want it to be thought that by remaining silent I concur with what is proposed in relation to Clause 1(3).
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Again, it is a matter for the Committee. I should think that this is the most reasonable way of dealing with it. When we come to reasonableness, with which we shall deal in detail, the noble and learned Lord can unleash his volleys in relation to Clause 1(3). I think that that would be most appropriate because the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, has put rebuttal of presumption and reasonableness together in one amendment. That is quite a tasty feast all at one go and we should separate the two. It is purely a matter of preference. I certainly would not regard the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, as in any way debarred from making his points then.
Lord Ackner: When do we come to reasonableness—under what guise?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: We will come to it in the next group, headed by Amendment No. 4, and again in the group beginning with Amendment No. 13, which contains the amendments tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick.
Lord Ackner: Is it all under Clause 1?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Yes.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: I wonder whether I might say a few words now as my name is included in two of the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. I am dealing solely with Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 and entirely follow the lead given by the noble Lord.
At Second Reading, I opposed the inclusion of Clause 1(3) for three reasons. First, it seemed to me wrong in principle. It is contrary to a basic rule of the criminal law that a person can only be found guilty of a serious offence such as murder, theft, fraud or rape

1065
if he has a guilty mind. The second objection was that Clause 1(3) would be unworkable in practice when applied in combination with Clause 78. The third reason was that the Government have simply not made out a case for such a fundamental change in the criminal law.
It is said that the conviction rate is low and that it could be increased if we were to include a test of negligence in the definition of the crime of rape. It is that, of course, which Clause 1 provides. I am, for myself, in no way persuaded of that. The only result, so far as I can anticipate the result, will be to increase the number of appeals, not increase the number of convictions. For the jury would presumably have to be asked after the defendant had been convicted on which of the two grounds they had convicted him, whether under Clause 1(2) or Clause 1(3). That is always a source of trouble, as anyone who has had experience of dealing with juries will know.
Indeed, as I see it, the trouble with the Bill as a whole, especially in relation to Clauses 1 to 6 and Clause 78, is that its provisions have been formulated predominantly though not exclusively by civil servants, as a result of research carried out predominantly if not exclusively by civil servants. For obvious reasons, they can have had no experience of how to direct juries or how juries in fact think and work in practice. I am afraid to say that that shows through in the way in which the Bill has been crafted. Only two judges are mentioned by name as having been consulted—one from Australia and the other from Scandinavia. I must assume that the Lord Chief Justice has been consulted. I would assume also that the Judicial Studies Board had been consulted. However, they are not mentioned.
One suspects that it was only when the Minister himself got to grip with the Bill that it was first realised that Section 78 as drafted is simply unworkable. Happily, that has been recognised in part since subsection (1)(a) and subsection (2) are now omitted. However, surely one is entitled to comment that that ought to have been realised a great deal earlier. Still, it seems to me that Clause 78 is a nightmare. But I leave that part of the argument to others who will be addressing it more directly on later amendments.
I propose to leave over for now the question of principle involved in this amendment as it is a principle that may seem of more importance to lawyers than to others. It was, I think, the point on which all the lawyers who spoke at Second Reading were unanimous. Instead, I shall start this time with whether the Government have made out a case for any change.
Much of the evidence in volume 2 which is relied on to support a new offence of rape by negligence—that is what Clause 1(3) is; let there be no mistake about that—ignores entirely the practical effect of the 1976 amendment Act. The presence or absence of reasonable grounds for the defendant's belief is always a factor that the jury must take into account. That is what the 1976 Act says.
1066
The argument repeated so often that it is absurd for a defendant to get off on the grounds of honest belief, however unreasonable, altogether ignores the role of the jury. The simple answer is that the defendant does not get off in such a case. I do not have as much experience of rape cases as other judges, but I have some, and I have never heard of a case in which the defendant has got off on the grounds of honest belief where that belief was unreasonable. Juries are no fools. They can tell when the defendant is lying in order to put up a bogus defence. The more unreasonable the defence, the more likely it is that they will convict. If ever there were a crime where the question of guilt should be left to the good sense of juries, with the minimum of statutory interference by Parliament, it is the crime of rape.
Then the Government rely on the low percentage of convictions, and say that that must be due to some deficiency in the law. However, there is literally no evidence to that effect. For example, we all know that the abolition of the doctrine of corroboration, which was supposed to increase the percentage of convictions, had no such effect at all. I suspect that the same will be true if we enact Clause 1(3). Some reliance is placed on the 27 per cent conviction rate in the state of Victoria, compared with our current figure of 7 per cent. In Victoria, the weaker cases are all weeded out in the course of earlier committal proceedings, so they never get to the door of the court. The comparison with Victoria is therefore completely meaningless.
In the final document produced by the Government, Protecting the Public, only one argument is put forward for the new offence of rape by negligence. It contains the following sentence:
"We believe the difficulty in proving that some defendants did not truly have an 'honest' belief in consent contributes in some part to the low rate of convictions for rape".
If that belief is based on anything at all, its basis is nowhere stated. My conclusion is therefore that the proposed change will not increase the number of convictions, and will only lead to more appeals.
I return to the question of principle. Some years ago, the House decided that the intention necessary for the crime of murder could be presumed if a reasonable man would have foreseen the consequences of the defendant's act, even though the defendant did not foresee those consequences himself. That decision was so obviously wrong that it did not last long. As the defendant did not have a guilty mind, he could not be guilty of murder. The same is true of every serious crime. Indeed, it is true of every crime, except those of strict liability such as speeding. No one has ever suggested that rape should be a crime of strict liability, and I hope that they never will.
I mention those points only as the Committee should be aware of what is proposed. It has always been the law that a person can be guilty of rape if he knows that the woman is not consenting or he is reckless. However, there is a crucial distinction between recklessness and mere want of care. Recklessness is a guilty state of mind, because the defendant is indifferent to whether the woman is

1067
consenting or not. He could not, as is sometimes said, care less. However, carelessness is not a guilty state of mind. That is what the case of Morgan decided.
Now the Government will change all that, and they will do so contrary to the views expressed by the Heilbron committee—it was set up specifically to consider the case of Morgan—by Parliament in 1976, by the Criminal Law Revision Committee in 1984 and, most importantly of all, by the Law Commission as recently as 2000. They will do so contrary even to the views expressed in their own review. The change is not supported there. The external group was in favour of a change, but the steering group was not. The review sat on the fence.
It might help the Committee if I read out two or three sentences from the review. Paragraph 2.7.5 states:
"We also considered the issue of honest belief in consent with very great care".
It sets out the arguments one way and the other and concludes:
"However, we were not all agreed on the extent to which the law should be changed in this area. Accordingly we set out the issues in detail below".
Then a little below, paragraph 2.13.8 states:
"In balancing these arguments, there was a disagreement between the External Reference Group who unanimously wanted the law restoring to its pre-Morgan state of requiring any honest belief in consent to be subject to a test of reasonableness, and the Steering Group. The Steering Group did not take the ERG's advice on this issue but identified an effective way of fettering an inappropriate use of honest belief, without re-introducing the external test of reasonableness that the courts had rejected".
Finally, paragraph 2.13.14 states:
"Accordingly we recommend that the defence of honest belief should be expressed in terms of free agreement, and be subject to limitations as to its use. This does not impose an external and objective requirement of reasonableness on the defendant, as our External Reference Group wanted, but it does reinterpret the doctrine of honest belief as set out by the House of Lords in the Morgan judgement, and provides new conditions",
in which Morgan could operate.
We have five various reviews, none of which support the proposed change. Some confusion seems to run throughout so much of the reasoning, both in the evidence and the Home Office review itself. The review accepts correctly that knowledge or recklessness is the appropriate test for a conviction of rape, but somehow at the same time criticises the so-called defence of honest belief. What is that defence? It is nothing other than the obverse of recklessness. If the defendant has an honest but mistaken belief, he cannot be guilty of recklessness, and the Crown will have failed to prove what the review accepts is an essential element in the offence.
In conclusion, I repeat that the Government have not made a case for change. If they have, I do not k now what it is. The change they propose is based, I suspect, simply on expediency. It is unsupported by any of the distinguished bodies that I have mentioned and is contrary to sound principle.
4.30 pm.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: Perhaps I may be allowed to comment from a different perspective.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Before the debate, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, and I agreed that we would deal with these issues during discussion on a series of amendments that are to come. I do not in any way want to inhibit what noble Lords wish to say, but we are slightly approaching this matter with only half the arguments. Members of the Committee will perhaps consider it more appropriate to move on to the next group of amendments in which we can deal with the issue more fully.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: It seems to me that Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 illustrate the difficulties and the unworkability—if I may use the expression of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd—of these subsections. However, the principle of the objective versus the subjective approach to consent arises directly on this issue.
Baroness Noakes: I support that. I had understood that that was how we proposed to deal with the matter—that is, we would take the principle of objective or subjective tests, then go on to deal with my amendments, beginning with Amendment No. 4, concerning the issue of how "reasonableness" works in practice, and then go on to the Clause 78 amendments. I am sorry if I misunderstood what was proposed.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I believe that I have been misunderstood—or, rather, the principle has not been but the machinery has. I understood that I would be moving Amendment No. 2, consequential with Amendment No. 3, and, at the end of our discussion today, would ask for it to be withdrawn so that it may be considered on Report. If we reached that stage today, I would then move Amendment No. 6 on the same basis. I was not suggesting, or meaning to suggest, that somehow or other I would pre-empt either noble and learned Lord in anything they wished to do, but that we would certainly have moved Amendments Nos. 2 and 6 by the conclusion of today's debate.
The Earl of Onslow: As someone who is not an expert in this at all but who has been listening with complete fascination—
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: Perhaps I may—
The Earl of Onslow: This is a procedural point. I speak as someone who has been listening with complete fascination to the discussion. My mind is a blank sheet. Members of the Committee may say that it has been that frequently. There seem to me to be two principles. First, do we allow "reasonableness"? If not, then there is no point in discussing the matter further. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, raised the question of whether or not we allow it and the matter of the guilty mind. Secondly, if we accept

1069
"reasonableness", then we go on to discuss what my noble friend on the Front Bench said. I raise this point in order to make the issue simple for a simple soul such as myself.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: For the third time of asking, I want to address the issue from a different perspective without approaching it with the expertise that the lawyers bring to it. I wait upon them with regard to the adequacy of the drafting. However, as we attend to the detail of these clauses, it is worth bearing in mind that consent is the very foundation of the public understanding of marriage in public law. It is at the heart of the doctrine of matrimony, as expressed in the law.
One may not enter into that institution, with all its rights, duties and responsibilities, without there being manifest consent. That doctrine determines the character of the relationship and the institution that then follows. All matrimonial life must operate on the basis of the consent of the parties. Indeed, if one party, in terms of coming together in bodily union, does not offer his or her consent, that is a ground under a number of circumstances for the dissolution of a marriage.
That doctrine is at the heart of all our law with regard to sexual relationships. The understanding of consent flows out from the public doctrine of marriage to everything else. Whether or not this clause and its subsections are adequately drafted, when it comes to the matter of rape we have a responsibility to be satisfied that we have made adequate provision in public law to demonstrate that consent has been given.
Even if we believe that these proposals do not quite work in terms of the law—we must listen carefully to what those with experience in this area share with us—nevertheless, if in terms of the practice of rape cases in the courts there is an issue about demonstrating consent, then we have in front of us a very serious matter in law. That is so not only in the narrow terms of the understanding of rape but in terms of upholding the public doctrine that is embedded in our understanding of marriage.
Viscount Bledisloe: I am sure that the interventions of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, were very well intentioned. I believe, however, that they were confused or at least—to be kind—confusing. The basis of this amendment is that it retains the law as it is—namely, that it is a defence to have an honest belief in consent—and does not impose a new test whereby one is guilty if one is negligent, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, put it. Any question as to what the tests for "reasonableness" are arises only if we have this new definition of the offence. Surely the issue before us at present is whether or not the new idea that the belief must be reasonable is right and should stand.
Let us be clear. What is proposed is that for rape, and rape alone, the concept of what constitutes a guilty mind will change. If I am accused of stealing your property, it is a defence if I show an honest belief that I had a claim of right to that property. That is the
1070
general test of the criminal law. It is now said that in relation to rape we should abolish that test and say that it is an offence only if a person showed a reasonable belief that the other party had consented.
That is a fundamental change in the concept of the law. Why is it said that we should make that change? It is apparently because the conviction rate is very low and, seemingly, the Government are under pressure to change it. The speech made by the noble and learned Lord at Second Reading is somewhat revealing on this issue. He said:
"At the moment, only a fraction of sex offences recorded by the police end with a guilty conviction".—[Official Report, 13/2/03; col. 771.]
That is not what he meant. He meant:
"At the moment, only a fraction of complaints of sex offences recorded by the police end in conviction".
There is a great danger that we shall forget the very important distinction that not every complaint is valid. The noble Baroness. Lady Mallalieu, pointed out why rape is singularly liable to false complaints. Of course, because the act will also normally take place in private, it is an alleged offence which is singularly difficult to prove. Personally I have no doubt that the reason for the diminishing number of convictions in relation to complaints is that lately people have been encouraged more—I do not disprove this—to complain about date rape, which is much more difficult to prove.
If something is difficult to prove, that may be a reason to alter the system of evidence, or something of that kind, but it is not a reason to redefine the offence so that something is constituted illegal that previously was not illegal. Perhaps one may use a football analogy without being thought to be frivolous: if not enough goals are being scored, you may change the offside rule but you do not suddenly say that in future a corner shall count as a goal. That is what the Government are doing. They are saying that something which was not a crime before shall now be this very serious crime. They are changing the law in relation to rape and nothing else.
It is important that we consider that problem before we go on to consider the difficult and fancy problems concerning what shall constitute the test of reasonableness. I suggest that the next two amendments will demonstrate just how difficult a problem that will be and how one will mire oneself, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, said, and the jury in impossible tests. Be that as it may, before we come to that let us consider whether we really believe that it is right that in rape and rape alone an honest belief that one was not committing a crime is not a defence.
Baroness Noakes: Again, I thank my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, for initiating this debate. It is important that we debate this matter thoroughly. We had a good discussion on this topic at Second Reading. We are not quite re-running that today. At that time we had two camps. There was the lawyers' camp, in which almost all the lawyers spoke, except the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer—he

1071
did not join the lawyers' camp on that day—which objected to Clause 1(3) and the objective test of reasonableness. Another powerful camp at Second Reading, comprised mainly of noble Baronesses and led by the noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton, who I am sorry is not in her place, felt strongly that we need to consider changes in the law because of very low conviction rates. As a woman, I too am extremely concerned at such low conviction rates. That is why we on these Benches genuinely think it is worth considering whether there is a better way of formulating the offence which would result in more significant conviction rates.
Like many noble Lords I am sure we have all had large postbags on the subject of the Bill. I have not had one representation from outside this place which supports the amendment now before the House, which would do away with Clause 1(3). Many of the groups that wrote in, among which, perhaps surprisingly, is the Criminal Bar Association, have accepted the case for the abolition of the Morgan defence. Liberty comes within that category. The Metropolitan Police believe that Clause 1(3) is necessary because the present law weights the process against the victim and in favour of the assailant. I am sure that those noble Lords who received the powerful submission from the Rape Crisis Federation will have read of the devastating effect on women of rape, the trial process and the impact of what they' perceive as incorrect acquittals.
We should not believe that there is a not strong body of opinion which genuinely supports considering ways of amending the law so as to affect conviction rates. I refer not only to the 7 per cent conviction rates from complaints, but also to the high level of acquittals. Nearly 60 per cent of rape cases involving women result in acquittals. We on these Benches do not find that acceptable.
I shall listen carefully to what the noble and learned Lord says on conviction rates and, in particular, to what the Home Office believes will be the impact of the Bill. There have been many who, if they have accepted the new test, have stated, "But it will not make any difference in practice". We have heard some of that today. That is a serious complaint that needs to be considered. If the proposed change in the law, with all the objections that we have heard, results in not a single extra conviction, there would be legitimate concerns about whether we have taken the right approach. I hope the Minister will be able to comment on how the analysis by the Home Office considered the effect which a change in the law would have had on past cases which have resulted in acquittals or in complaints not coming to trial. Subject to that, we believe that it is worth trying an alternative approach to the Morgan defence, and an objective approach to reasonableness.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Ackner: Is the noble Baroness aware that after the decision in Morgan in the House of Lords—the one that decided that an honest belief was sufficient—there was a prolonged outcry by the public? When the matter went to Lady Justice Heilbron's committee, the
1072
assumption was that it would report against that decision. It did precisely the opposite and recommended that the law was sound; that there should be an addition to referring to the evidence of what was reasonable, and that it was then re-enacted. Therefore, perhaps the noble Baroness will agree that the public outcry is not much assistance on these matters.
Baroness Noakes: I was aware of the review which took place after the Morgan case, the outcome of that review and the fact that it resulted in the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976. However, despite that Act, of which we have now had 25 years' experience, we still have a problem with conviction rates. Therefore, I believe it is legitimate to consider again whether the formulation of the law meets the objectives we require.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I have already said that we on these Benches do not find the current framework acceptable, and are seeking to find a way to improve the contents of the Bill. Perhaps I may put matters in context. The latest statistics show that of the rapes which result in conviction, stranger rape—that is what many people consider rape to be: an attack in the dark—accounts for only 8 percent; acquaintance rape, sometimes called by different terms—that can be serious because it can involve a breach of trust or all sorts of problems—accounts for 45 per cent, and marital rape accounts for 45 per cent.
So, stranger rape is not the problem. In cases of that kind, such are the scientific improvements in detecting DNA and tracing it to a particular defendant that conviction rates run as high as 70 to 80 per cent. Accordingly, that is not the difficulty. Consent does not arise in stranger rape. The issue is generally identity: "Can you prove that it is that person who carried out the attack at night", or whatever the circumstances may be, "on the individual complainant?" The problem arises with consent in acquaintance rape and marital rape, which are very difficult to determine in the absence of other evidence. Bruises are generally not enough. A history may perhaps help. Those who want to banish all history from the evidence in a court before a jury are, in my view, mistaken. Such problems need to be resolved in a sensible way.
Perhaps the seeds of the Government's position were found in the seminal work of Helena Kennedy, Eve was framed, published in 1992. Unhappily, the noble Baroness is not in this country, let alone in her place. I am sure it will be strange for her to find that the Government follow her views. Generally, she is in opposition to the criminal justice views of this Government. She put the matter simply. I cannot put it better. She said:
"In criminal law it is quite usual to apply a subjective test in deciding whether an accused intended to commit a crime. The mens rea or mental element of a crime is usually based on the intention of the accused at the time. However. there are significant areas of crime where the law imposes an external gauge as to what is permissible. In self-defence, for example, the level of the force used to protect yourself has to be reasonable. To succeed as a

1073
defence to murder, provocation must be words or deeds which would make a 'reasonable man' lose control. The issue therefore arises as to whether there should be a similar rule for sexual offences, with an objective rather than a subjective test. The jury would then be asked whether a reasonable person would have known that the woman was not consenting. The criterion should be absence of consent, not presence of dissent. Making such a change should not be leapt upon in the mistaken belief that it would remedy all the problems, but if a judge had to emphasise to a jury that the man's belief must be reasonable it would undermine the theory that women say 'no', meaning `yes'".
The noble Baroness put the issue some time ago. My only problem with that passage is that she refers to "the reasonable person" and the "reasonable man" in one breath and to the reasonable belief of the particular defendant in another. I see an important distinction between those two positions.
The real problem with subsection (3) is that it brings into this difficult area of law the concept of the hypothetical "reasonable person". Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 ask us to consider who is the "reasonable person"? In some areas of the law the "reasonable person" is a mature man of 40, who is well educated and so on and likely to make the correct decision. But a "reasonable person" so far as a 16-year old boy or an 18-year old man is concerned, may well be someone of his own age. from his own background, who shares the same prejudices, beliefs and signals.
The problem with introducing this hypothetical "reasonable man" is how to determine who he is. What standard is a jury to apply? That is rather different from looking at the defendant in the dock and saying, "When that person tells us he had an honest belief that the girl consented, was that a reasonable belief?" I entirely agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, when he said that he had never experienced a defendant succeeding before a jury with the defence, "I had an honest belief. It was unreasonable. I recognise it now. But at the time, it was an honest belief". In practice, and in my experience, juries would reject such an argument.
In subsection (3), the Government have chosen the concept of the "reasonable person". We, on these Benches, object to that. "Reasonable belief" is a matter that I shall address in our later amendments. But the subsection as it stands—again I agree with the noble and learned Lord. Lord Lloyd—is unworkable. I believe that it will not increase the conviction rate, but that in the minds of a confused jury it will lead to fewer convictions.
Earl Russell: I apologise that I must leave at five o'clock in order to address a group of sixth-formers. I had not expected the first two amendments to take two hours. I promise to read carefully what is said in my absence, to return to the proceedings as soon as possible and not to repeat myself when I do.
Clause 1(3) sets an almost insurmountable hurdle. For example, a husband wakes his wife in the middle of the night with John Donne's line:
"Dear love for nothing less than thee Would I have broke this happy dream",
1074
and she says to him, "All right, I suppose so". That— in my mind at least—creates a reasonable doubt as to whether she consented. The man who proceeds in that circumstance should examine his conscience. I do not think he should be found guilty of rape.
To what does the second half of the clause apply? The subsection applies if,
"A does not act in a way that a reasonable person would consider sufficient in all the circumstances to resolve such doubt".
There is no action that A can take to resolve that doubt. The only thing that might resolve it is B's body language. Body language, especially of this kind, is not repeatable in court. So, we have a test which simply cannot be satisfied: it is an unreasonable test.
I also support Amendment No. 6. It would disapply Section 78, which, even as clarified by Amendment No. 398—and it is clarified rather than altered—is entirely unacceptable drafting. Clause 78(1)(b) states that,
"the defendant is to be taken not to have believed that the complainant consented unless the defendant proves that he did believe it".
How does one prove that one believes something? One may confess one's faith. One may do so in total sincerity, but by what objective test is anyone in the world ever going to know that one is totally sincere'? So far as I can understand, such knowledge, if it existed at all, would be divine and not human. The test is completely insurmountable and it is unreasonable to ask anyone to try to conduct it.
I am a little anxious about the treatment of sleep. Again I accept the general thinking behind the Bill; that having intercourse with someone who is asleep should in normal circumstances be regarded as an offence because consent cannot be given. However, there is one particular circumstance which to my knowledge has arisen in court and has become an issue, where the couple had had consensual intercourse and fallen asleep in bed side by side.
In the middle of the night the woman reached out and made a gesture of affection, which the man interpreted as a gesture of consent. But it was not. She woke in the night, too drunk to remember how she got there, and screamed rape; as one might if one woke in the middle of the night and found a strange man beside one. But, until the lady indicated that she did not consent, there was a rebuttable presumption that she did. If a man makes love to a woman and goes to bed with her and falls asleep with her, he is entitled to presume that she consents until she tells him otherwise, and no longer. So the treatment of sleep in cases where there has been consensual intercourse immediately beforehand cannot be the same as the treatment of sleep in other circumstances.
I have a good many more criticisms of Clause 78, but under the circumstances I hope the Committee will forgive me if I do not make them now.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: The moving of the burden of proof from the prosecution to the defendant, which is what Clauses 1 and 78 do, is in my

1075
opinion totally indefensible. It is especially so in a situation where in the nature of the crime there are unlikely to be any witnesses for either side.
There are in this world some women who lead men on and then, at the last minute, say no. There is a rude, colloquial name for them, which I should not dream of using in your Lordships' House, but your Lordships all know what it is. Afterwards, they may cry rape. How is the defendant to defend himself, if he has to prove that he believed his intentions to be acceptable when the girl denies it? Who is the reasonable person in that instance?
I can sympathise with those who are concerned about low conviction rates, but do they want to increase them by convicting innocent people? I entirely support the views of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, about rape when the so-called victim was asleep.
5 p.m.
Lord Ackner: There has been frequent reference to the low incidence of conviction. Perhaps I may offer some suggestions as to the causes. They are many and complex. Some of them are easier to understand than others.
My first example is the simplest in the world. Your Lordships may have heard the phrase, "If you pay peanuts, you expect monkeys". That is exactly what the prosecution did. The prosecution paid the Bar to prosecute considerably less than legal aid paid to defend. When it became apparent that as a result the experienced Bar refused Crown Prosecution Service briefs and only the young, inexperienced person came to be faced by an experienced opponent, the CPS realised that that had to be dealt with.
That was dealt with by the Treasury in the usual way—here are no prizes for the answer. The graduated fee carefully negotiated with the Lord Chancellor's Department for the defence was reduced by 10 per cent, so that that 10 per cent could be added to the fees paid by the Crown Prosecution Service. Thus, that reason for the high incidence of acquittals was dealt with.
The second reason is that no filter system is now operated by the Crown Prosecution Service. In practice, before corroboration was abolished, one needed to be able to show a good, arguable case. That is no longer the case. If the allegation is made, it is politically incorrect not to allow it to go to trial. So weak cases have been allowed to come to trial and, as a result, many of them have failed.
The third reason is that some complainants wrongly believed that, in order to establish rape, they must have struggled violently. So, in order to gild the lily, they told the jury that they had struggled violently. In due course, the defence produced underwear that showed that not a stitch had been disturbed and established that the complainant had been gilding the lily. As a result, understandably, they did not believe her.
The next and fourth reason— we all know all about this and nowadays frequently read about it in the newspapers—is that false allegations are made from time to time. There are a variety of reasons for that.
1076
The woman may have been rejected. It may be jealousy. She may have some psychological hang-up. Ultimately, she confesses to that and the case collapses. Your Lordships may remember that in A Passage to India the heroine had the false feeling that she had been raped by the Indian, but eventually had to admit that it was all an illusion.
The fifth reason is that there has been a radical change in social mores. In the university to which I went—and, no doubt, at other universities at the time—sex was referred to cheerfully as the best indoor sport. Now, it is so often a casual pastime Some of your Lordships may have come across the programme called "Three-minute Dating", which is a new method of ensuring that people meet quickly to go about whatever activities they want. Sleeping around is especially the result of drinking too much or taking drugs. In that situation, the jury does not believe that the traffic lights changed from green to red without an intermediate amber.
Sixthly, a small number of cases involve husbands and wives or cohabitees. In such cases, the jury know, because it is so often stressed, how very serious is a rape case in regard to the sentence that may be imposed—five or six years as a starting point. In some such cases—maybe very few—the jury think such a result entirely disproportionate to what happened.
Then, seventhly, there is the law of unintended consequences. Nowadays, a vulnerable complainant can give her evidence on video. She is never seen by the jury, yet the jury must weigh up her unseen evidence against the evidence of the accused. How can they in such a situation be sure that the defendant is guilty?
Finally, and most important of all, there is the burden of proof. I do not believe that the phrase "reasonable doubt" is any longer frequently used. The jury are told, following a decision made by Lord Chief Justice Goddard, that they must be "sure". Having to be sure is a very high burden. The jury can say among themselves, "This probably happened, but we have been told that that is not enough" or "It is very likely that the complainant is telling the truth, but that is not enough; we must be sure of the case".
Those are some examples of explanations for the low incidence. I agree with my noble and learned friend Lord Lloyd, and do not believe that there are cases where a man asserts a totally unreasonable— perhaps honest—belief that is accepted by a jury. That is particularly so now that the jury must be told in terms that they must take into account the whole of the circumstances and whether it appears to them to be reasonable for such conduct to have taken place. I hope that I have assisted to some extent on a subject that seems to be shrouded in mystery.
Baroness Mallalieu: As I understand it, we are trying to improve, in particular in Clause 1, the legal definition of rape so that any existing loopholes are closed, and so those who commit the offence can be convicted. I am concerned by what I have heard from several noble Lords about the lawyers' approach as opposed to the Baronesses' or women's approach.

1077
Two powerful contributions were made by my noble friend Lady Gould and the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth.
That is the background. But we are producing the tools that people such as me—the lawyers—must try to use in the courts. We need clarity, simplicity, and, when dealing with one of the most serious criminal offences, a powerful and high-level test to be applied before people can be convicted. We need a guilty mind—mens rea. It is a cardinal principle of serious crime that the mind must go with the act. Yet this clause would remove that and, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, said, make negligent rape an offence, which it is not now. Therefore, we are proposing to take out a crucial safeguard for people accused of serious crime, greatly complicating the task of lawyers and judges in directing the jury, and, ultimately, that of the jury itself.
Time and again, after Bills have passed through this House and another place, I go to the Old Bailey and people ask me, "How on earth did you allow that to get through? How have you allowed them to muck things up again?" One of the areas that have been mucked up is the concept of the reasonable man, which has caused enormous difficulties in law, particularly in relation to provocation, and is not resolved.
Yet, while trying to simplify things, we are introducing in Clause 1 a double complication: not only will the jury have to be directed that they must try to decide what a reasonable person would think about the complainant's consent or lack of it, hut, if they find that there would be doubt in the mind of a reasonable person, whoever he may be, they must decide what a reasonable person would consider sufficient to remove the doubt. The ramifications—the hurdles and tests that the jury would have to apply—are complicated. The reasonable man is being introduced apparently to try to simplify the position. He comes with his partner in confusion, the shifting burden, which will arise later. The judge's task would be greatly complicated by what is presented.
Why is it being done? I must say, particularly in response to the noble Baronesses' earlier contributions, that it is being done for cosmetic reasons. It will not increase the conviction rate one jot. Like other noble Lords who practise at the Bar, I have never come across a rape case won on the basis of a mistaken but honest belief that there was consent. It happened in the case of Morgan; clearly it can happen, and the direction is given, but I have never heard anyone describe a case on that basis.
So what is the effect of what we are arguing about now and have been arguing about for so many minutes? We will produce something cosmetic for the women's pressure groups. We will produce complications that will lead in some cases to a wrongful conviction. The case will then proceed to the Court of Appeal, and, it is hoped, will be rectified. We will produce a better definition; it will be worse than before. I understand the Minster's difficulties. He is faced with pressure to do something and is looking hard for a way of doing it. The noble Baroness, Lady
1078
Noakes, made much the same point, saying that we should try the approach and see what happens. But every time we try to mess around with the law and disregard the legal views on the matter, I must go down to the Old Bailey and have people say to me, "This is a nonsense; how on earth can we work with these tools?"
I ask the Minister to look carefully again at the matter. Once the reasonable man comes in. we enter a whole area of difficulties that so far have not affected the rape definition. If there were a pay-off—the reward of the conviction of people who now wrongly escape conviction—that would be fine. But I cannot see it here. I would also like to hear the answers that the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, sought about conviction rates. What we are about to do is both potentially dangerous and wrong.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Carlile of Berriew: Like the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, on the issue of principle I agree entirely with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick. I shall not weary the Committee by trying to repeat his cogent explanation of those principles. It is implicit in what the noble and learned Lord said that the statistical problem so recently highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, will not be changed by the provisions. However, I disagree—I shall explain why in a moment—with those who say that one cannot envisage cases in which manifest injustice could be perpetrated by what is proposed, particularly the third-party provisions in Clause 78.
I regret to tell noble Lords that I, too, speak as a legal practitioner who has occasionally gone far and wide into the regions of this country. Indeed, I have often had to argue these issues in the legendary Mold Crown Court, where juries consider matters in their own idiosyncratic way. In most rape cases where there is a defence, it is approached from three positions. First, did it happen at all? In many cases it is denied that sexual intercourse took place. Secondly, was it the accused who had sexual intercourse with the complainant? That is not such a problem these days because of the availability of DNA profiling. Thirdly, was there consent? I estimate that 97 or 98 per cent of rape cases are decided on issues of that kind. The statistics cover thousands of cases. The acquittal over a 10-year period of two or three people who do not have mens rea would not affect those statistics one iota. But there remains the potential for injustice. I suggest that it is the responsibility of this House, with its informed membership, to ensure that such injustice does not take place.
I refer to a practical issue, repeating a question that I asked at Second Reading. Probably because I did not make the question clear, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, did not answer it. I ask him to consider it afresh and to give us an informed answer. Several noble Lords have already raised the complexity of the tests set out in Clauses 1 and 78. At Second Reading, I asked—and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, repeated the question—whether the Judicial Studies Board had been consulted. Will the Minister tell the Committee whether the Judicial

1079
Studies Board has been consulted? It is an important question. Why? Because the Judicial Studies Board produces specimen directions that are used by every responsible judge in almost every case where the particular crime is charged.
The specimen directions are drawn up by two circuit judges. They are practical people with everyday experience of directing juries. Have those judges been asked, through the Judicial Studies Board, to produce specimen directions, so that legislators can consider whether the provisions are workable?
Lord Ackner: I can assist the noble Lord. I got in touch with the Judicial Studies Board on that point. I was told that the Judicial Studies Board was never asked to comment on legislation going through the House. The legislation is served up, and the board is then obliged to make the best that it can of it. It has no say in the policy of the legislation or its intelligibility; it must just make the best of a bad job.
Lord Carlile of Berriew: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. I do not suggest that the Judicial Studies Board should be a participant in the production of policy. That is not what I propose. I am suggesting that the Judicial Studies Board, particularly those who draw up specimen directions, should try to produce a template, so that the legislators—ourselves and those in another place—can decide whether the apparently impossibly complex provisions are workable. My belief is that they are not. They will make the already over-complex direction on self-defence look like simplicity itself.
While we are on the subject, I must respectfully correct my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford. In the direction on self-defence, there is not merely an objective test; there is an important subjective element. I gave the direction myself last week, sitting as a recorder. It goes something like this: "Members of the jury, if you think that the defendant may have done no more than what, in the heat of the moment, he thought was necessary, that is powerful evidence, you may think, that he acted in lawful self-defence". If that is not included in the direction, the defendant's conviction will be overturned in every case in the Court of Appeal.
My noble friend, in quoting from the book written by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, referred to provocation. The provocation test is no longer an objective test; there is a high level of subjectivity in it. Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 in the next group, I think, reflect that element of subjectivity. There is no serious crime in which the serious element of a guilty mind—what the noble and learned Lord called the "golden thread"—has been abandoned. That would be a dramatic precedent.
My first question is whether anything has been done to address the complexity of what is proposed. I believe that it has not. What the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, said bears that out.
In raising my second point of substance, I must declare an interest as vice-chairman of a small mental health charity. Those who suffer from mental illness,
1080
personality disorders and similar conditions are vulnerable. Care in the community is a wonderful thing for those who find themselves in protected circumstances, but it is also a dangerous thing for many. I shall give the example of a vulnerable, learning disabled adult who could easily find himself in the sort of situation that might lead to a wrongful conviction of rape. The Government must be able to address the issue, if they insist that their proposals must become law. Regrettably, it is the experience of those of us who enter the criminal courts regularly that we should never be surprised at the behaviour of the human being and that truth is stranger than fiction. We observe such things on a monthly—if not weekly—basis.
The sort of scenario that I will posit is far from exaggerated. A learning disabled adult may be used by a group of yobs as a sort of plaything, and they put him in a situation in which he—not they—is persuaded that the woman who is undoubtedly raped wants to be raped. He does as they bid him. What is his belief? His belief—in the real world of a very small number of learning disabled people—is that he is doing something that he is allowed to do, something that he has been encouraged to do and something that, in so far as he understands the concept, it is lawful to do and that he is honest in doing. Is a person in that situation to be convicted of rape and made subject to a potential sentence of life imprisonment? If so, it is serious discrimination against people who are learning disabled and could result in injustice to a small number of people. It will affect a tiny number of people, but, even if it happens only once in 10 years, that is once too often.
Another example, also taken from the field of mental illness, is related to the fact that those who suffer from mental illness are often well for a large amount of time and lead an apparently normal life. However, in some conditions, such people may be very occasionally subject to florid explosions of their mental illness. Such florid explosions of mental illness can lead to entirely bizarre beliefs, which may be permanent or temporary. Among those may be the belief that a woman who is in no realistic way consenting to sexual intercourse is, in fact, doing so. Should such a person be convicted of rape, when he has no guilty mind and what has occurred is demonstrably the result of an illness that he had at the time that he committed the act?
In this country, where the golden thread that has been referred to has survived for a long time, we should not allow political correctness to destroy the civilised assumptions that we have made and sustained over hundreds of years. That is what is proposed. When, on this group or a later group, the Minister responds to the debate, he must deal. specifically with the way in which the Government will address the problem of mentally ill people who may find themselves—albeit very occasionally—in the position that I described.
I agree with the right reverend Prelate that the essence of any sexual relationship, even if it is what is unattractively called a "one-night stand", is that there should be consent. There should be a contract, as in marriage. However, that does not mean that it is right

1081
to criminalise every situation just because the person on the Clapham omnibus would not regard it as consensual. We tread a dangerous path, if we go down that route.
Lord Morris of Aberavon: I shall ask two questions. As a member of the criminal Bar, I am in sympathy with the Government's aim of reducing what is regarded as an unacceptable rate of acquittals. The figures for cases that do not involve stranger rapes are intolerably high.
The problem is how to tackle it. I am concerned whether this is the right way. My first question is: why do we have such a high rate of acquittals? The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, touched on many reasons, but on one in particular. I seek an answer to this question. Is the test for launching a prosecution the same as for all other offences? There are two tests. The first test is that of public interest. The second is whether there is a reasonable prospect of conviction.
Certainly, if the figures mean anything, a reasonable prospect of conviction does not manifest satisfactory completion of that test. Will the Minister tell us whether there is an element of political correctness once a complaint has been launched or is rape treated these days in exactly the same way as every other offence? If it is treated in exactly the same way, someone who takes the decision to prosecute takes a view different from what the eventual figures manifest as regards a reasonable prospect of conviction. They are wholly different, as we all know.
The second question has also been touched on by noble Lords. What is the expected change in the conviction rate if we pass this part of the Bill? In all the Home Office studies, there must have been a great deal of thought on this issue. Otherwise, I should hope that the Government would not have embarked on this at all. Members of the Committee need, and deserve, a clear indication. If not, our task would not have been worthwhile and it could lead to the conviction of the innocent. That is the last thing that we need.
Finally, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, has assisted the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, as regards the role of the Judicial Studies Board. We are grateful to him for having explored that issue and assisting the Committee. Having spent some time directing juries on many kinds of offences, it would be helpful if we had a specimen direction, as asked for by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and if it was made available before the next stage.
That is all I wish to put before Members of the Committee. The test of a reasonable person has always troubled the courts in so many spheres. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, again mentioned the involvement of a person who certainly is not a reasonable person in that context; he is a very unreasonable person. Therefore, he might be inclined to take a different view. Indeed, on this particular test, the jury would take a wholly different view as regards his guilt; whereas, in fact, he may not, by ordinary standards of
1082
people, given his vulnerability and his deficiencies, be likely to be convicted of an intention to commit that offence at all.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Alexander of Weedon: I apologise to Members of the Committee that I was unable to take part at Second Reading. That is one reason why I wanted to listen carefully to this argument. I declare an interest as chairman of Justice, the all-party law reform group. The members of Justice are—as those of your Lordships who have received copies of our briefings will know—divided on the principles underlying this clause. That I fully understand. I readily recognise, as my noble friend Lady Noakes said, that there is a strong body of opinion that supports change. I recognise that this is an issue of real sensitivity. Undoubtedly, there are the genuine feelings and reactions of many people—not just women—that the concerns of women are taken too lightly by men and that juries tend to lean too readily against conviction.
Against that must be set—I now express a personal view—the sensitivity, which should not be scouted down because it is expressed largely by lawyers, of respect for the principles of the criminal law. Those have been fully set out by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu. I do not seek to repeat them. However, we should be very careful before we depart, in the case of a serious offence, from the underlying principle that guilty mind or intent is at the heart of criminal law.
If there were more time, there would be some cogent passages to that effect from the case of Morgan that I should wish to cite. But I shall confine myself to drawing attention to one statement in the Law Commission consultation paper in which it stressed:
"Mere negligence, in the sense of failing to realise what a reasonable man would have realised, could not possibly suffice to found criminal liability".
Yet it is entirely that approach which the Government now adopt. They do it in a way which seems particularly concerning. As I read Clause 1(3), it creates a completely objective test that must be answered in two separate parts. The first part is whether a reasonable person would, in all circumstances, doubt that there was consent. The second part is whether a reasonable person would consider the steps taken by the accused were sufficient to resolve the doubt. Therefore, there is a double test of objectivity included.
Will the Minister indicate whether he finds such a test present in any other aspect, even less serious, of the criminal law; or, indeed, whether he can think of an analogy within civil law? The concept of the doubt test of reasonableness also seems to emphasise the point being made eloquently by those more experienced in this field than myself, including the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, of the difficulty of directing a jury in this area.
There are others, particularly on the Cross Benches, far more qualified than I to indicate whether this would be a direction that would be practical to formulate and for a jury to comprehend. They, too,

1083
will potentially have views on whether the attempt to formulate such a direction might confuse the jury or lose its sympathy to such an extent that the level of convictions would drop. These are reasonable fears. It has been helpful that the position of the Judicial Studies Board has been clarified. But I should like to ask the Minister, what is the procedure on these occasions for consulting the judiciary? For example, was the Lord Chief Justice, on behalf of the body of judges, consulted before the publication of the Bill in order to have comment on the benefits of a change in the law and what I would call the workability? Were the judges asked whether they would welcome a situation in which a special verdict might be needed so as to decide what was the gravity of the offence in order to sentence the accused?
At present, I feel diffident in departing from the test put forward in Morgan. In one sense, I wish that it could have been debated in parallel with Amendment No. 8 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, which suggests some change in the law, which might, arguably, be more reasonable. That, as I understand it, was the proposal broadly put forward by the sexual offences review and which I think has been adopted in Canada. But if the choice came between the present clause and leaving the test in Morgan, I would have no hesitation that there should be no change to the law. Ultimately, I should like to reserve my thoughts and views on whether it is possible to go along the route put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, in recognition that there is an issue on which people on the other side of the argument from the existing law feel strongly.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: I stand as a social worker, a woman, against the lawyers. I am not sure where that puts me, but it does not put me on an emotional plane making an emotional argument. I want to make a reasoned argument on behalf of women. That puts me in difficulty, because, as I said previously, I have been aware of many women and young people who have not won their case because of difficulties and technicalities within the law once the Crown Prosecution Service has tried to take the case forward. Therefore, I am keen that whatever law we ultimately pass wins their case. I listened with great care to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, who has great experience.
As I have been put partly on the other side of the fence, as it were, I want to address a couple of issues. First, I want to take out of the debate the phrase "political correctness". It is a great pity that in discussing these issues and the rights of women, we suggest that they may be concerned with, in the strange phrase, "political correctness", which these days has a slightly derogatory feel about it. That is extraordinarily hurtful to the kind of victims I spend my life with: they want nothing to do with political correctness, they want their rights to be heard and a response made to them.
Secondly, as I said to the Minister in a preliminary meeting I was able to attend, I do not believe that the Bill can attend to many of the difficulties we face. Had
1084
we managed to introduce the matrimonial causes legislation, which contained a great deal about mediation, we might have been able to deal with some of the family situations now going to court—indeed, they might never have gone to court had we had experienced people able to deal with them.
However, I remind the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, that the same figures could be held for murder and assault as for rape in domestic circumstances. Therefore, we should not treat those situations lightly—
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I do not treat those situations lightly at all. I consider that in the marital situation there is a great deal of violence. I have been practising for 40 years—both prosecuting and defending—and I know entirely the whole scene. I therefore resent the suggestion that I am taking it lightly.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: I apologise if I gave that impression. I was simply trying to illustrate that people face a wide range of difficulties and that this situation fits into the same category. I was simply using that positively rather than negatively. I hope that the noble Lord will accept my apology if I did not say the right thing.
My real intention in rising to speak is to say that it would be a great pity if we did not end up with some change in the law. There should be some change which makes it easier for these cases to be properly tried and heard. Women should be sure that their position will be made clear and the defendant will also be heard. I have also counselled men, so I do not spend my time dealing only with women. In these situations, it is often difficult to sort out the issues and therefore it would be most helpful if we could look at the matter in a way that would take us forward. I have not yet looked at the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, but I should be sad if we lost the whole argument and all the proposed changes and if nothing happened for these women.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: The debate has been conducted largely among professionals and it has been most interesting and informative from my point of view. However I want to remind the Government that, in their laudable intent to assist women who are raped and whose assailant is not convicted, they may not be meeting what the public want in the way they want it. In my experience, which is mostly local, there is a world of difference between the reaction of ordinary members of the public to rape trials and rape accusations and the reaction of the groups who exist to stand up and speak for women.
I find that most women are extremely suspicious of what women are saying in rape cases, as are many men. They are naturally suspicious, a situation which I met in early stages on the Bench but mostly by observing my own locality. I do not believe that the Government

1085
will achieve much with juries unless they can overcome their difficulties. They certainly will not overcome them by extending the offence of rape.
Achieving more convictions is about enabling juries to understand when someone has committed rape. The lawyers who have spoken—and we have among them the greatest in the land—are explaining how they do that. But ultimately it will be enabling the juries to understand. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, I am sorry that a distinction has been made between the lawyers versus the ladies. I am not one of the ladies and I am not one of the lawyers, but I am an observer of the public. I believe that the Government may be barking up the wrong tree in trying to find a way of helping juries in court to understand whether someone has been raped. I suggest that they should look carefully at whether they have got the right answer and whether subsection (3) will help juries. As a nonprofessional, I cannot understand how it will. I believe that the Government may have got the wrong political answer to an important legal question.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: It would be extremely useful if the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth of Breckland, could indicate to the Committee the types of technical problems, to which she referred, experienced by those she has counselled. The perception of those technical barriers may help us to decide whether what is being proposed will meet that type of objection.
The Earl of Onslow: As an open and blank mind which has listened with fascination, I have one question to ask. When someone says that he wants to achieve more convictions, does that mean that the courts have so far been wrong in acquitting defendants? If the convictions were right —7 per cent of cases were successful and consequentially 93 per cent were failures—does that mean that the 93 per cent of defendants were unlawfully or wrongly acquitted? To say that we need more convictions per se is not a judicious way of proceeding.
Lord Campbell-Savours: I want to intervene only briefly. I spoke on Second Reading as a non-lawyer, but I have strong views based on a case I followed in detail some years ago. My noble and learned friend Lord Morris of Aberavon asked a question which is particularly pertinent. It was: is it the view of the Government that there will be an increase in the number of convictions arising out of the principles enshrined in the legislation? I understand that that is what has motivated those who are behind the legislation in bringing it forward. The conversations I have had with people in the legal profession lead me to believe that the legislation will not increase the rate of convictions; it will decrease it.
This morning I had an interesting conversation with Jonathan Davies, a barrister who may well be known to some noble Lords. I should like to read an excerpt of an article that he wrote on 14th April last year in the
1086
Mail on Sunday which I regard as interesting. It raises issues that the Committee should address when dealing with legislation:
"One spring afternoon two years ago, I cross examined a young woman in a date-rape trial. As I did so it became clear to me that she knew her complaint would not succeed, and she knew I knew it … It was a deeply uncomfortable situation, one which barristers across the country have had to become accustomed to in recent years. For a significant number of 'date rape' cases, where a woman is sexually assaulted by a friend or colleague, are being brought into courtrooms despite the fact that they have no hope of success … This is a pattern I have become all too familiar with in my lengthy career as a criminal barrister and Crown Court recorder. All 16 rape cases I defended recently at a North London court resulted in not guilty verdicts. None of them should ever have gone to court. So why is it happening?
"Until the Criminal Justice Act in 1994, juries were warned by a judge of the 'danger' in convicting in rape cases where there was no supporting evidence. This rule was considered objectionable and demeaning to women so the law was changed. However, today we seem to be faced with a situation where a case can go to court with no supporting evidence of any sort but the woman's complaint. And as rape normally carries a sentence of at least four or five years, juries are reluctant to convict a man unless they can find something tangible that helps them".
He lists a series of circumstances in which that might be the case, and then goes on to say:
"I have seen all these[the circumstances to which he referred] and used them, in favour of women, when I have been prosecuting. But all too often, when I open the brief there is nothing. So who is responsible for bringing these cases to court? The blame lies with the police and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), who are currently too afraid of the rape lobby to throw out an insubstantial case. The rape charities and campaigners have tremendous power. People and parliaments will always listen to them and no one is willing to contradict their views because rape is such a terrible crime … So what can a woman do?
He sets out once more the relevant circumstances.
This criminal barrister believes that the Bill we are currently dealing with will not sort out the problems he faces in court when he is prosecuting. He believes that it simply will not work and that it may well lead to further acquittals where an acquittal might not be the right way to proceed. His view is that the problem rests with juries. In cases where it is the word of one person against another, more often than not—indeed, almost invariably—juries will never convict. Why are we bringing "word against word" cases to court? Why are we spending vast amounts of public money on bringing such cases to court when what they need is the critical additional component of corroborative evidence?
All I can say to Ministers is this: please understand that if the intention is to increase convictions, the Bill may fail in exactly the same way as the change of law on corroboration did in 1996, in so far as it did not work in the way that Ministers intended. I have been told that when it was no longer necessary to deal with the issue of corroboration, juries compensated by having in their minds a need to balance the consideration where otherwise it would act against the interests of the defendant.
Let us not once again introduce a change in law which has the reverse effect from that intended.
Lord McCluskey: As a Scot, perhaps I may be allowed to join in the debate. I am emboldened to do so having heard my friend the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, make a point. First, however, I wish to support a point made by a number of noble Lords, and most recently by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour.
I have almost 50 years of experience in the criminal courts in Scotland, where we do not have a similar statutory provision. Around 19 of those years were spent on the Bench, directing or charging juries in criminal trials, many of those being rape trials. It is the duty of the trial judge to try to ensure that the jury understands the legal context in which the case has to be decided. If I had this provision before me, I would feel it necessary to explain to the jury all of the following points. In regard to Clause 1(1)(a), I would feel it necessary to explain what is meant by "intentionally". I would feel it necessary to explain what is meant by "penetration", which noble Lords will see is defined in Clause 81(2) as including "withdrawal", and which I would also feel it necessary to explain.
I would feel it necessary to define what is meant by "the vagina", which is defined in another subsection as "including the vulva". I would feel it necessary to define what is meant by "consent". I would feel it necessary to say something about the meaning of "belief-. I would think it necessary to say something about what is meant by the concept of "giving no thought". I would feel it necessary to instruct the jury about the meaning of the words in Clause 1(2),
"whether B consents, or otherwise".
I would find it necessary to explain the meaning of "a reasonable person". I would find it necessary to say a word or two about "doubt". I would find it necessary to explain the word "sufficient.' in Clause 1(3)(b), in particular in reference to later provisions in Clause 78, about what is and is not meant by "sufficient"; and I would find it necessary to explain the meaning of "reasonable doubt".
The number of errors that I could make in the course of attempting that exercise is legion, while the number of appeals that would arise out of my mistakes would be equally legion. I am concerned that, ultimately, we would put an enormous burden on to the Appeal Court without clarifying the issues in the minds either of jurors or of the general public. Thus I fear that this provision will fail in its intended effect.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, I should like to ask him a question. He indicated that he has charged many juries on rape cases north of the Border. I wonder whet her his experience is similar to mine: namely, that on very infrequent occasions have I ever had to deal with the issue of "honest belief".
Lord McCluskey: The short answer to that question is that I have never, in my entire experience as a
1088
prosecutor for over 12 years, as a defence counsel for many years and as a judge for some 19 years, encountered that defence.
Lord Lucas: I wish to make two brief points. First, I want to encourage my noble friend Lady Noakes not to disparage professional views. She has, as have I, spent most of her life working as an accountant and thus putting great weight on what accountants have to say. I have argued for a long time over financial affairs, but ultimately you must give in. For the most part, when accountants say that something is impracticable, they are right. Also, it can be dangerous to go against their advice.
Secondly, I do not think that it is a good idea to introduce the concept of "reasonable" into longstanding human relationships. Many of the cases we are considering here concern incidents that take place within the context of relationships that have been running for a good long time. Human relationships are varied and extremely strange when looked at by an outsider. Trying to view other people's relationships as something inherently reasonable is, I think, mistaken. People have their own ways of living and working things out, in particular within close relationships. Surely it is better to concentrate on the facts of the case rather than to introduce a strange third party, as if there was an objective view of human relationships.
6 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, that my earlier intervention was confusing and confused. We have had an extremely helpful debate on the principle. I congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, for spotting that it was worthwhile to debate the principle of whether or not one should import an objective element into the defence of consent. The issue arises not only in cases of rape but in cases of sexual assault and penetration.
The issue we are debating can be summarised as follows. No crime currently is committed where a person is forced against her will to have sexual intercourse with a person who can convince a court that he honestly interpreted whatever happened as consent to sex however unreasonable such a belief might be. Should that remain the law, or are there benefits in changing the law?
At this stage, I shall not debate the precise detail of how to introduce an objective element; the question is whether or not an objective element should be introduced. We believe that it should be, for two reasons. First, it is a more just approach; secondly, it is likely to produce more convictions. However, I am not able to say what the increased number would be.
I thoroughly endorse what the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, said—namely, that this is not a dispute between the lawyers on the one hand and the Baronesses on the other. This should be an earnest endeavour by all of us to find the right answer. It is not only lawyers in this country who are fairly divided in their views. For example, the Criminal Bar

1089
Association does not oppose the introduction of an objective element and many other common law and other jurisdictions throughout the world have introduced an objective element in relation to the law of rape and other serious sexual offences. So let us be under no illusion that it is only the lawyers who wish to keep the law as it stands; they are themselves divided.
Equally, we should not think that, because the wholly admirable Mrs Justice Heilbron in the 1970s took the view that there should not be a change, the position has stood still since then. We need to look at the question afresh and come to a reasonable conclusion.
What are the arguments for introducing an objective element? The Law Commission, when referring to the purely subjective rule, stated:
"we think it would be remarkable if the Morgan rule"
which is the purely subjective rule—
"did not sometimes have the effect of encouraging a jury to accept a bogus defence".
So objective analysis suggests that if one continues with the Morgan defence it will lead to acquittals where there should not be acquittals.
What does justice suggest is the right answer? The mistaken belief will often arise in a situation where it is easy to seek consent and the cost to the victim of the forced sexual activity is very high. It is not unfair to ask any person to take care to ensure that his partner is consenting and for him to be at risk of a prosecution if he does not. It easy to raise the defence of mistaken belief in consent but very hard for the prosecution to disprove it.
There is no justice in a situation where a person who has been raped, or subjected to other forced sexual activity, sees an assailant go free because of a belief that society as a whole would have found unreasonable or completely unreasonable or totally unreasonable. In considering where justice lies, it is important to consider not only the interests of the defendant but the interests of the victim. In circumstances where the defendant has behaved wholly unreasonably in believing that there is consent and could have taken steps to put the position beyond doubt, where should the risk lie? Should it lie with the victim who has, through her own experience, been raped in the sense that she has sexual intercourse forced upon her without her consent; or should it lie with the defendant who, although extraordinarily unreasonably, honestly believed that she consented? The defendant would be acquitted, rightly, under the current law—but, we would say, wrongly as a matter of justice—whereas the victim will suffer from the humiliation of being raped and not receiving justice.
It is a difficult balance. It should not be determined by political correctness but by something that reflects people's understanding of what is or is not just. I am struck by the fact that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and my noble friend Lady Mallalieu, all say that where the belief in consent is wholly unreasonable the jury will not acquit. If noble Lords
1090
believe that, surely the right course for the Committee is to ensure that, with simplicity, that approach is reflected in the law.
The noble Lord, Thomas of Gresford, believes that that is right; the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, believes that that is right. They question whether the method by which we seek to achieve it will deliver that result, but in terms of increasing legitimate convictions—by which I mean defendants are convicted because they have committed the wrong—and in relation to delivering justice—by which I mean ensuring that rape victims feel that the system understands their predicament and produces a just result—the change to introduce an objective element is the right approach.
My noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, legitimately asked why so many cases are failing. Let me be clear about the statistics. Seven per cent of reported rapes end in a conviction; many cases do not lead to a charge being brought or continued with by the Crown Prosecution Service; the rate of conviction in respect of charges pursued and brought to court is about 45 per cent. It is important to be clear about the figures. The Crown Prosecution Service is obliged to address such cases in the way it addresses every other case—that is, there must be more than a 50 per cent chance of success and it must be in the public interest for the case to be brought. There is no difference in the approach to these issues from the approach to any other issues.
As to the approach of the Judicial Studies Board— which I believe to be correct; I make no complaint—it will not produce standard directions until it sees the final form of the Bill; that is, when it becomes an Act of Parliament. The senior judiciary responded to Setting the Boundaries shortly before the Bill was introduced. I have had conversations with the senior judiciary about the detail of the provisions subsequent to the publication of the Bill.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: Did I understand the Minister to say that in 45 per cent of cases brought to court there is a conviction? If so, why does he believe that figure is too low?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: There is an issue both in relation to the consideration given to whether or not a charge should be brought and in relation to what happens when the case gets to trial. At both stages the law needs to reflect what we would regard as a sensible position. As to whether the conviction rate is too high or too low, I believe that 45 per cent is too low.
Lord Carlile of Berriew: Can the Minister confirm that he means that nobody has been asked to produce a specimen direction, despite requests being made on Second Reading that this should be done, and therefore nobody has tested whether such a specimen direction would have the sort of technical problems of which the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, rightly complains?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The Judicial Studies Board has not; other people have been asked, including the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and counsel on behalf of the Government. We need to see what the Bill looks like later on. I think that after Committee is the time to produce a specimen direction. The amendments that the Government have tabled to Clause 78 will be incorporated in the Bill, if the Committee is minded to pass them, and we can see how complex this is.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I am much obliged to the Minister for giving way. He was to make efforts to produce a specimen direction before Report. Does that ignore the fundamental objection, if I can put it this way, to the reasonable man? It seems totally to ignore the overall objection to the concept of a reasonable man being imported as a substitute for actual intent.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: While the Minister is being interrupted, may I respond to something? I was so thrown by inappropriately accusing the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, of something I did not intend that I did not follow through the point that was picked up. The issue for many women is that they never get to court. There is a real question about the level of assessment carried out by the Crown Prosecution Service and the investigation. One of my colleagues previously talked about the follow-through of these cases from the incident to the investigation, followed by the weighing of the evidence. Contrary to what is sometimes said in this Chamber, these cases are not taken forward because the women, it is thought, would not be believed.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Very much so. Listening to the debate, the question is whether there should be an objective element. When we weigh up the pain caused to the victim against what the defendant has to do, the balance tends to favour the victim rather than the defendant. Can we ask a jury whether the prosecution has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the way in which the defendant came to an honest belief was totally unreasonable? Precisely how that would be phrased must be discussed when we reach the next group of amendments. Is that a difficult question to pose? I honestly believe that it is not. Is it a difficult question for juries to understand? We would have thought that juries were perfectly capable of understanding that.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: The Minister falls prey to a common error in constantly referring to victims. The whole point of a trial for rape is to determine whether somebody is a victim. He has used that word a dozen times in the last dozen minutes. That is a measure of just how unsatisfactory the Government's position is.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: No, because I was starting these arguments not from the perspective of the lawyer, with the greatest of respect, but from where there is a rape. What brings justice to a case where
1092
there is a victim? We must look at it from the point of view of the defendant, who might be wrongly accused, and from that of the victim who has been raped only to find that there has been an acquittal. In constructing the law, one must from time to time look at the wider perspective than simply the problem in relation to the individual defendant.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: With the greatest respect, that is an untenable proposition. One is perfectly at liberty to look at the wider perspective, of course, and for this debate to be determined by lawyers' talk is inadequate. None the less, for the Minister to say that a complaint brought by an indignant woman enables or entitles him to refer to her as a victim before there has been a trial and an outcome is quite wrong.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Again, with the greatest respect to the noble Lord, I do not think he understands my point. Rapes occur. We need the criminal law, in part, to deal with them. What is a fair way of ensuring that the court does justice to the defendant as well as the victim? A balance has to be struck. If the law is constructed in such a way, as the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, says, that the CPS, quite legitimately under the current law, is unwilling to allow a case to go before a jury, or if, when it does, there are unreasonable barriers to the truth coining out, there is something wrong with the law, not because it leads to unfair convictions of defendants but because victims—real victims, by which I mean people who have been raped—find that, as the Law Commission said, bogus defences can succeed. I believe that we should look at the way the law works and consider what can improve that without leading to an undue risk of defendants being wrongfully convicted. The approach we are adopting has been followed by other jurisdictions; we believe it is fairer, without prejudicing the possibility of a defendant suffering a wrongful conviction.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Carlile of Berriew: I apologise for intervening again, and shall try to restrain myself from doing so on a further occasion. The Minister really cannot get away with constantly using the phrase "introducing an objective element" as though an objective element were not already there. We have had an objective element since the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 2000. The Minister should be justifying the complete removal of a subjective element. I invite him to address the serious point that I attempted to make about people suffering from mental illness and mental disability who are likely to be the very small number of people to find themselves convicted of an extremely serious offence as a result of these proposals.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: On the existence of an objective element, the jury can have regard to, and should be directed to have regard to, the reasonableness or otherwise of the explanation offered as to why the defendant believed that the victim consented. But even if that belief is totally

1093
unreasonable, the jury are entitled to say that because it was honest—and that is the only question on belief in consent—not only can they acquit, they must acquit. A totally unreasonable belief, if honestly held, currently leads to an acquittal. That is the current law.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: Does the Minister not weigh in the balance and take into account the collective experience of the people who have spoken in this debate, all of whom say that they do not know of a case in which this unreasonable but honest belief defence has succeeded?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Of course I take into account the unbelievable wealth of experience in this House, but there are two views among lawyers as well—lawyers who are just as experienced as Members of this House with their collective wisdom in relation to the trial of serious sexual cases.
The Earl of Onslow: Can the Minister help a blank mind? Do he or his department know of any cases in which this defence has succeeded? All the other people here say such cases do not exist. If he has evidence that he is curing an illness that exists, can we have it?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The difficulty we all have, as noble Lords will be the first to acknowledge, is that we are speculating. Everybody is in the same position. Quite rightly, we are not allowed to ask juries why they acquitted somebody. It is not thought to be in the interests of the administration of justice, and I do not disagree with that. Everyone in the Chamber is speculating why juries acquit. I agree with the noble Lord. Lord Thomas of Gresford, that the views of people with great experience, such as him, must be taken extremely seriously.
Baroness Noakes: I thank the noble and learned Lord for giving way. I say with the greatest respect that he, too, is speculating. One of the questions I put to him concerned what his department estimated to be the impact of the change in the law on conviction rates in particular or, to put that more accurately, whether or not it would result in more convictions of people who should be convicted of rape and not wrongful convictions. I have not heard an answer to that. I heard the noble and learned Lord say that he expected conviction rates to go up but he could not say by how much. It seems to me that we need carefully reasoned analysis of what existing cases would result in a different outcome if this change in the law were implemented. If we cannot establish that, we have to consider whether or not it is safe to proceed with a change in the law.
Baroness Mallalieu: I interrupt further on the same point to enable the noble and learned Lord to deal with my point as well. I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord can help us. He says that we are speculating—as, indeed, we all accept that we are— about the reasons why a jury comes to a verdict of this
1094
kind. But, as I understand what Members of the Committee have said and certainly in my experience, I have never heard advanced the defence that we are discussing. If the jury were to come to such a view based upon it, it would be fanciful. I have never heard advanced a defence on the mistaken belief that we are discussing. I am not aware of any others who have heard that.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: It was advanced in the case of Morgan. If one speaks to lawyers, one understands that it is a combination of two elements. Normally the defence would be, "I believe that she consented. She did consent".
Lord Thomas of Gresford: Morgan was convicted.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Indeed he was. As I say, the defence would comprise the two elements, "The victim consented. I believe that she consented". That is how the defence would normally be presented. I am gratified to see that the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, nods to indicate that that is how the defence is normally presented. Such a defence normally has two limbs.
I put our case for a change in the law on the basis that it will increase the number of rightful convictions. I am not in a position to indicate what the percentage or the number would be, nor I suspect would anyone be in that position. Further, I put our case on the basis that it is a more just approach to the question of sexual violence, rape, penetration and so on, against women. That is how I put my case. I have the support not just of those involved in—
Lord Crickhowell: As a non-lawyer I hesitate to ask a question at this stage but I have listened to all of the debate except the first few minutes. I thought that the noble and learned Lord was going to move on to the second part of an argument, but I do not think that he is. That is why I ask this question. Again and again and again he advanced a case for having an objective test. But having listened to the debate today I formed the conviction, on the basis of the wealth of evidence that is being produced by experts, that the particular definitions in the Bill will be totally unworkable. Is the noble and learned Lord now going on to a second part of his defence, which is, "The Bill, as I have drafted it, stands and I defend it", or is he saying only that there must be an objective test? The noble and learned Lord seems to have produced an objective test that is almost universally condemned.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: If the noble Lord had heard the beginning of the debate, he would be aware that we decided to debate the principle of the matter. Given that various amendments seek to change the test in various ways, we can, in debating those amendments determine whether or not the way in which the Government devised the test is the best way to devise it for those who support an objective test.
I turn to the important point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. He describes cases which I accept could occur. However one constructs the test, the test

1095
must be capable of dealing with the kind of situation which the noble Lord identifies; namely, looking at all the circumstances which might well, particularly in the kind of circumstances to which the noble Lord referred, include the attributes of a particular defendant. In looking at the circumstances a reasonable person must have regard to some of the attributes of the defendant. As I understood it, the noble Lord described someone suffering from severe mental impairment. That would be a factor which the jury could take into account. It would not always constitute a defence, but so long as the jury is able to ask itself, "How would a reasonable man think that particular person in those circumstances should have behaved?" the objective element is brought in.
Lord Carlile of Berriew: I said that I would not intervene again but I do so for the express purpose of expressing my gratitude to the Minister for the very important concession that he has just made. Can we take it, therefore, that the Government will in due course, of their own motion, introduce amendments which will make it clear that what the Minister has just said is in reality the law?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: We do not think that it is necessary to do that. The next amendment concerns whether a defendant acted reasonably or acted as a reasonable man thinks a person should act. No doubt some lawyers would say that the majority decision in Morgan was right whereas other lawyers would say that the minority decision was right. We believe that the right approach is to introduce the objective element, to focus the jury on what circumstances confronted the defendant and for the jury to ask itself whether what the defendant did was reasonable in all the circumstances.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: Would that include the defendant's personal characteristics—who he is?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: All the circumstances could be taken into account. It is for the judge and the jury together to work out the extent to which they should take into account the particular attributes of the defendant. I do not think that is difficult. I do not think that juries will have any difficulty with that. I believe that the test is correct in terms of the law, although no doubt we shall now have an interesting debate on that. I believe that it is possible to ask the jury the question, "Did the defendant act reasonably in all the circumstances"? For those reasons we believe that an objective element is sensible, just and will lead to a greater number of convictions. Therefore, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: At an earlier stage of his reply the noble and learned Lord referred to the Heilbron report which confirmed the law as stated in Morgan. The noble and learned Lord then said rather dismissively that that was a long time ago and things might have changed. But how does he deal with the fact that the Law Commission, which reported only in
1096
February 2000, came down against Clause 1(3)? How does the noble and learned Lord deal with the question that the Government's own review came down against Clause 1(3)? I gave the references in the course of my speech but I should be very happy to give them again. The noble and learned Lord has nothing to support his argument.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: We are grateful for the work that the Law Commission has done but the issue we are discussing goes beyond simply a question of law reform. There is an issue here that a wider community than simply the lawyers must decide.
The members of the review were divided as to whether or not an objective test should be introduced. Some said that it should; some said that it should not. Some were attracted to the Canadian model which includes an objective element.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: I read again the relevant sentence:
"Accordingly we recommend that the defence of honest belief should be expressed in terms of free agreement and be subject to limitations as to its use. This does not impose an external and objective requirement of reasonableness on the defendant".
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I quote from the consultation paper:
"The Steering Group was very attracted to the Canadian solution to this very difficult problem. In Canada the law retains an honest but mistaken belief defence but fetters when it can be used in a way that ties in with the definition of consent. The intention was to introduce an 'air of reality' … The Canadian Criminal Code states …
the accused did not take reasonable steps, in the circumstances known to him at the time, to ascertain that the complainant was consenting".
So the steering group recommends the Canadlian model, which is similar to the model that we have adopted.
Lord Ackner: Does the noble and learned Lord accept that his proposal can result in a person being found guilty of rape by reason of his mistake?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: It allows a person to be guilty of rape where he believes that there was consent when there was not, and that belief is unreasonable, just as the current law permits someone to be acquitted of rape where he mistakenly believes in consent, no matter how unreasonably.
6.30 p.m.
Earl Russell: I wonder whether the Minister has finally sat down. I listened to him with great care, and I believe that he has done more damage to his own case than all the rest of us put together.
I was fascinated by the statistics that he quoted. He said that 45 per cent of rape cases that came to court resulted in conviction but only 7 per cent of reported rapes resulted in conviction. Surely, we need not to increase the 45 per cent by changing the law, but to

1097
address the 7 per cent. We need to address the extreme difficulty of getting women to bring rape cases to court.
I have some personal knowledge of this matter. In the course of an academic career, three pupils reported to me the experience of being raped. In only one of those three cases did I persuade the person to go to court. An uncomfortable feeling lingers in the back of my mind that the one I persuaded to go to court was the one to whom I did most harm. The effect of the rape on those three people was very different. It had nothing to do with the severity of the offence and everything to do with their own character. One of them reminded me of nothing so much as a hen shaking her feathers to straighten them after a cock had been at her. One of them has not recovered in 10 years. The one in the middle went to court, and I believe that she had cause to regret it.
In these cases, it is usually the detail of the cross-examination that causes the problem. A senior journalist, who was formerly a struggling barrister, told me a story about a time when he was one of a group of people defending in a gang-rape case. He said that he did what he thought was necessary for the case, going through his cross-examination in excruciating and practical detail. The next person, who defended the next one of the gang accused, is now an extremely prominent lawyer-politician. He began his cross-examination with the words, "I am sorry that you have had to go through such an extremely uncomfortable experience, but I am sure you will understand that justice must be done. Before we begin, look carefully at the accused. Are you certain that he is one of those who attacked you?" She looked carefully at him and said, "No".
Here we have the root of the mischief. The actual process of the trial is for many women too unpleasant to go through. It is almost as bad, and in some cases quite as bad, as being raped again. It is difficult to see what needs to be done about that, but we should address that question and not simply change the law.
When we debated the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Bill, we were on the right lines. The directions in that Act could be interpreted in a slightly more restrictive way than they are at present. I used to be against the introduction of any previous sexual history, but I was persuaded that I was mistaken by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, who described a case in which it was impossible to establish what happened without invoking previous history.
We need to consider the pre-trial stage and the nature of the cross-examination. We need to make the process of reporting and trying rape a great deal less unpleasant for the putative victim. My noble friend Lord Phillips will note that I use the word "putative". If the process of the trial is as unpleasant as the offence itself, we will not get many convictions.
Reforming the law and increasing the proportion of convictions among those who actually get to court is not an answer. It is likely to lead to increasing convictions, but only because the wrong people will be
1098
convicted. Those who terrify their victim so much that their victim will not come forward are likely to be the worst offenders, who under these proposals will continue to get off. The bumblers who get to court may be more likely to be convicted, when they may not actually be guilty. We have not got the answer here in the Bill; we are attacking the wrong problem.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: As ever, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, puts his point forcefully. However, it is not a question of either/or. We need to assist the victims when they come forward by giving them support, making them more convinced that the courtroom process will not be a terrifying revictimisation. That is partly a question of changing the law so that it better reflects a reasonable approach to their experience, but we also need to ensure that what happens to them in court is not terrifying.
We have introduced measures that are being rolled out now, which make it much easier for vulnerable or intimidated witnesses to give evidence in court. For example, they may give evidence behind screens, if that makes it easier for them, or even on video, away from the courtroom itself.
With the greatest respect to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, he is wrong to say that this is a one-approach issue. A whole range of approaches must be taken to make things easier. One of them is to make a substantive law that better reflects human experience.
I must correct myself on the precise figures for rape in 2001. The recorded number was 9,008, of which the percentage found guilty was 5.8 per cent. The number of people appearing on trial for rape was 1,267, of which the percentage found guilty was 41.2 per cent. I apologise for giving the figure wrongly before.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: For the benefit of the Committee, will the noble and learned Lord tell us the general percentage of conviction, as opposed to acquittals in other offences?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I shall need to check this answer, because I want to be sure that I am right, but I believe that for trial by jury the percentage of conviction is 73.4 per cent.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. I should remind the House that we are supposed to be debating Amendment No. 2, although we had a general tour d'horizon. So much the better, but I thought I should remind the Committee of what we should be doing.
Amendment No. 3 would leave out subsection (3), and it is consequential on Amendment No. 2. I have undertaken not to take the opinion of the Committee on Amendment No. 2 today. I hope that that is acceptable to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, who was good enough to support me. The issue is entirely separate from the one regarding subsection (4), which refers to Clause 78. Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 are jammed between Amendments Nos.3

1099
and 6, the merits of which have been canvassed only partially so far. I have not spoken on Amendments Nos. 4 and 5, but I shall do so when they are moved.
I should also remind the Committee, after all these hours of debate, that I gave the undertaking for another reason, which is related to Amendment No. 8. That was considered by some Members of the Committee, especially by the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, as something that should be considered before a final decision was undertaken on Amendments Nos. 2 and 3, which seek to leave out subsection (3).
With respect, I should just say this. We have all, on all sides of the Committee, been speculating. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, thought that the low conviction rate was something to do with fees and something to do with all sorts of things. The prime reason why there is a low conviction rate is that there is an overall burden of proof on the Crown. The jury has to be sure before it convicts. That is the main reason, and that is what Clause 1(3) will do away with. It will substitute a concept of "a reasonable man" with a burden of proof on the defence and some compulsory presumptions as to non-consent.
I say this with respect to the noble and learned Lord. When he was engaged earlier in discussion with a certain noble Lord, he did not seem to appreciate that he has to approach the whole problem with a presumption of innocence in favour of the man. No one is a victim. We have the Crown on one side and the accused on the other, and there is not a victim until there is a conviction. Thereafter, as I tried to point out. the victim is very often the accused who, in many cases, has been erroneously convicted.
The Earl of Onslow: I seek clarification on one point. Is my noble friend suggesting that we have three choices: to take out the defence of unreasonable belief; to leave it as it is; or to accept Amendment No. 8? Presumably we have to have Amendment No. 8, which could be right; or have Clause 78, which may be wrong; or leave the law as it is? Is that correct? I think that I may have got myself into a muddle.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Yes, I think that that is more or less right. Ultimately, we will either have Clause 1, but without subsections (3) and (4), or we will agree to the Motion of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, to knock it all out—that Clause 1 should not stand part—just like that. Thirdly, Amendment No. 8, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, could commend itself to the Committee. That is about where we will get at the end of the day—although heaven knows when we are going to get there. I hope that that is right. In these circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, to which we shall return on Report.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Burnham): I have to tell the Committee that if Amendment No. 3 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 on grounds of pre-emption.
Lord Campbell of Allowayhad given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 13, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Lord said: I am advised by those at the Table that I would not be asked about Amendment No. 3 because, as I informed the Committee, it is consequential. I have, by leave, withdrawn Amendment No. 2. I shall therefore not move Amendment No. 3.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Noakes Baroness Noakes moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 14, after "person" insert "sharing the characteristics of A"
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 4, I shall also speak to the other, very similar amendments in this group. Earlier, my noble friend Lord Lucas mentioned the role of professionals. I certainly do not denigrate the role of' professionals. I think that the role of professional lawyers in the previous debate, long though it was, has demonstrated the value that professionals can bring to the Committee. I believe that we will need that professional wisdom in considering this group of amendments. We will certainly require a knowledge greater than I possess.
Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 insert the words,
"sharing the characteristics of A",
into paragraphs (a) and (b) of Clause 1(3), which itself creates the objective test of reasonableness for a defendant's belief in consent. We are looking for whether a reasonable person sharing the defendant's characteristics would doubt whether consent had been given and then act to resolve such doubt. That is still an objective test, which If hope is not a return to the position following Morgan.
The Committee has already debated at length the objective test itself. Amendment No. 4 does not challenge that basic approach pro tem, but would temper it by requiring the jury to consider what a reasonable person showing the characteristics of the defendant would have thought or done.
This amendment was suggested by the Criminal Bar Association, which, as the Committee will be aware, accepted the basic approach to reasonableness in Clause 1(3). The intention behind the amendment is that if the defendant had, say, learning difficulties— the example given by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, who I see is not in his place—the objective test applied to him would relate to someone with those types of learning difficulties. I do not think that it would be fair to apply the understanding and reasoning ability of, say, a person of average IQ to someone with severe learning difficulties. Similarly, the defendant may be quite young, perhaps a child as young as 10. In such cases we need to build a test around the characteristics of a child of that sort of age and not around an adult ability to understand the issues.
I accept that there may well be difficulties with the wording. I hope that the term "characteristics" cannot be interpreted too widely. I do not believe, for

1101
example, that it is a person's characteristic to be a drug addict—thus excusing narcotics-induced behaviour. I am open to suggestions on better drafting to achieve the modification of the objective test in the way in which I have outlined.
The amendment is put forward as a genuine attempt to ensure that the objective test of reasonableness, which the Government are introducing to remedy a lack of perceived fairness to putative victims, operates fairly for defendants. I hope that the Minister will either accept the amendment or say how the clause will operate to deal with the situation that I have described. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I oppose this amendment, as I think is apparent to the Committee from what I have already said on a previous amendment. If the defence of honest and mistaken belief is abolished, so be it. However, the Crown no longer has the overall burden of proof, and the defence is hobbled by conclusive presumptions and by the burden of proof of establishing conduct related to the abstract concept of the conduct of a reasonable person. That has already been considered, and the objections to it are manifest—they have been made from all sides of the Committee, including from these Benches. The amendment piles Pelion on Ossa as regards obscurity and unfairness.
There is now no need to prove actual intent. The noble Lords, Lord Carlile of Berriew and Lord Thomas of Gresford, raised a fundamental objection to that on Second Reading. I referred to the sensitive approach of my noble friend Lord Astor of Hever. His speech in effect torpedoed the concept of a reasonable person—I shall come to characteristics in a moment—as a substitute for actual intent.
The noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, carried that to its ultimate conclusion to show how positions such as autism, mental state and IQ have to be taken into account, not only for the complainant—heavens—but for the accused. Justice works both ways. If a defendant has to prove that his conduct squares with that of a reasonable man, and he is half-dotty and the jury think that he is totally honest and did not intend to commit the crime, they have to convict him. That is the last dregs of injustice.
The situation is made even more difficult because there is a double whammy, like the double reasonableness in Clause 1(3). The first whammy to match is conduct, and the second is characteristics. Imagine the courtroom. Suppose one was trying to defend a pretty simple chap. In my young days in the West Country, quite a few people were certainly pretty dotty and now and then got into difficulties of the kind that we are discussing. They had the benefit of the presumption of innocence, and some got off and some did not. I cannot say whether that was right or wrong, because no one knows. The point was that machinery operated. The amendment to add characteristics, although intended to mitigate the unfairness of Clause 1(3) as related to the conduct of a reasonable person, does not do so. It imposes a further burden.
1102
Let us look at the practical situation. How on earth will the accused in a trial establish the burden of proof? He has to establish a requisite kinship between his characteristics and those of an abstract norm whom the jury might think of as a reasonable person. Would that reasonable person be likely to find himself in the dock in a rape trial? With respect, the whole idea is pretty incongruous. It cannot do justice. The Minister will have a fundamental objection to it and will not accept it.
Suppose counsel for the defence gets hold of the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary to look up "characteristics" to see what he has to establish. He would have to establish a match of some distinct, distinguishing marks of character and quality of character between his client in the dock and the invisible reasonable man. How will he do that? The burden of proof is on him; the Crown does not have to prove anything.
The defence counsel could call evidence. Are we to have the evidence of psychiatrists and psychologists to establish the double match in all rape trials? Heaven forfend. What would happen if my noble friend's amendment were accepted? Would the match be left to the jury, in the absence of evidence, so that they use their common sense to resolve the last-ditch defence for which the burden of proof is on the accused? Counsel could say, "It is matter for you, members of the jury; I can't lecture you on it. You'll have to do your best and afford a form of palm-tree justice". However, he would not tell them that the maximum sentence was life imprisonment.
Quite seriously, how is counsel to advance a reasoned defence? It is all but impossible. There is no evidence. Imagine the simple man in the dock. Counsel has to prove that that man's characteristics match the abstract norm. That is nonsense, and would create a manifest injustice.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I hope that I can illustrate the problem that the amendments are intended to address with the case of Luc Thiet Thuan, which was decided in the Privy Council some years ago. In that case, a young man in Hong Kong had suffered as a child an injury that caused him brain damage, lowering his ability to control himself under pressure. In an episode with a young lady, she made disparaging remarks about his person, whereupon he took a knife and killed her. At the trial in Hong Kong, there was medical evidence to the effect that he was brain damaged, with the results that I have conveyed to Members of the Committee.
Accordingly, the argument in that case was that, when it came to the defence of provocation, Luc Thiet Thuan should be compared with a reasonable person of his age and sharing his characteristics, including the fact that he had brain damage. In other words, the reasonable person with whom he was to be compared was virtually the same man. I argued the case on behalf of the appellant. In the Privy Council, their Lordships divided by four to one against me, the one for me being the noble and learned Lord, Lord Steyn.

1103
When the same principle came before the Court of Appeal in England some time later, that court decided not to follow the majority decision from the Privy Council. Highly unusually, it decided to follow the judgment of the noble and learned Lord. Accordingly, that principle became embodied in the law. It went to the House of Lords, and their Lordships decided by three to two to follow his judgment. But each of the three majority decided to follow the judgment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Steyn, on different grounds.
That is the kind of problem that can arise in relation to the concept of a "reasonable person". It so happens that I lost for the appellant in that case in the Privy Council. When I subsequently came before the courts of appeal in England, I lost again when I appeared for the prosecution because the principle was used against me, with my argument succeeding in those courts.
The purpose of inserting the words "sharing the characteristics of A" is to reduce the objectivity of the test proposed in Clause 1(3) so that the "reasonable person" becomes "A". The "reasonable person sharing the characteristics of A" becomes "A". He is of the same age and sex and, if one has brain damage, the other has brain damage. Therefore, the test ceases to be objective and becomes almost subjective.
7 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I am obliged to the noble Lord. I agree with him. I said what the object of it was. My speech was concerned with the effect of it—that is, that it did not achieve the object.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I am much obliged to the noble Lord for his clarification. My point is not that I am in support of or against the amendment; it is simply that the amendment illustrates the complete unworkability— to use that word again—of the way that the Government are approaching this problem. There is a far simpler solution over the page in the Marshalled List of amendments, but we shall not reach that point for a considerable time because we must go through Clause 78 first. This amendment seeks to try to make sense of the issue and to make Clause 1(3) accord with the current law on provocation in this country. As I said, it illustrates all the problems.
Viscount Bledisloe: It seems to me that if we must have an objective test, then, in theory, the amendment would improve the Bill. I also believe that the noble and learned Lord has already conceded that the amendment must succeed by the answers that he gave to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, during the previous debate. In relation to the examples given by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, he said that obviously one had to consider the characteristics of the individual and judge him by the standards of a person in his condition. That would get us into a rather odd situation, because one of the two people whom the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, postulated was someone who periodically had attacks of a mental illness which made him act wholly unreasonably. Therefore, we shall now have a "reasonable person" who has the characteristic of
1104
periodically acting wholly unreasonably. That is perhaps a little difficult for a jury, and perhaps even your Lordships, to understand.
Although I believe that in theory the amendment would improve the situation, where on earth would it get us? Let us suppose that the defendant says, "Well. my characteristic is that I have only recently arrived in this country. I used to live in a country far away where, whenever ladies said 'no', they meant 'yes'. Therefore, that is my background and my characteristic". Will that be a defence, and how will it be dealt with? Will people be called from that country to prove that that is the habit of that country, and will the prosecution be rebutted?
Once one gets down to individual characteristics, the trials will go on indefinitely. Is that really what the Government want and, although the logic would be improved, does it not demonstrate the fallacy of the whole approach? However, if we must have the whole approach, then I would prefer to have it with the amendment rather than without it.
Lord Lucas: I do not know what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, studied for his English O-level texts, but I read To Kill a Mockingbird. If one applied the Bill as it stands to the rape trial in To Kill a Mockingbird, then the man would be convicted because clearly no reasonable man—that is, a white man—would ever believe that a white woman would consent to sex with a black man. If we made the amendment that my noble friend suggests, then the defendant would be let off, as indeed he should be, because we would make the test relevant to him.
That is perhaps taking things to extremes but I believe that, to some extent, it illustrates the difficulties that I have with the Government's current drafting, in that one is trying to insert the character of the reasonable man, having assigned characteristics to him in respect of the relationship between the individuals in the case. One will be in great difficulties in deciding what those characteristics should be. I do not share my noble friend's view that they should necessarily be the characteristics of the defendant.
I believe that point has been dealt with extremely well by others who have spoken. But I believe that it all adds up to a considerable argument in favour of the phraseology employed by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, in Amendment No. 8, to which I very much look forward.
Lord Northbourne: I should declare an interest in the "reasonable man" in the context of Clause 80. As we shall probably not reach that point until after Easter, I thought that I should signal my concern. I am very unhappy indeed about the concept of a "reasonable man" in the context of Clause 80. While I suspect that many noble Lords are right to say that this amendment is not ideal, if we must have the concept of a "reasonable man", it would be slightly better with this amendment than without it.
Lord Skelmersdale: I can understand the temptation to seize on the phrase "a reasonable person" in Clause 1(3)(a) and to seek to define such reasonableness in respect of that person. But I looked a little further along the line and discovered that we should be talking about "a reasonable person" in all the circumstances. That may or not be the Minister's response to this debate. But I believe that in the To Kill a Mockingbird case, or the case of a defendant who has learning difficulties or is a drug addict or whatever, those circumstances would have to be taken into account. I hope that that is what the noble and learned Lord will say.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Broadly, it is. Obviously when one is dealing with the standard of the reasonable person or, to use the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, a person without a reasonably held belief—one must ask whether there is a difference between a reasonable person on the one hand and a reasonably held belief on the other—some standard must be set and plainly it must be set by the circumstances of the factual situation that the jury is addressing. We believe that it is possible to frame a legal test where the jury can be asked, "Do you think that the prosecution has proved that the defendant's belief was reasonably held?" That is broadly the position that we want to arrive at.
In some cases, the characteristics of the defendant will be relevant; for example, his or her age, or the kind of example given by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, where a person is suffering from an identifiable mental impairment. But we do not need to go so far as to say that the jury must take into account all the characteristics of the defendant when considering what the reasonable person would have done in the situation.
In the case of Smith (Morgan), the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, dealt with this very issue in relation to provocation. He was critical of the approach of directing the jury to attribute certain characteristics to the reasonable man. He said that approach had,
"produced monsters like the reasonable obsessive, the reasonable depressive alcoholic and even the reasonable glue sniffer".
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, is of the view, and I share that view, that the judges and the jury are capable of identifying which characteristics are relevant and which are not. He said that judges should describe the objective element in the provocation defence in simple language. That is the approach that we would adopt.
I think that juries are perfectly capable of evaluating the evidence presented to them and of deciding the extent to which the personal characteristics of the defendant should contribute to their assessment of whether he acted reasonably once doubt about the consent of the other party had arisen.
We can debate for hours precisely how that is put in legal language. We think we have done it. We do not for one moment dissent from the approach taken by the noble Baroness in this respect. I do not believe she
1106
is suggesting that every single characteristic necessarily would be taken into account, even the fact that the defendant is unreasonable as suggested by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe. What I think the noble Baroness is trying to get at is the fact that where appropriate one must have regard to the circumstances including, for example, age or mental dysfunction on the part of a defendant. We would agree with that. We believe that we have got there without getting to the absurd point identified by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe.
Baroness Blatch: Very often in a case it is the word of the person making the accusation against the word of the defendant. It is not always the case that it has been established that a rape took place or, indeed, that even sexual intercourse took place. The accused makes the accusation and the defendant is defending a negative because he continues to say, "I did not do it".
Clause 1(3) introduces a test against whatever argument is put up by the defendant and asks, "Do you believe what that person says? Would what is said by that person about what they believe happened or did not happen on that particular occasion be said by a reasonable person? Is it believable?" It seems to me to be very suspect if, on the grounds that the person is not convincing or even if it is perceived that that person is not telling the truth, irrespective of that person's condition—whether that person is mentally impaired, just a waster or is reasonable—the test is put and on the basis of whether it is believed that someone is telling the truth rape is established.
Like the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, if the concept of a reasonable man test has to be made, I would rather have a definition of the way in which that person is being judged. However, like many others who think that subsection (3) is unworkable, I believe there is the difficulty of pressing a test of a reasonable man with either no definition—in other words the reasonable man is in the eye of the beholder, the members of the jury— or with the amendment tabled by my noble friend, which at least defines that the person is being judged in the shoes that he wears.
We are speaking of a case in which no one knows whether rape has been committed or even whether sexual intercourse has taken place, and in which everyone is making judgments in a vacuum. It seems to me that Clause 1(3) throws up so many problems that I cannot see how it could work in practice. However, if it has to work at all, some definition of what is a reasonable person, in other words how that person would be judged, needs to bear at least some characteristics of the person concerned.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: As regards the first point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, she is right. The question only arises once the jury is satisfied, first, that the act of sexual intercourse has taken place and, secondly, that it was without consent. It arises only

1107
when the issue is belief in consent even though there was not consent. She is right to say that those are stages which must first be gone through.
As far as concerns the question of whether one wants to try to define in detail the reasonable person and what would be his or her approach to the facts, I do not think that would be right. What one is saying, as in many other areas of the law, is that the jury must decide what was reasonable. The jury has to decide, for example, in relation to provocation, how a reasonable person would have acted. The jury has to decide whether or not the amount of defence used by the defendant was reasonable self-defence. The more one complicates it, the more one adds accretion to accretion, the harder one makes it for the jury to decide and the more one gets away from the basic question, "Was it reasonable?" I believe that the approach we have adopted gets to the point.
We shall listen carefully to what is said. However, I do not believe that even the most experienced lawyers in this House believe that one cannot ask a jury to evaluate the question of the reasonableness of the behaviour of a particular defendant.
7.15 p.m.
Viscount Bledisloe: What was said by the Minister in his speech was reasonable. However, the trouble is that it conflicts with the words in the Bill. The words in the Bill require you to take the abstract objective, reasonable person and decide what he would have done in the circumstances. "Circumstances" means surrounding facts; that is, the party they had been to; what the lady was wearing; what the lady had said, and so forth. The circumstances are not the peculiar characteristics of the individual: his extreme youth, his sexual inexperience, his mental health, and so forth.
If the Minister was serious in his reply to the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, that the mental health of the individual would be taken into account as being a characteristic, there must be some such words as proposed by the amendment and then it is not the circumstances at all; it is a reasonable person of the type of the particular accused.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I yield to no one in the experience of the noble Viscount in relation to criminal law. I know that his experience is vast in that respect. I have set out what we seek to achieve in relation to the Bill. If we have not managed that as a matter of law, we shall consider what was said by the noble Viscount in relation to that.
However, I have made clear the approach that we are adopting and why we think Clause 1(3) gets there. If we are wrong in relation to that we shall consider it and come back on Report.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I totally agree with the reservations of my noble friend Lady Blatch. My noble friend seeks some form of definition on the perfectly logical and reasonable basis that without it no jury will understand what it has to deal with. I believe the reply was, "We are working on a form of words". Perhaps that is not right.
Lord Falconer of Thornton: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. We believe that one can pose to the jury the question of how a reasonable man would have behaved in all the circumstances and the jury would understand the question.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. It comes to this: it is not workable as it stands. What will be done to try to make it more workable if we are to abolish actual intention? How will that be done?
Lord Thomas of Gresford: If the noble and learned Lord were to consider the standard direction to a jury in provocation where the reasonable person comes to the fore, he would find that if the jury is satisfied that the ingredients of murder have been made out, it may consider whether murder should be reduced to manslaughter by reason of provocation either by word or deed, which, first, makes the defendant no longer the master of his own mind and secondly would make a reasonable person sharing the same characteristics of the defendant of age, sex and background act in the way that the defendant had acted. The word "characteristic" may be statutory, I cannot remember, but is certainly in the direction to the jury. Those are familiar words which are certainly not "in all the circumstances". If characteristics are to be conveyed in the statute I respectfully suggest that the word that is commonly used should be employed.
Lord Lucas: In one of his replies the noble and learned Lord talked about a "reasonably held belief'. That is an excellent phrase and I wish the noble and learned Lord would put it in his Bill. I find it easy to understand and it adapts to all the circumstances.
I find this situation difficult to understand: suppose one has a couple in a long-term sado-masochistic relationship, who do all kinds of strange and wonderful things to each other. After one particular session the woman cries rape. What function has a "reasonable man" to perform in order to have any view on that relationship? One cannot impose a "reasonable man" on that relationship and expect him to start having views. The whole thing is bizarre and strange. None the less, it is a circumstance in which rape could have taken place.
One must establish the reasonableness of the belief of the man in dealing with consent. But this "reasonable man" creature does not belong there. I wish the noble and learned Lord would return to the ordinary English he uses when describing the Bill's function and put it in the statute rather than using the words we have in front of us.
Lord Falconer of Thornton: I take up the points of the noble Lords, Lord Thomas and Lord Lucas. I am tempted to ask, although I shall not, where, in the sado-masochistic relationship described by the noble Lord, does "reasonably held belief' fit. It raises all the same legal problems.

1109
The words, "the characteristics of the defendant" are not in the provocation statute. The courts have developed an approach. That is, keep it simple, leave it to the jury, and do not think about the reasonable obsessive, the reasonable sado-masochist or the reasonable glue-sniffer. Just put the issue straight to the jury. That is what we have done in this provision.
We could talk about the issue for a long time. The question is whether we have reached a point where the judge is able to ask the jury whether the person acted reasonably in all the circumstances. We think it is a simple question and one a jury can understand.
Baroness Noakes: I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate and in particular for contributing to my increasing legal knowledge. I now have a greater knowledge of the defence of provocation, which may well prove useful one day.
The Minister says that it is a simple question, which is put to the jury for it to decide. I understand the simplicity of that approach. However, I have raised my concerns. I tabled these amendments because I was uncertain that juries will in practice be able to handle Clause 1(3) as drafted without an amendment to deal with the particular characteristics of the defendant before them. I shall of course read carefully what the noble and learned Lord said and reflect further on the matter. But I am troubled that it may not be clear beyond peradventure that the present formulation will mean that instances such as learning disability or extreme youth would automatically result in those characteristics of the defendant being taken into account.
Beyond that, we are underlining a wider concern about how the Government's redraft of the sexual offences legislation will work in practice. I know that we shall return to that matter in due course. For the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]
Lord Campbell of Alloway Lord Campbell of Alloway moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 1, line 18, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Lord said: I explained to the Committee that I would move Amendment No. 6 separately. It is not a consequential amendment. I moved Amendment No. 2 and Amendment No. 3 was consequential on it. This was my instruction from the Table. Then I was informed that the chair would call Amendment No. 6. All I am doing is moving it and taking as little time as possible in doing so. I have spoken to Amendment No. 6 already regarding the complexity and unworkability of Section 78. Other Members of the Committee may wish to speak to the amendment as of course it is supported by various other noble Lords. I beg to move.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: I thought that Section 78 would be the subject of a separate debate at some stage. It raises all kinds of further difficulties and
1110
complexities which are not raised purely by Clause 1(3). However, I was leaving the debate to other Members and in particular to the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes.
Baroness Noakes: Perhaps I may help the noble and learned Lord. I understand that we shall be debating the substance of the Section 78 presumptions and all that sails therein in the next group of amendments, which I believe we shall be taking after the dinner interval.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: I fully understand that.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I beg to move that the House be resumed. In moving the Motion, I suggest that the Committee stage begin not before 8.30 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Special Immigration Appeals Commission (Procedure) Rules 2003
7.26 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Filkin)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Filkin) rose to move, That the draft rules laid before the House on 24th March be approved [15th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am grateful for this opportunity to explain the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (Procedure) Rules 2003, which were laid before the House on 18th March 2003. The rules were withdrawn on 24th March and a revised draft incorporating some minor amendments were relaid. That was as a result of scrutiny of the draft by a legal adviser to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, which brought to light a small number of errors. The relaid draft corrects those errors and incorporates some drafting improvements recommended by the JCSI legal adviser. The rules have already been debated and approved in another place on the 26th March 2003. I beg to move that they be approved.
Although there is no statutory requirement to consult on these rules, which are outside the supervision of the Council on Tribunals, a limited consultation has been undertaken. A wide cross-section of interested parties have been consulted, including human rights groups, lawyers and the judiciary.
It may be helpful if I set out briefly the background. The Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) was created by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997 to hear immigration and asylum appeals. An appeal lies to the Commission if it cannot be heard by an immigration adjudicator because the

1111
Secretary of State has certified that the decision being appealed was taken on national security or other public interest grounds.
:The Commission's jurisdiction was extended Wowing the September 11th atrocity and the commencement of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, which extended the counter-terrorism measures that were already in place in the United Kingdom. Section 21 of that Act enables the Home Secretary to certify a person as a suspected international terrorist, if he reasonably believes that the person's presence in the United Kingdom is a threat to national security and suspects that the person is a terrorist. That allows the individual to be detained, even when there is no imminent prospect of him being removed or departing from the United Kingdom. Section 25 provides a right of appeal to the Commission against certification. If a certificate is upheld, Section 26 requires the Commission to conduct a review six months after the appeal has been determined, or if no appeal was made, six months after the certificate was issued. Reviews must then be conducted every three months thereafter.
The Commission's jurisdiction was further extended by the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 to include appeals against a decision of the Secretary of State to make an order depriving a person of British citizenship status.
Therefore, the new rules are being introduced to serve four key functions. First, they set out the specific procedures to be followed for appeals against certification and reviews of certification under the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. Secondly, they apply the procedures for appeals before the Special Immigration Appeals Commission to appeals against decisions on deprivation of citizenship. Thirdly, they bring the rules more closely in line with procedures for appeals before the Immigration Appeals Appellate Authority. Finally, they streamline and clarify the procedures to be followed.
Perhaps I may now say a few words in more detail about the rules. They replace the existing Special Immigration Appeals Commission (Procedure) Rules 1998, which are revoked by Rule 55. That will make them easier to understand than if the 1998 rules had been amended.
The new rules set out the Commission's general duty to secure that information is not disclosed contrary to the public interest. They provide for service of the notice of appeal on the Commission rather than on the Secretary of State—which has been welcomed by many consultees—in Rule 7. The time limits for appealing against an immigration or asylum decision are now, under Rule 8, five working days for people detained; 10 working days for people not detained—that is the main change—and 28 days for people abroad.
Those time limits are to correspond with new time limits for appeals to an immigration adjudicator in rules made under the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. In special circumstances, the Commission may extend the time limits if satisfied that it would be unjust not to do so—Rule 8(5).
The new rules contain specific provisions for appeals, in Part 3, and reviews, in Part 4, to be considered under the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. Part 7 contains general provisions, which apply to proceedings before the Commission and include rules governing the procedures to be followed by special advocates. As I am sure that the House knows, a special advocate is appointed by a law officer under Section 6(1) of the 1997 Act to represent the interest of an appellant in any proceedings before the Commission from which the appellant and his legal representative are excluded. The Commission may exclude the appellant and his legal representative from a hearing if it considers it necessary to secure that information is not disclosed contrary to the public interest—Rule 43.
The new rules clarify the role of the special advocate and prohibit the Secretary of State from relying on material which has not been disclosed to the appellant, unless a special advocate has been appointed—Rule 37. The rules further detail when an appellant and a special advocate can communicate—Rule 36. The appellant can continue to contact the special advocate through his representative, after the Secretary of State has disclosed material to the special advocate, but the special advocate can contact the appellant only in accordance with directions of the Commission.
I have outlined the key provisions of the procedure rules and do not intend to burden your Lordships by going into detail about each draft rule.
I commend the draft procedure rules to the House. I confirm that in my opinion they are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
Moved, That the draft rules laid before the House on 24th March be approved [15th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Filkin.)
7.30 p.m.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, your Lordships will be considerably reassured by the report of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, on the working of SIAC, which was comprehensively debated on 11th March during our debate on the continuation of Section 21 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, led by the noble Lord, Lord Filkin. Have the comparatively minor adjustments suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, been incorporated into the rules? In other respects, we support the rules.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of the rules. One matter that causes me concern relates to Part 7, which covers, "General Provisions". Rule 34 deals with the appointment: of special advocates. Rule 35 specifies the function of a special advocate, which is,
"to represent the interests of the appellant by … making submissions to the Commission at any hearings from which the appellants and his representatives are excluded".
There are further powers to cross-examine witnesses and make written submissions to the Commission.

1113
Rule 36 is also the subject of serious concern. It states:
"The special advocate may communicate with the appellant or his representative at any time before the"—
Home Secretary—
"serves material on him which he objects to being disclosed to the appellant".
However, once the material is served on the special advocate, he,
"must not communicate with any person about any matter connected with the proceedings".
I know that we have argued that case at some length during the passage of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, but we should seriously ask in the interests of justice whether such a condition is necessary.
The question is: will the system will really work with such an approach? One already hears mutterings from those involved in immigration work that the new rules gag the special advocate about closed material that he cannot reveal or speak about. That rule should be urgently reviewed. I suggest to the Minister that my noble friend Lord Carlile of Berriew, who has done some considerable work on the matter, be asked to examine the rule as part of his role in the matter.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I am happy to respond to both points. In answer to the question posed by the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, about what action has been taken following the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, the new rules take them on board. They include provision for paper reviews; cases may be heard together; and the rules governing communication between the special advocate and the appellant following disclosure of closed material have been clarified.
The question of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, perhaps goes less to the rules themselves—which are, of course, the subject of our debate—than to whether SIAC's procedures and the nature of appeals from the three types of cases to SIAC are necessary. With the respect always due to the noble Lord, that returns to the nature of the Act itself—or the sequence of three separate Acts that have chosen to put those powers and duties on SIAC and to establish the process of the special advocate.
Rather than wearying the House with great detail, the rules attempt to balance liberties. They attempt to balance the need to protect the liberties of British citizens in general—in circumstances in which one believes that there may be some threat to their freedom and liberty as a consequence of the extreme circumstances and state of emergency in which we live—with the rights and liberties of a person whom the state has, in its opinion, a valid reason to believe to be, under one of the legs, a serious and present threat to the security of British citizens.
The rules try to square the circle of those two conflicting liberties by trying, for example, to give someone who is being detained under the Antiterrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 a right of appeal. It does so in difficult circumstances because it
1114
seems to me that it does so when some of the evidence that has led to the state expressing its concern cannot be shown in public or to the appellant because doing so might in many cases undermine the sources whence the information came.
I am sure that in the present circumstances I do not need to go into detail about why that threat is real rather than theoretical. In such circumstances, intelligence sources are a crucial part of the state's armoury in trying to protect its citizens from extreme or vicious attack.
As the House knows, the process is an attempt to ensure that there is a suitably qualified person to ensure that the interests of the appellant are properly represented, who can read the confidential evidence and who can argue the case before SIAC in that person's interest. As I think is known, under Rule 36, the special advocate cannot communicate about the proceedings after seeing closed evidence. For the reasons that I have given, it is important that there is no risk of disclosure. There is no evidence that that procedure does not work. However, there is provision for SIAC itself to approve communication if it considers it necessary under Rule 36(4).
Having said all that, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, is in position on those issues. He has already considered some of them generally; I think that the House has appreciated his report. There will be further opportunities. We recognise that the measures are strong; we believe that they are necessary. The order seeks to put clear rules before SIAC in the interests of clarity, justice and the appellant. In that spirit, I very much hope that the House will accept that they represent progress, even though I might not necessarily convince everyone that the original legislation was desirable— although I firmly believe that it is myself.
Moved, That the draft rules laid before the House on 24th March be approved [15th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Filkin.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Asylum (Designated States) Order 2003
7.40 p.m.
Lord Filkin Lord Filkin> rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 11th February be approved [11th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall start by reminding the House of the context of this debate. The recent publication of the asylum statistics for 2002 demonstrated to us all the scale of the challenge faced by Britain and the need for robust and radical measures to reduce the number of asylum claims. The Government, anticipating the nature of the problem, took a range of measures to grip it. They included the closure of the Sangatte camp through joint working with France; the significant extension and strengthening of our border controls so that they operate on French soil; the adoption of new benefits arrangements; the acceleration of decision-making, with 76 per cent of new substantive asylum applications received in the first half of last year

1115
decided within two months; enhanced contact management procedures and a steady increase in removals.
The House is well aware from our debates on the NIA Bill that there are too many unfounded asylum claims. In 2002, about two thirds of claims were refused outright at the initial decision stage, and only around 10 per cent qualified for asylum. A significant number of the rest were clearly unfounded, which is unacceptable. The process incurs a considerable amount of public expenditure. For an individual family receiving both accommodation and subsistence support, support costs alone are some £10,000 a year. The processing of very many unfounded claims diverts resources away from processing the claims of refugees. Furthermore, it destroys the credibility of the asylum system in the eyes of the public, the implications of which are of considerable concern to many noble Lords. For those reasons, it harms genuine refugees, who may be tainted by the public's perception of the system.
That is the difficult world context in which we must consider the non-suspensive appeal provisions in the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. As noble Lords who were all active in debating the Act will recollect, it contains two key elements for dealing with unfounded asylum or human rights claims. First, it provides for a clearly unfounded claim to be certified such that a person could appeal against the refusal of their claim only after they had left the United Kingdom. Secondly, it identifies 10 states from which the majority of claims were clearly unfounded.
We have taken what I hope noble Lords will agree is a sensible approach to implementing the new powers. We have devoted our energies to applying the NSA powers to claims from the 10 listed states—alone, initially—and assessed their effectiveness over a four-month period. They could have been applied more generally, but we thought it wise initially carefully to bed in the process, listening to noble Lords' concerns about the measures by applying them to the 10 listed states. Today we have several months' experience to draw upon and can thus assess how successful the new provisions have been. So far, all the evidence is that they have been highly successful.
We have applied several tests in assessing whether the provisions have worked. The first is that the number of claims from the 10 countries has declined quite dramatically. That is illustrative evidence that a high proportion of claimants in the country were trying it on to see whether they could use the asylum route to become economic migrants. For example, in September and October 2002, there were well over 250 claimants a month from the 10 listed countries. Although the figures are not final, around 40 claims were made in January. So there has been a considerable reduction—from well over 250 to about 40. The figures support the view that virtually all claims made by residents of those 10 countries are unfounded and that people stop applying when they know that their unfounded claims will be dealt with quickly.
The second question is whether the procedures are working well. A concern expressed in the House was whether we would have in place procedures that ensured high quality decision-making. So far the procedure has stood up to the test, and we are optimistic about it. All applicants have access to legal advice and have their claims properly considered, with an opportunity to provide any evidence they have to support their claim. All decisions are checked by at least two officers, both of whom have been specially trained on the non-suspensive appeal provisions. The fact that a person is resident in a listed country does not result in a presumption that their claim is clearly unfounded from the outset, nor should it.
Nor are such claims automatically certified. A decision on certification is taken only after the claim has been investigated on an individual, case-by-case basis and assessed objectively. As one would expect, the great majority of claims are certified because of the general safety of the countries from which applicants apply. But that is not a sufficient test in itself. The individual circumstances must also be considered. Over this period, only 2 to 3 per cent have not been certified. That proves the point both that the vast majority of cases were judged to be valid, non-suspensive ones. But they were not treated so universally—some were not so certified.
In the January case of ZL v VL, the Court of Appeal, headed by the Master of the Rolls, unanimously dismissed a challenge to a decision of the High Court not to grant permission for judicial review against a certificate. In doing so, the court dismissed claims that the procedures at Oakington were not up to the mark. It said:
"In our judgment there is no reason why the fast track procedure at Oakington should not afford adequate opportunity for asylum claimants to demonstrate, where this is the case, that they have, or may have an arguable case".
We have always said that the failsafe element of the NSA process is the opportunity for individuals to seek judicial review. So the third question is how are the procedures holding up to legal challenge. Only around 25 JR applications have been formally lodged since the process started, and none of those has yet been successful. To date 20 appeals from those who have left the country have been heard. Twelve have been decided, all of which have been dismissed. Again, the figures speak for themselves.
Finally, we are removing a significant majority of those whose claims have been rejected. We are not complacent about that. We have no hesitation in saying that the NSA process is working and the procedures have shown themselves to be fair.
Having spent four months monitoring the scheme and implementing it carefully, it is time to consider whether it should be extended to other states. A prerequisite of the Act for any country to be added is that it meets two tests. The Secretary of State must be satisfied, first, that there is in general in that state no serious risk of persecution of persons entitled to reside in that state or part, and, secondly, that removal to that state or part of persons entitled to reside there will not in general contravene the United Kingdom's obligations under the human rights convention.
In addition to applying the legal test, we have taken account of the statistical evidence at decision-making and appeal stages and of the number of applications received from those potential countries. We have also had regard to the intention to expand the non-suspensive appeal process in a measured way. We have not, therefore, felt obliged to include in the draft order every state that might meet the legal test. We have included only those where it seems that it did meet the test and where the numbers made it sensible to do so.
Bearing all those factors in mind, we decided that seven states should be included. They were selected on an individual basis following the assessment process that I described. They should not be seen as a group, except that they have met the test and there would be an apparent benefit in their being added to the list of non-suspensive cases. We are satisfied that in all those states there is in general no serious risk of persecution, and that removal to them would in general not breach the United Kingdom's ECHR obligations. We do not assert that the seven states are 100 per cent safe for all residents at all times. No state can claim to be 100 per cent safe. We never argued for that to be the case for the 10 EU accession states listed in the Bill. Indeed, the statute from which I read earlier does not even require that. It uses the term "in general" rather than "universally" the case. However, they are places where persecution and human rights breaches are rare, and, for those reasons, the further seven states merit inclusion on the list.
I must turn to an area of some embarrassment and offer an apology to the House in one respect. When we discussed the issues in the Bill, the impression was created by the Government that, although the 10 accession states were listed in the Bill, the Bill gave a power to add subsequent states. I need not go into the exact detail of what was said, but it is clear to me that the House was under the impression from what I said in this House and what my honourable friend Beverley Hughes, the Minister of State for Citizenship, Immigration and Community Cohesion, said in another place that we expected that, before adding further states, we would, as part of the process, be able to seek the advice of the advisory panel on country information.
We have, in a sense, been under the pressure of needing to move forward and address the scale of the problem that we face in trying to separate genuine asylum cases from economic migrants. My embarrassment is to find myself before the House at a time when, due to the pressure of circumstances, we have had to add seven more states to the list, although the advisory panel on country information is not yet up and running. I shall not labour the point, but the House will be aware of my embarrassment in that respect.
We are working systematically through the provisions of the Bill to implement all of them at the earliest opportunity. The House will know that over 70 per cent of the Bill's provisions will have been implemented by tomorrow, 1st April. However, when, in my preparation for the order, I became aware of the circumstances, I decided to bring to the House the best information that I could. I have discussed the issue with officials and with
1118
ministerial colleagues in the Home Office. We will press on with establishing the panel, and I can advise the House that, within the next month, we intend to write to organisations that we wish to see represented on the panel. As soon as nominations are in, we will take steps to appoint a chairperson from among the members.
The panel's first meeting could then take place as soon as possible thereafter, by the summer, taking account of the wishes and commitments of the chair and members. We intend to move forward vigorously on the matter, and the House will accept my apologies for not having had the panel in place—due to the pressure of work and the pressure of circumstances—before adding to the list.
The function of the panel will be to consider and make recommendations to the Secretary of State about the content of country information. For any states that we consider adding to the list after the panel's establishment, we will, as promised, invite comments from the panel about the country information on which we propose to make our decisions. That information, as is the case for all countries, will be in the public domain. In respect of the seven states that we propose to add by the order, the Secretary of State will have an ongoing obligation to keep under review whether they continue to meet the test set out in Section 94 of the Act for inclusion in that list. The country information for those states will, of course, be the crucial component that must be kept under review, and the views of the panel on the content of that information will be taken into account for those seven states as it will for other countries.
In view of the successful operation of the safe country procedures to date and the successful outcomes in the courts, we decided that it would be appropriate to take a measured step in adding to the list at this stage. I have said that the panel will be set up as soon as possible, and we will have regard to its comments on country information relating to the seven states or any future ones. I have already mentioned the procedural safeguards that apply to the consideration of claims from residents of listed states. The same procedures will, of course, be in place for the additions to the list. If a claim, after individual consideration, is held not to be clearly unfounded, it will not be certified. If a claim is held to be well founded, as some will be, leave to enter or remain will be granted.
The order is a sensible and measured step towards the increased use of non-suspensive appeals. I commend it to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 11th February be approved [11th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Eakin.)
Lord Dholakia Lord Dholakia rose to move, as an amendment to the above Motion, at end to insert "but this House regrets that the order has been introduced before the establishment of an Advisory Panel on Country Information under Section 142 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not underestimate the Minister's task of dealing with a large number of applications from asylum seekers. I am aware that the Minister is closely involved with our European partners in examining how a Europe-wide policy on asylum matters can be established. The Minister need not have apologised. He has always shared his concerns with your Lordships' House, and I appreciate that.
It is in everyone's interest that asylum applications should be dealt with speedily and that those who qualify to remain should be settled into the community without much delay. Equally, the primary task of such a speedy system is to ensure that fairness is not sacrificed to speed. I am aware that a fast-track pilot scheme was announced. It appeared on the Immigration and Nationality Directorate website. It would be helpful if adequate consultation with the relevant non-departmental bodies, such as the Refugee Legal Centre, could be established prior to the project, which, I understand, is to be implemented on 7th April. We need information about the detail of procedures and timescales for the initial decision-making process.
There ought to be public confidence in the system. If that exists and the system is fair and just, that will alleviate many of the problems associated with the delays. Public confidence will be shaped by the quality of service and a decision-making process that can distinguish genuine asylum seekers from economic migrants. We have already supported the Government's action on managed migration and matters relating to seasonal workers. Those of us on these Benches and on the Conservative Benches supported the establishment of an advisory panel on country information under Section 142 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. We were motivated by the fact that, in some cases, a wrong decision at this end could have serious conseuences for the applicant.
If an appeal is denied here, the next best option is to have up-to-date information about the country to which the applicant is to be deported. Why has it taken so long to proceed, when we have agencies such as Oxfam, the Save the Children Fund, Amnesty International and others at the coalface in those countries and have a wealth of information about what goes on there? The enlargement of the "white list" should go hand-in-hand with the work of the advisory panel.
I am delighted with the Minister's explanation of how such a panel would be set up shortly. However, I must explain what I regret about the order. The decision to extend the "white list" of 10 EU accession states in central and eastern Europe to include seven more countries will mean that applications from thousands more asylum seekers will officially be presumed to be unfounded. Ten states are listed in Section 94 and Section 115: Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, the Slovak Republic and the Republic of Slovenia. At the time of the passage of those sections, our criticism was
1120
deflected and, to some extent, we even accepted the explanation that those countries were EU applicant countries and met all the human rights requirements.
As Beverley Hughes stated on 5th November 2002, all those 10 countries are democracies. They have functioning criminal justice systems, a commitment to human rights and to targeting and eradicating elements of society that discriminate against minority groups. She also highlighted the fact that in those countries more than 90 per cent of those who appealed against a refusal to grant asylum had their appeals dismissed.
At a recent meeting in Luxembourg, as noble Lords will know, the Justice and Home Affairs Council adopted a declaration that member states should start from the presumption that any asylum application from a national of one of the 10 states was manifestly unfounded. That view is not universally shared. The order adds Albania, Bulgaria, Serbia and Montenegro, Jamaica, Macedonia and Romania. Can similar things be said about those seven countries as can be said about the existing "white list" countries?
According to the Guardian on 7th February 2003, Mr Blunkett intends to,
"build upon the success by adding a further 7 countries—all democracies with effective criminal justice systems, in which it is frankly not credible to suggest people routinely fear for their lives".
According to the same Guardian article, the parliamentary Joint Committee published a report a year ago contending that the United Nations did not accept that any one of the seven countries to be added to the "white list" could be declared safe. The UNHCR says that, in its experience, it is impossible to exclude, as a matter of law, the possibility that an individual could have a well founded fear of persecution in any country, however great that country's commitment to human rights and the rule of law.
Safe country lists are at odds with the fundamental premise of refugee protection that everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy asylum from persecution and to be given access to fair and efficient asylum procedures. The UNHCR argues that a safe country list must never be used to bar asylum seekers from entering the asylum procedure altogether.
What is the common factor that binds these countries together? On what basis have they been chosen? Who has decided that they carry no risk of serious persecution?
Moreover, it is important to question why the Government are adding to the white lists when Section 94 is not yet in force and Section 115 has only just come into force. I propose that it is necessary to establish whether the lists function effectively before they are extended. According to the Immigration Advisory Service, the effect of these measures on the numbers will be small. It argues that,
"the impact of adding these countries to the 'white list' is unlikely to be great … The figures for the last quarter of 2002 show that 270 Albanians, 565 Jamaicans and 380 Romanians claimed asylum. Moldova, Serbia and Montenegro (including Kosovo) were not even listed separately but came within the total for 'Europe Other' amounting to 65 or 'Other Former Yugoslavia'

1121
amounting to 30. On an annualized basis this is less than 5,000 individuals—some 5 per cent of applicants. The Minister should be asked how many asylum seekers came from Moldova, Serbia and Montenegro (including Kosovo). Is this worth the effort and expense to the taxpayers"?
We have many specific concerns about each of these countries as potential safe havens for asylum seekers. Organised crime is a major problem across some of the central and eastern European countries, such as Albania and Moldova, where there are high levels of violent crime associated with gang operations.
According to the US Department of State, police officers in Albania are largely untrained, ill paid and often unreliable—a fact that is regarded as a major hindrance to public order and internal security. There is widespread police corruption. There are credible accounts of judges being intimidated or bribed by powerful criminals. Albania is a major point of origin and transit in the trafficking of women and children.
Although the Albanian Government have an anti-trafficking strategy, the police force and judiciary are generally reluctant to view trafficking as a serious human rights violation. Indeed, the US Department of State has also reported that Albanian police are frequently involved, directly or indirectly, in the trafficking of women for prostitution. This is a huge concern for the organisation Women Against Rape which works with individuals who have suffered physical abuse due to their ethnic origins.
The Immigration Advisory Service is concerned that the police may fail to offer sufficient protection for those who are targeted by criminal gangs. The case, Albert Shperdheja v The Secretary of State for the Home Department, UKIAT03127, is a clear example that it was held that,
"the authorities in Albania will not be able to offer this particular Appellant the protection that he needs in the lights of their unreliability, ineptitude and widespread corruption".
Although there is no evidence of the systematic abuse of human rights as a matter of state policy, Albania faces a number of human right challenges. According to the FCO these are exacerbated by institutional weakness, endemic corruption and poorly developed democratic and civic culture. It argues that the implementation of human rights legislation has been flawed and that Government attention has been diverted by a series of political and economic crises.
Similar problems exist in several of the other seven countries to be added to the white list. In Jamaica, the Immigration Advisory Service remains concerned about police brutality and impunity, arbitrary arrests and detention, an over-burdened judiciary, poor prison conditions, violence and discrimination against women and homosexuals, cases of social discrimination against persons with disability and members of the Rastafarian religion.
Furthermore, Jamaica is reported to have one of the highest crime and murder rates in the world. It has a history of violence by gangs and rival political parties. Statistics show that more than 920 people were murdered in 2002 due to rising levels of crime and violence. This problem is exacerbated by the negative
1122
influence that the police have on the community. They are not seen to be committed to their responsibility to provide protection to the public.
In addition to these widespread problems, there is concern about the welfare of specific communities who are targeted and discriminated against in these countries. Ethnic minority groups, such as Roma and Egyptians, are targeted in Albania, Serbia and Montenegro. UNHCR reports from January 2003 state that these groups in particular should,
"continue to benefit from international protection in countries of asylum".
In this vein, the Immigration Advisory Service has grave reservations about the IND failing to take UNHCR's opinion into account with regard to these groups.
As a further example, I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that the legal status and protection on the ground in Kosovo remain unstable. On one hand, ethnic Albanians continue to call for independence and have complained that UNMIK is taking too long to hand over authority. On the other hand, the Serbian President wrote to NATO and the Security Council requesting permission for Serbian police and military forces to return to Kosovo. According to the BBC, Kosovo was supposed to get 4,700 international police to establish law and order, but as of February 2002 there were fewer than 2,400 police. K-FOR is therefore involved in policing, which indicates that there is serious doubt as to whether protection will ever be made available to ethnic minority groups.
Adequate protection is not available in Kosovo for the groups of people mentioned above. Adding them to the Section 115 white list could put individuals at serious risk of a return to persecution and treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Human Rights Act.
A further point of concern is procedural. I should like to draw attention to the fast-track Oakington reception centre near Cambridge, where the asylum seekers will be sent first and where applications will be assessed within 10 days. On 7th February 2003, the Guardian reported that it is here that those who cannot,
"rebut the presumption that their asylum or human rights claim is clearly unfounded"
will be rejected.
It is important to underscore that this announcement comes shortly after the disclosure that the £4.5 million Oakington centre is so underused that on one day in January only 32 of its 250 places were in use. Is this an attempt by the Government to find an appropriate use for the centre?
I should like to highlight that the Government promised that they would create an independent advisory panel on country-specific information. Now that we have that information, it is to be hoped that they will continue to make and influence the decision-making process in relation to individual applicants. Beverley Hughes has vaguely stipulated that the Government expect to establish an advisory panel on country

1123
information "in the coming months" and I am delighted that the Minister is going to invite the appropriate people with qualifications to comment.
We have always been against the concept of a white list and, as we recall, even the Labour Party was against one when it was in opposition. We continue to believe that each case should be judged according to its own merits and should consider the particular facts of each individual case. That will not undermine the quality of decision-making, especially when one takes into account the quality of information available to the Home Office with regard to a specific country, in particular since situations in a country abroad can change quickly.
It was not my intention in any way to try to hinder the process that the Minister is trying to establish under the order. I want simply to show my regret that so many other factors need to be taken into account when adding to the list. I beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to the above Motion, at the end insert "but this House regrets that the order has been introduced before the establishment of an Advisory Panel on Country Information under Section 142 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.— (Lord Dholakia.)
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, as was made clear by my honourable friend Mr Humfrey Malins in another place, we are generally in support of the order. However, we must not lose sight of the fact that the original 10 countries in the list are all applicants for accession to the European Union. The other list which we are considering today comprises a much more disparate lot. As both my honourable friend Mr Malins and Mr Simon Hughes from the Liberal Democrat Benches made clear in another place, there have been a number of instances of abuse in the countries, many of them carefully documented by Amnesty International, which give rise to real concern.
The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, has given a vivid description of the problems facing many of them, in particular Albania. I would add only that there is considerable evidence of police brutality in Romania and Bulgaria and of police indifference to the plight of homosexuals in Jamaica.
However, I welcome the Minister's detailed explanation of the process the Government have followed in assessing which countries are to be put on the list. We accept that. Nevertheless, there have been substantial objections from, among others, Amnesty International, the Law Society and the Immigration Advisory Service. I would like clarification from the Minister on one point. Does the scrutiny of the countries concerned extend to non-state persecution; for instance, a fear by an applicant that he or she might be attacked by a gang on return?
All this adds up to the fact that much will depend on the individual scrutiny of every case and the Minister has reassured us that that will apply. In the light of the serious abuses which have been cited in a number of the countries on the list, this is the only effective safeguard, at least until the establishment of the advisory panel on
1124
country information. That is a real concern which we share with the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. I echo his request for information on when that will be established.
Finally, perhaps I may point out that we are satisfied with the quality of the assessment teams which look at these cases. We therefore accept that the measure is necessary and with those reservations we support the order.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. Lord Dholakia, and the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, for their comments and questions on the order and I shall do my best to respond to them. I may not do so in the same order as they were raised and if I miss any points, I hope that noble Lords will accept a letter from me on the details. A great deal was raised and it merits a response, even if it does not come instantly from the Dispatch Box.
The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, asked about the fast-track pilot. It is intended to commence on 10th April and the aim is for about 90 asylum claimants a month to be fast-tracked from claim through to decision, and both tiers of appeal to removal, if unfounded, in about four weeks. The fast-track appeal procedure rules were laid on 20th March, allowing for a 21-day period before implementation through to 10th April. The aim is to test how quickly and yet properly we can make decisions and process appeals.
Officials from the IND and the Legal Services Commission are presently consulting legal representatives about providing legal advice for claimants before being put through the pilots. The pilot builds on the success of Oakington but goes slightly faster in building in a fast appeal procedure.
Perhaps I might digress for a second and contrast that, which is still trying to ensure that even what on the face of it appears manifestly unfounded cases still have a proper process, with what happens in a number of other member states. In some cases, when applicants come to a border, before they are taken across the border officials assess almost instantaneously whether they believe a person comes from country X or country Y. On learning the result, the person is then told to go away, not having been given the benefit of the care and consideration that we seek to offer even on a fast-track pilot process.
Perhaps I may weary the House with a few statistics which put into context the reasons why we have judged that these countries are ones with which in general— as the statute makes clear—it is reasonable to deal in this way, without prejudice to examining the merits of individual cases to see whether they should pass to a non-suspensive process.
I have not added up on a calculator the total number of applications from these seven countries in 2001 and 2002, but we are talking of roughly 6,500 to 7,000 applications in each of the past two calendar years. I need only give the figure of£10,000 per year subsistence costs, let alone the legal costs of processing those applications, to indicate why this matters. In 2002, around 7,000 decisions were reached. I shall set out the

1125
exact figures in a letter to the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, which I shall copy to the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman.
Of the 7,000 decisions relating to applicants from the relevant countries, only 270 were granted asylum on an initial decision. Adding the numbers that went to appeal—again, I shall set out the exact numbers in my letter—we are talking about a relatively small number of applicants. Four hundred or so were granted asylum on appeal. Thus, in total, around 600 or 700 applicants were granted asylum either on initial hearing or on appeal from the 7,000 that were originally admitted. That does not mean to say that no one from those countries should be granted asylum. All it signals is that a very substantial proportion of applicants, some 90 per cent. even when they have worked through the full suspensive process of appeals—I do not need to remind the House that a person can have at least two appeals, or three if judicial review is taken into consideration—is still found not to merit asylum.
I was asked whether a presumption will be created that claims from those seven countries must be unfounded. The answer to that is no. There is no presumption that claims will be clearly unfounded. I can assure the House that each case must and will be considered on its merits. Caseworkers have been specially trained to deal with the process and they will approach each application with an open mind. All cases are considered on their individual merits. If a particular case is not clearly unfounded, then it will not be certified and the applicant will be refused with a suspensive—that is, an in-country—appeal, or they will be granted asylum or leave to remain, if appropriate.
I hope also that I have been able to make clear the rather cautious process by which we are implementing the non-suspensive appeal. Here I mention again the specially trained caseworkers and the use of the skills gained at the Oakington centre. While not all cases are being dealt with at the centre—only those which merit going through it are dealt with there—I recall that in our debates on the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill, the centre was considered by all sides of the House to have a high reputation for the care and thoroughness with which it dealt with its cases. People were given proper legal advice and procedures carefully followed. Furthermore, caseworkers have been properly trained and thus the quality of their decisions was much higher than elsewhere.
I have been asked whether there is a common factor, such as whether the countries are all accession states; there is none. We have not pretended that a common factor exists and we see no reason why there should be one. If any common factor could be cited, it is that, first, in the opinion of the Home Secretary these states meet the two tests that I have indicated under the Act and, secondly, the evidence from the historic analysis that I have just set out for noble Lords indicates that it is worth while to consider in principle these countries for
1126
the use of the non-suspensive appeal. In other words, substantial numbers of people come in from those countries and claim asylum, but it appears that the vast majority do not merit it. That is the common factor.
A whole range of questions was put to me concerning whether in all of these countries, in all circumstances, people were safe. Although I could go through many briefing notes, I think the fundamental point to make is that we have not stated that the countries are safe in all respects, at all times, for all people. It would be wrong and foolish to do so. We are aware of certain areas of possible weakness, some of which were also signalled by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, in his remarks. It is the job of caseworkers to bear in mind those areas of potential weakness when they consider their decision as to whether to certify a non-suspensive appeal process. I would expect them to err on the side of caution where there is doubt.
The fact that there is a non-suspensive appeal does not mean that there is no appeal. It is perfectly possible for people, who have a lawyer as part of this process, to signal to the British lawyer that they wish to mount an appeal even though it has to be a non-suspensive appeal. People have done so and there are a number of cases where such appeals are going through.
As I have previously signalled, I do not believe that we have failed to take account of the UNHCR's view that it is impossible to say that a country is completely safe. As I said to him last week, I believe that Ruud Lubbers is giving excellent leadership in trying to ensure that not only European Union member states but other countries are better organised to deal with their responsibilities under the Geneva Convention 1951 while recognising that there is substantial abuse in the system. That is the challenge that we as a government face. That is why we wish to work closely with him in the future.
The fact that a country is on the list does not replace individual considerations. For example, in Albania, if a case is considered not to be clearly unfounded it will not be certified. I shall not go into more detail on that as it would weary the House. I shall respond by letter to some of the more specific points that have been raised.
As to Oakington and its occupancy, we feel that recently we have been rather harshly treated by the press on this issue. Let me give our explanation. The low level of occupancy at Oakington in January was a result of the success of the non-suspensive appeal implementation strategy for the 10 EU accession states. To focus on the quality decisions and to maximise the resources focused upon the new NSA processes, we restricted the use of Oakington temporarily from 7th November onwards. In other words, we wanted Oakington to be available to use its specialised skills, processes, accommodation and facilities to bed-in the NSA processes from 7th November through to mid-January 2003 for the 10 country claimants. The level of claims dropped so dramatically so quickly that it led to a situation where we were being blamed for our own success. It is harsh

1127
being in government at times, but that is the reality. Once we were satisfied that the numbers had dropped and that the process worked, we started carefully to build-up the throughput of Oakington's other cases.
The noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, asked whether the protection extends to non-state persecution. The answer to that is, categorically, yes. If a case is made that a person is at risk of significant non-state persecution, he or she can get protection. It is not only state persecution that applies.
I shall not weary the House by going into more detail. I hope that noble Lords are aware of the care with which we are implementing the non-suspensive appeal process. We shall bear in mind the point made about whether there is a risk in some countries and be prudential in our approach. I shall not embarrass the House again by expressing my regrets about the advisory committee. We shall make vigorous progress in the timetable I have indicated. I hope that the House will recognise that we are approaching these matters with prudence while, at the same time, recognising that we face a serious challenge. This is a part of the process of meeting that challenge.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I thank the Minister. I apologise for the length of my contribution to the debate. From time to time, the Minister and I may disagree, but that can never detract from his openness and honesty when dealing with this subject. I am satisfied by what he has said and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.30 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The sitting was suspended from 8.24 to 8.30 p.m.]

Sexual Offences Bill [H.L.]
House again in Committee on Clause 1.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 1, line 18, leave out "Section 78 applies" and insert "Sections (Presumptions about the absence of belief in consent) and (Conclusive presumptions about consent) apply"
The noble and learned Lord said: We now turn to Clause 78. I have been extremely grateful for the discussions I have had with a number of noble Lords inside the House and members of the judiciary outside the House in considering Clause 78. I shall start by explaining why we included these provisions in the Bill.
In its consultation paper Setting the Boundaries, the independent review body proposed that there should be a statutory list of circumstances in which it could be conclusively presumed by the jury that the complainant
1128
did not consent to sexual activity. The aim was to clarify existing case law and to incorporate it into statute, thereby allowing Parliament to give a clear indication to the courts and society at large about the circumstances in which sexual activity will not be condoned and in which there can be no doubt that a jury will pass a guilty verdict in relation to any defendant who is proved to have committed the relevant act.
We support the general intention of the review body and agree that making a clear statement in the legislation about the circumstances in which sexual activity is not acceptable will provide juries with a clear framework within which to make fair and just decisions. It would also serve as a clear statement to the public more widely. This should redress the balance in favour of victims. We hope that this will encourage victims to place their faith in the criminal justice system and to bring more cases to trial.
However, we were not satisfied that the circumstances proposed by the review body were all ones in which it could be safely and conclusively assumed that consent was not present. Notwithstanding existing case law, we believe that, in the interests of justice to the defendant, a conclusive presumption of guilt should be allowed only in very narrowly defined circumstances in which it is impossible to conceive that the complainant could have consented to the alleged sexual activity.
In our view, there are only two circumstances in which it can be conclusively presumed that consent was not present—namely, where the prosecution is able to prove that the defendant practised deception about the nature or purpose of the sexual act or where the defendant impersonated someone known personally to the complainant in order to obtain consent. In such cases, there can be no doubt in anyone's mind that the activity was non-consensual.
In addition, where someone claims that he believed the complainant was consenting solely on the basis of what he was told by a third party, we are of the firm view that he should be conclusively presumed to have acted unreasonably. Assuming that the prosecution proved that the complainant did not consent, the defendant will be found guilty.
Beyond this, other circumstances suggested by the review body may give rise to serious doubts about the ability of the complainant to exercise a free choice. However, in those cases, we believe that the defendant should still be given the opportunity to rebut any presumptions made against him. Where, for example, someone engages in sexual activity with their kidnapper while being held hostage for a ransom, empirical evidence suggests that we cannot rule out the possibility, however remote, that the sexual activity might be truly consensual. The kidnapper would still be guilty of abduction but not of the sex offence if he could establish that he truly believed the complainant consented and that it was reasonable in the circumstances so to believe.
By way of further example, where a person is physically disabled and his normal means of communication is by means of sign language that only a trained person could understand, this does not rule out

1129
the possibility that the disabled person may have communicated his consent at another time using an intermediary.
In light of these concerns, should we limit ourselves to listing in statute the two sets of circumstances in which it should be conclusively presumed that consent is not present and that all other cases should be left to the prosecution and defence to argue as they do now, without making any statutory changes to that process? We think not. That would ignore all the evidence that indicates that victims currently do not have faith in the court process and that the attrition rate in rape and other sexual abuse cases is too high. We discussed that before the supper break. We need to take steps to raise the public perception of the ability of our courts to deliver justice.
We think, therefore, that we should incorporate in statute rebuttable presumptions where the prosecution proves that one of the circumstances in Clause 78(3) existed, that the defendant knew this and that the complainant did not consent. This will make it crystal clear that the burden lies on the defendant to prove that he believed that the complainant was consenting. This clearly shifts the balance in favour of the complainant, although only if the circumstances and the victim's lack of consent are established. It is fully intended to do so, because the case has been moved out of the arena of balancing "he said" against "she said" by the strength of the evidence produced by the prosecution.
A clear signal is then sent to everyone about the circumstances in which sexual activity will be presumed to be non-consensual, and anyone who decides to engage in sexual activity in one of those defined circumstances cannot fail to be aware of the obligation upon him to make sure that his sexual partner does, in fact, consent. Where there is any doubt, he should desist. We believe that there is a great deal to be gained from having guidelines approved by Parliament and enshrined in statute.
However, since publication of the Bill, our proposals have been criticised by judges and other legal practitioners as being overly complicated and that there would be a risk of juries acquitting defendants not on the facts of the case but because they do not understand the direction they have been given or how to assess the evidence.
There would also be a risk in cases where a jury convicts the defendant that the complicated nature of these provisions is likely to lead to appeals in respect of whether the directions to the jury were either accurate or appropriate.
We have listened to these criticisms and discussed them in particular with the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. However, we did not restrict our discussions but discussed the matter widely. We have also spoken to members of the senior judiciary. We have come to the conclusion that Clause 78 could and should be simplified, while retaining our policy objective of making clear in statute that where sexual
1130
activity is shown to have taken place in certain specified circumstances it will be presumed that consent was not given.
As the clause was drafted in the introductory print of the Bill, there were two rebuttable presumptions: an evidential one in relation to lack of consent and a legal or persuasive burden in relation to belief in consent. We are, in tabling government Amendments Nos. 380, 381, 382, 383, 384, 385 and 387, dropping from the clause the weaker evidential burden in relation to lack of consent. This burden was always going to be relatively easy for the defendant to rebut as all he would need to do would be to go into the witness box and say that the complainant seemed to be consenting.
We are, however, retaining the stronger, and more effective, persuasive burden in relation to belief in consent. So if the prosecution proves the existence of one of the circumstances in subsection (3), that the defendant knew of the circumstances and that the complainant did not consent, the defendant will be taken not to have believed that the complainant consented unless he is able to prove that he did believe that the victim consented. This places a persuasive burden on the defendant in relation to belief in consent. He will need to persuade the jury, on the balance of probabilities, that, notwithstanding the existence of any of the circumstances in subsection (3)—for example, that the victim was subjected to violence immediately before the act—he nevertheless believed that the complainant consented.
We have also separated off into their own clause the conclusive presumptions on consent in subsections (5) to (8) of the clause as it stands in the introductory print. That is done by Amendment No. 398.
Our purpose is to simplify the existing clause and to signal the difference between the two types of presumption. We are making no changes to the provisions relating to conclusive presumptions. Amendments Nos. 7, 18, 29, 41 and 399 are purely consequential textual amendments resulting from the change.
While the conclusive presumptions have also been criticised, it is important that they stay in the Bill. The list of circumstances at Clause 78(8) relates to situations in which it is to be conclusively presumed both that the complainant did not consent to the relevant act and that the defendant did not believe that the complainant consented to the relevant act.
The first of these circumstances in subsection (8)(a) relates to occasions on which the defendant intentionally deceives the complainant as to the nature and purpose of the relevant act. For example, it applies when a doctor digitally penetrates the patient, telling her it is necessary for medical reasons when in fact it is for his own sexual gratification. That is taken from a precedent that has been firmly established by case law. We are not proposing any changes to the existing law. We are only making it clear in statute. We are trying to bring the law on sexual offences in one place.
The second of these circumstances is based on Section 1(3) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956, which provides that a man who induces a married woman to

1131
have sex with him by impersonating her husband commits rape. We have changed that so that it applies to impersonating any person known personally to the complainant. Again, we are simply putting the existing law in one place.
Subsection (5) contains a different kind of presumption. When the prosecution is able to prove that the defendant did the relevant act and that the complainant did not consent to it, and the only evidence adduced by the defendant about the circumstances that led him to believe that the complainant consented relates to something said or done by a third party, the defendant will conclusively be presumed not to have met the requirements of the reasonableness test. It is the personal responsibility of the defendant to ensure that the complainant has given consent to the relevant act, and the provisions in subsection (5) make it clear that a defendant cannot rely on a third party to discharge that responsibility for him. Thus, for example, it will not be sufficient for a defendant to claim that he believed that the complainant consented because a friend told him that the complainant wanted to have sex with the defendant and that he should ignore any protests by the complainant because she would be pretending to resist.
Amendments Nos. 394 and 395 are minor drafting amendments. The effect of subsection (3)(a) and (b) is that where there is violence or a threat of violence immediately before the relevant act, Clause 78 applies. Subsection (4) extends that so that when there is a series of sexual acts, Clause 78 applies where the violence or threat took place immediately before the first of those acts. Amendments Nos. 394 and 395 change subsection (4) so that instead of referring to the time "when" the relevant act began, it refers to the time "immediately before" the relevant act began, thus more closely reflecting the wording in subsection (3).
We believe that Clause 78 as amended by these amendments achieves the policy intention stated in Setting the Boundaries, listing those circumstances where consent will be presumed absent or most likely to be absent in a workable way. It is both simple and clear. I appreciate that amendments have been tabled in relation to the particular circumstances that should be covered in our list of rebuttable presumptions. They have been grouped for debate at a later date and, with the leave of Members of the Committee, I will defer discussion on what is in Clause 78(3) until those points have been made. I beg to move.
Baroness Noakes: I thank the Minister for introducing the amendments in this group and for his helpful letter of explanation, sent when he tabled the amendments—especially for the text of the redrafted Clauses 78 and 79. That made our lives a little easier.
I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 17, 28, 40, 379, 385, 386, 396 and 397, as well as to clause stand part. I shall attempt so far as possible to take into account the impact of the Minister's amendments and avoid overlap.
It is probably easiest if I start with Amendment No. 385. In that case, the Government have agreed with our amendment. Subsection (2) of Clause 78 was
1132
deemed unworkable by very many people. I am glad that the Government have withdrawn that aspect of Clause 78. As the Minister explained, the meat of Clause 78 will now be found in two places: subsections (1) and (3) as redrafted in one new clause. My Amendments Nos. 379 and 386 propose the deletion of subsections (1) and (3). Hence, some of the issues that caused me to table those amendments remain after the redraft that the Minister has just explained.
I deal first with the shifting burden of proof for the defendant which was formerly in Clause 78(1)(b) but remains in the redrafted Clause 78. We welcome the abandonment of Clause 78(1)(a) and its confusing presumption of lack of consent. However, Clause 78(1)(b) as it remains, with its presumption of lack of belief in consent, raises issues of fairness in the shifting of the burden of proof to the defendant. The Criminal Bar Association has pointed out that if the circumstances set out in what is currently Clause 78(3) are established, there will already be a heavy evidential burden on the defendant with regard to the mental element, especially since the objective reasonableness test in Clause 1(3) applies. The association believes that the shifting burden of proof will be an unnecessary complication for trial judges and juries and will not increase conviction rates. I look to the Minister to comment in particular on the workability of the redrafted part of Clause 78. Workability, as I said in connection with other groups of amendments, is a key issue for these Benches.
Clause 78(3) survives unscathed in the Government's redraft. My Amendment No. 386 proposes the deletion of the clause, but that is on a probing basis. In the report Setting the Boundaries, the recommendation was that the law should set out a non-exhaustive list of circumstances where consent would not be present. However, it would be left to the court to consider the specific circumstances. In several respects, the Government's rebuttal presumptions do not go as far as suggested in the report. For example, the report suggested that the list should cover fear of serious detriment such as the loss of a job, and that does not find its way into Clause 78(3).
One of the problems with definitive lists such as that in subsection (3) is that other circumstances will be treated as of much less importance by reason of their exclusion from the definitive list. Indeed, in the Government's White Paper, Protecting the Public, they said:
"Including such a list … will … end a clear … signal a bout the circumstances in which sexual activity is likely to be wrong".
The problem is that an equally clear signal is sent that circumstances not on the list are not necessarily wrong. I shall listen carefully to what the Minister has to say about how flexibility in the law will be retained in this definitive list. Will he say, for example, how he sees items not on the list—for example, the fear of economic harm—interacting with the list as drafted?
Amendments Nos. 396 and 397 delete subsections (5) to (8) of Clause 78, the subsections which survive in the second redrafted clause. I have a problem with conclusive presumptions. Being black and white, they give no flexibility to cope with situations that are

1133
grey, and it is in the grey areas that we find the majority of human existence. I start with subsections (5) and (6), which result in conclusive presumptions about what reasonable persons would think or do where the only evidence put forward of a defendant's belief rests on something said or done by a third party.
My question to the Minister is why it was necessary to put these provisions in the Bill and why they are in the form of conclusive presumptions. Using the objective test of reasonableness in Clause 1(3), we have a test as to whether a reasonable person would doubt consent and then act in a sufficient way to resolve doubt. Do the Government believe that a jury faced with no evidence of consent other than second-hand evidence would conclude under Clause 1(3) that the defendant had thought and acted reasonably? I cannot think of a set of circumstances that would lead a jury to that conclusion.
Having introduced the objective test of reasonableness, the Government should stick to it, however. If they did not they would say that, judged objectively, someone may have reached a reasonable conclusion about consent and acted reasonably to resolve any doubt, but is still guilty because of the conclusive presumptions set out in Clause 78. What is implied is that the Government do not have complete confidence in the objective tests that they have drafted in Clause 1(3).
Clause 78(7) and (8) also involves conclusive presumptions about consent and belief in consent, as the Minister explained. It deals with very black and white circumstances. I completely see that, in the majority of cases, deceit such as that referred to will mean that consent does not exist as under the current law. Is the Minister convinced that there are no grey areas in which, for example, it is clear that consent would have been given despite the deceit?
I would feel more comfortable with those subsections if rebuttable rather than conclusive presumptions were set up. How can the Government be sure that no injustice could be done through the conclusive presumptions?
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I am listed among those opposing the Question whether Clause 78 stand part of the Bill. The whole clause is misconceived. It is not right in principle and it is totally impractical.
I shall deal with the question of principle first. Has the Minister received advice concerning the human rights aspects of the presumptions that he has made conclusive? No doubt advice has been received. But they are not compatible with Article 6(a). The Minister knows that; there is no need for me to go into a lengthy discussion of the convention. Conclusive presumptions are generally contrary to that convention.
On practicality, we are trying to arrive at something understandable and simple for a jury to follow. No one has suggested that any tribunal other than a jury should decide the issues in a rape trial. There are three issues: intentional penetration, lack of consent and lack of belief in consent. Why cannot a jury simply
1134
have those issues put in front of it for it to decide in regard to the particular individual and all the circumstances surrounding them? Why is it necessary to force its thinking in a particular channel?
If there is, for example, evidence of violence at the time of or immediately before the act, it may well be difficult for the jury to come to any conclusion other than that the defendant did not believe in consent. The fact that he used violence is a strong indicator that he did not believe in it. Similarly, with threats of violence either to the victim, her children or any other person, it would again be very difficult for the defendant not to give evidence. He would have to do so, to give an explanation of why that was not an indication of his state of belief at the time.
Again, in respect of the detention of the complainant at the time of the relevant act, I recall a case in which I was involved where a month's detention was alleged. However, a difficulty arose because the complainant had drawn her social security every week. Therefore, the suggestion that she was in prison was a little hard for her to carry through and the charge was dismissed.
However, if a person is detained unlawfully, as a matter of common sense the burden passes to the defendant to give an explanation and to say why he believed that the woman was consenting, even though she was, for example, tied up or in a locked room, or whatever form of unlawful detention may have been employed. We have already discussed the question of the complainant being asleep or unconscious. That is a difficult area, as we have already found out. As for communication of consent, again the defendant has something to explain.
Therefore, it seems to me that the clause seeks to follow the natural thought processes that a jury will have but it will force it into particular channels. The noble and learned Lord knows that I made an attempt to draft what I called a "route to verdict" in relation to this clause, based on the type of routes to verdict that we customarily receive in serious crime cases. What emerged at the end—I appreciate that that was before the amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord—was a completely unworkable mishmash. It involved the judge having to direct the jury that it had to be sure in respect of the basic facts. Then the burden shifted over to the defendant—it was a balance of probability—and then back to the prosecution, who had finally to make the jury sure.
As I believe I have demonstrated, when all that is put together, the members of a jury will be totally confused. If they are confused, they are likely to come to the wrong decision. At the bottom of it all, as we have seen with this Government's approach to mandatory sentencing, the trouble is that there is a mistrust of the judge and the jury. Instead of allowing these centuries-old institutions—if I dare to refer to judges as a centuries-old institution, although I believe that your Lordships follow what I mean—of the judiciary and the juries to get on with their job and to perform their constitutional function in the proper way, the Government want to interfere and put them

1135
through a maze, channelling their thoughts in a direction which the Government hope will reach a guilty verdict. I have said it many times and I repeat it: I do not believe that this legislation will improve the conviction rate, and I oppose the clause in its entirety.
9 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Having tabled many of the amendments and having supported those that I have not tabled, at this hour of the night I wish to take up very little time. First, I wholly agree with the criticisms made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, about the hopeless muddle and the sort of labyrinthine maze without a single silken thread to intelligibility. How will a jury find its way? I express it in a rather short and classical way: I agree with the speech that the noble Lord made—and a very good speech it was.
I have spoken to the subject of Clause 78 and Amendments Nos. 7, 18, 29 and 41. Indeed, I have given notice of my intention to oppose the Question that Clauses 78 and 79 stand part of the Bill. At this stage I need say no more than that. However, a gremlin has crept in. If one looks at the sequence of the Bill, one sees that my Amendment No. 11 to create a specific offence appears before Clause 3. It has been relegated out of order. I make no complaint. It is wonderful how much order has been achieved. However, by leave of the Committee—there are not many Members present—I shall speak to that now and make three points because in moving Amendment No. 2 I said that I would do so.
First, as regards the specific offence in Amendment No. 11, is the current law so inadequate that it is requisite? It is a serious assault. It may or may not cause serious bodily harm. I would ask those who practise in this branch of the law now—it must be 50 years since I last practised in this branch of law on the western circuit, so I defer to noble Lords who may know a little more about it today—whether the law is so inadequate that we have to have a specific offence. Is it because there is a disparity between the occasioning of actual bodily harm and not occasioning it?
Secondly, will the defence of "honest mistake", as I shall put it, still run?
Thirdly—these are not questions to be discussed at length at this hour—is it a lesser offence than rape, as the noble Baroness and I believe to be true, for the reasons that she gave so eloquently? If it is should it have a sentence of, say, 10 years or 12 years, but certainly not a maximum sentence of life imprisonment?
In a sense, Amendment No. 11 is a probing amendment. I do not know what the answer of your Lordships will be. I am not competent with my present knowledge to know what it should be. In due course, when this matter comes back on Report, I shall seek your Lordships' assistance, and, I hope, the assistance of my own Front Bench.
1136
The other amendments I shall speak to are: in Clause 3 Amendments Nos. 13, 14 and 17; in Clause 5. Amendments Nos. 23, 25, and 28; and in Clause 7, Amendments Nos. 35, 37 and 40. I mention those because they represent the structure of the amendments which I moved to Clause 1 carried into the Bill in these clauses.
Each clause has a slightly different connotation. The new offence is placed before Clause 3 because that is where the specific offences are. The first specific offence is assault by penetration. One notices that there is no problem about oral sex there. Again one gets the difficulty of Section 78 or subsection (3) applying. It is the same structure. So I have struck at that. That seems fair enough. I have not dealt with the sentence of life imprisonment because I did not feel competent to do so. It might not be appropriate, but I do not know.
Clause 5 deals with the sexual assault of touching and so on. I take the view that a term of imprisonment of 10 years on conviction on indictment reflects a lesser offence, but whether it is the right term I do not know. I am against an offence of this nature being tried on summary conviction. It is too serious. Certainly, something has gone wrong somewhere. One does not usually have an offence with a 10 years' maximum sentence tried by magistrates.
Clause 7 deals with a very nasty and serious offence. I referred to it elliptically when I was dealing with Amendment No. 1. It is causing a person to engage in sexual activity. My Amendment No. 35 would remove the words "or (3)" in subsection (1)(d). In Clause 7(3) the "reasonable person" applies. However serious an offence—even the ultimate offence of rape— it cannot be tried in this abstract way, which is devoid of the actual intend of the accused.
There again is the problem of the imprisonment, which is,
"on conviction on indictment … not exceeding 10 years".
That does not seem to be unreasonable. My Amendments Nos. 42 and 43 would delete Clause 7(5)(b) and (d). Oral penetration is of lesser gravity. These are all matters for discussion when those amendments are moved. However, as they were grouped together and stood in my name, I felt that I should deal with them and state my position, which is that on Report I intend to move Amendments Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 6. I have not yet decided what to do about the others because we have not yet discussed them.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: Since the noble Lord has spoken to his Amendment No. 11, as I understand it, I should explain why I did not lend my name to it.
I do not support Amendment No. 11 for two reasons, as I explained earlier. First, I do not accept the drafting—the amendment would be much better contained not as a separate clause but as a new subsection (1) to Clause 3. Secondly. I do not accept the suggested maximum sentence of 10 years. Although forcible sexual penetration of the mouth is, as I explained, in my view less serious than rape, it is

1137
nevertheless sufficiently serious to justify a life sentence. That is why I should include it in Clause 3, not as a separate clause.
Baroness Mallalieu: I am grateful that my noble and learned friend the Minister recognised so early in the Bill's passage the defects in the original Clause 78. Although I do not like to carp and should like to welcome what he has done, I am bound to say that I still have grave concerns about his alternative proposal.
Before we broke for the dinner adjournment, when the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, suggested that "a reasonable man" should be further defined and his characteristics set out in the Bill, my noble and learned friend replied that those matters could be left to a jury, who were well able to consider the circumstances and reach a conclusion. There has been a change during the past hour, because now we are told that the jury need a framework. The framework placed before us is very tightly drafted.
As has been said, human behaviour does not fit neatly into categories. One thing that one learns from experience in the courts and elsewhere—in life itself— is that in human relationships, one must expect the unexpected. If the categories are to be drawn as tightly as at present, there will inevitably be unforeseen circumstances that may lead to injustice.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, I am especially concerned about the shifting burden of proof. As we have heard, sexual cases are often difficult to prove because they involve one word against another with no independent or supporting evidence. I add to that that many of them now come before the courts not just many months but many years after the events are supposed to have happened. That makes it difficult to prove and establish the facts. In such circumstances, where we are dealing with a serious offence that carries a life sentence, it is wholly wrong to pass that evidential burden and those difficulties onto the defendant.
As I understood my noble and learned friend, he said that his purpose through the clauses was to raise public perception that the law can deliver convictions in such cases and, if I paraphrase him correctly—as I hope that I do—to send a signal about what sexual behaviour is and is not acceptable. In reality, all the categories that he described in the new clauses are circumstances in which a jury is, one would have thought, almost certain to conclude that the defendant was well aware that the complainant did not consent. In other words, they are precisely the sort of cases in which a conviction is likely in any event.
We are therefore once again producing what is in effect a public relations exercise, but is unlikely to lead to an increase in conviction rates. Indeed, for the reasons just given, it is likely to lead to difficulty and confusion because we are importing difficulties with the shifting burden of proof. It is all very well for us to say that it is easy for a jury to be told by a judge that one thing must be proved by one side and another by the other. It is not so easy to apply those burdens
1138
correctly when a jury is also dealing with complicated and difficult decisions about facts—often based on remarkably little evidence.
So although I understand what my noble and learned friend is trying to achieve, and although we all want the public's confidence raised, I am concerned that the law must meet the needs of justice. I fear that the provisions, even as redrafted, are likely to have the opposite effect to that advanced by my noble and learned friend.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: As a non-legal onlooker, I am amazed. I referred earlier to trying to be a putative—to use the word of the noble Lord on the Liberal Democrat Benches—juror. In such cases, what does the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, believe causes a jury to fail to convict? Is it because the jurors are not well instructed by the judge in the case? Is it because they do not believe the evidence given to them? Or is it because they do not comprehend the concept of the reasonable person— whether the future reasonable person suggested in the Bill—or the reasonable cause with which we have lived until now?
Baroness Mallalieu: I have not come across offences in every category, but I have been involved in cases comprising some of them. In such circumstances, it has not been my experience that juries fail to convict. They already convict in such circumstances, but we are now trying to import difficulties that may make that unlikely in the future. I say that because we are prescribing very closely circumstances that may not fit the bill.
Lord Skelmersdale: In other words, the noble Baroness trusts the jury.
Baroness Mallalieu: I certainly do. In this particular circumstance, it seems wholly wrong to set out what my noble and learned friend wants to do in a tight framework. It is much more important for the jury to look at the issues; that is to say, whether she consented, and, whether the defendant believed that she was consenting at the time. In a sense, that is a distraction. It puts on him a burden to deal with matters that the jury can already deal with under those headings.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: The noble Lord will surely appreciate that over quite a number of years public confidence in the courts has been diminished, not because of what has happened in the courts, but because of statements by successive Home Secretaries and politicians seeking votes and utilising their public prejudices in that way. It is far better for the Government to try to imbue in the public confidence in the judiciary and in juries rather than confidence in the drafters of this piece of paper. Those of us who have

1139
read it, and who know that it is clearly put forward by people with no practical experience, have no confidence in it at all.
Lord Skelmersdale: None the less, am I being naïve in suggesting that the piece of paper to which the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, refers—namely, this Bill—is the basis of the direction of the judge?
Lord Thomas of Gresford: It is not at the moment. It is left to the good sense of the jury to come to the proper conclusion. That is how it should be; it is where the trust should lie. The Bill says that we do not trust the jury to think rationally and reasonably. We have a democratic institution of 12 people taken from the community with no axe to grind and various points of view coming together to focus on the specific issue. They carry no baggage about the issue and are not case hardened. They look at the issue and decide what is just. A jury will not necessarily come to the same conclusion as a lawyer would reach. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, would approve of the proposition that, in this field, lawyers' decisions may not be as good as those of a democratic institution— juries. I always have at the forefront of my mind the fact that the first things to go in any totalitarian regime are juries.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My noble friend Lord Skelmersdale misunderstands the fundamental issue that we have been discussing. I know that he has been present most of the time.
The fundamental issue is not whether the Bill, or paper, as he put it, would constitute, as he put it, the directions that the judge would give to the jury. The straight answer is that, if the Bill became law, it would—but only in the sense that the judge would have to direct the jury in law as to the meaning of Clause 78, to which we are all opposed because it would he unintelligible.
Lord Skelmersdale: I described myself as possibly being naïve; I am not that naïve.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: I apologise for not having heard what the Minister said in moving the amendment. The real question is the extent to which we are prepared to trust the jury to do its work. I have tried a number of rape cases, and I never found any difficulty in explaining the law to the juries. Nor did I ever disagree with the verdict reached.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My sympathies are with the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale. I may have misnoted it, but I think that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, said—I accept his analysis—that the three essential elements in a rape case were intentional penetration, lack of consent and lack of belief. The Committee must not hold either of us to that being universal, but that broadly summarises it.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, also said that, if the facts set out in Clause 78(3) were shown to be present, the burden passed, as a matter of
1140
common sense, to the defendant to show that he believed that the victim consented. That is precisely what this clause does.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I did not say that. I said that the defendant had to give evidence about it in such circumstances. He certainly has to explain why he holds the belief that he does, if such circumstances arise. That does not mean that he has the persuasive burden.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: One can understand why laymen might be confused. I have written down that, if the circumstances are present, the burden, as a matter of common sense, passes to the defendant. I accept that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, did not say that the burden, as a matter of common sense, passed to the defendant, but I understood that to be the thrust of what he said, and so did the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale.
Is that approach too complicated? A judge might say to the jury, "If you are satisfied that intentional penetration took place; if you are satisfied that the victim did not consent; and if you are satisfied that, immediately before the act of penetration took place, the victim was subjected, to the knowledge of the defendant, to threats of violence, it is for the defendant to satisfy you on the balance of probabilities that he believed that she consented". That is what the clause amounts to.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: It is not like that. The defendant must satisfy the jury that his conduct was such as would match the conduct—or characteristics, if you like—of a reasonable man. It is no good saying that he must do anything else: under Clause 78, he must do that. How can he do it without evidence?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: In the light a the amendments, the only effect of Clause 78 is that if the penetration without consent is established and one or other of the circumstances under Clause 78(3), the burden shifts to the defendant to establish, on the balance of probabilities, that he believed that the victim consented.
As much as one tries to make that complicated, it is not. I utterly and completely repudiate what the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, is saying; that this reflects an inability to trust the judges or the juries. It is far from it. We believe that the juries, properly instructed by a judge, are perfectly capable of understanding that question. I am supported in my approach by the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, described what we are doing as, in effect, reflecting common sense. As the noble Lord said, in the circumstances that I described, surely the defendant has something to explain. If he has something to explain, let us place the burden, on the balance of probabilities, upon him. It reflects a straightforward shifting of the burden to where it should be.

1141
The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, referred to workability. I explained how we think it should work. She must consider whether she thinks that that is workable. She said that it is a non-exhaustive list. But every single circumstance cannot be covered; we covered the main circumstances in relation to it.
As regards conclusive presumption, the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, said that there are "grey areas". She cannot envisage any circumstances in which relying only on third party consent could lead to the situation arising. Neither can we. If she can think of an example, obviously we shall consider the circumstances in relation to that.
Baroness Noakes: If neither I nor the noble and learned Lord can think of a situation, why do we need that part of the clause in the Bill?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: It leads to justice because it ensures that the right result is achieved. I indicated that Clause 78(7) and (8) reflect the existing law. The possibility referred to by the noble Baroness was that consent would have been given, had it been asked for, if there had not been a deceit. I cannot believe that the noble Baroness wishes a possible defence to arise in rape cases in which a defendant might say, "Although she did not consent, had I put it in a slightly different way she would have consented". I do not believe that that is a sensible amendment to the law.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, asked whether the Government have taken advice. Yes, indeed we have taken advice. We are advised that it is consistent with Article 6(a). I have so certified on the face of the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell, deals with a number of other points. As he telegraphed to us before supper, he was going to deal with his Amendment No. 11, which is about dealing with penetration of the mouth. We went through that issue in some detail earlier. The Government believe that it is right to treat penetration of the mouth as a form of rape. That is why that has been put in Clause 1.
The noble Lord's approach involved making it a separate offence. With respect to the noble Lord, while we carefully considered that approach, we concluded, particularly on the basis of the evidence received by Setting the Boundaries, that the right approach was to make it part of rape.
In the light of my remarks, I hope that the noble Baroness feels able to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: Perhaps I may start again on the question of the burden of proof. As the noble and learned Lord knows, there is an evidential burden and there is a persuasive burden. It may be that the evidence of the Crown will require, in practice, the defendant to get up and give an explanation. That can be put into a statute formally. The evidential burden is placed upon the defendant and he must give some evidence.
1142
But that is unnecessary. All that must happen is that sufficient circumstances arise for the defendant to be called upon to give an explanation. When he gives his explanation, the prosecution must disprove it. The burden of proof is on them to make the jury sure that his explanation is untrue. That is all I was saying.
The Bill raises shifting burdens of proof. If the jury are satisfied that there was intentional penetration, the second question is whether they are satisfied that the complainant did not consent. On a simple view, the judge would then say to the jury, which is provided for in Amendment No. 8, "Are you satisfied that he did not believe reasonably in her consent?". That is all.
Under this Bill, the judge has to say to the jury, "You've got over the first two hurdles. Let's come to the third point. If certain circumstances are proved so that you are sure about them, the burden shifts over to the defendant to prove that he did believe".
Let us take subsection (3)(a), for example. The judge would say to the jury, "Are you satisfied that any person was at the time of the relevant act using violence against the complainant or causing her to fear that immediate violence would be used against her? The prosecution has to prove that, members of the jury. Or if you are not satisfied about that, you might be satisfied under subsection (3)(b) that he was causing the complainant to fear violence. Are you sure about that? If you are sure about that, pause there for a moment. You've then got to consider this. It's for the defendant to satisfy you on a balance of probabilities. Now, hang on a minute, I've got to explain to you the difference between making you sure and satisfying you on the balance of probabilities. Has the defendant satisfied you on the balance of probabilities that he did believe that the complainant consented? If he has, well, he's not guilty. If he has not, you've then got to consider the matter as a whole. Finally—the burden of proof is on the prosecution—are you sure that all the ingredients of this offence are complete?".
In other words, a number of stages are added on to the simple framework that I am suggesting in Amendment No. 8; namely, the three simple ingredients. Those stages are: asking the jury to consider additional factors; telling them they have to be sure about them; explaining the transfer of the burden of proof; explaining what that burden of proof is; and then giving them final directions about it all. How this will lead to more convictions or fewer acquittals, I utterly fail to understand.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford Lord Thomas of Gresford moved Amendment No. 8:
Leave out Clause 1 and insert the following new Clause—"
SEXUAL VIOLATION
(1) A person (A) commits an offence if he does an act of sexual violation by rape or by unlawful connection.
(2) Sexual violation by rape is where A penetrates the vagina or anus of another person (B) with his penis—

(a) without the consent of B, and

(b) without a reasonably held belief that B consents to that penetration.

1143
(3) Sexual violation by unlawful connection is where a person (A) has sexual connection with another person (B)—

(a) without the consent of B, and

(b) without a reasonably held belief that B consents to that sexual connection.

(4) "Sexual connection" means—

(a) connection occasioned by the penetration of the genitalia or the anus of any person by—

(i) any part of the body of any other person, or

(ii) any object held or manipulated by any other person, otherwise than for bona fide medical purposes, or

(b) connection between the genitalia of any person and any part of the mouth or tongue of any other person.

(5) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction, to imprisonment for 7 years."
The noble Lord said: I have already given enough of an introduction to this, blazoned in the course of our discussions today. Let me try to explain the purpose of a number of aspects of the issue.
Amendments Nos. 8 and 10 must be taken together because, instead of the single charge of rape, I am suggesting in these two amendments that there should be two levels of what I have described as "sexual violation". Why do I do that? There are a number of practical reasons. The first is that, if you have a simple charge of sexual violation, there are fewer matters to be proved. Secondly, if a person is charged with aggravated sexual violation and the prosecution think it fit to accept a lesser charge, there is a considerable saving, in that the complainant is not required to give evidence.
Earlier today the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth of Breckland. and other noble Lords spoke of how traumatic it is for the complainant, the victim, to have to describe her experiences in court. That is a matter which is always in the forefront of the minds of those advising a defendant charged with rape. If there is any way of avoiding calling the complainant and thus not subjecting her to the stress and trauma of giving evidence, then that route should be taken. So the two stages of rape that I propose are the simple offence followed by the aggravated offence. I shall go through those in some detail.
I propose that the term "sexual violation" should be used rather than the word "rape". The label is important, as the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, pointed out this afternoon. It is my view, based on experience, that the word "rape" itself places a heavy burden on the jury when considering the verdict. Jurors know that the crime of rape carries a heavy sentence. In cases involving date-rape, acquaintance rape or marital rape, they know that if they find the defendant guilty the level of sentence will be four or five years' imprisonment and possibly considerably more.
If we were to adopt the New Zealand approach of describing the offence as sexual violation which can be committed in two ways, then something—I wonder what is the correct word, the stigma or the force—of the word "rape" would be removed from the consideration of the jury. It would be concerned with sexual violation
1144
either by rape or by unlawful connection. I have defined sexual violation by rape as penetration by A of the vagina or anus with the penis,
"(a) without the consent of B, and
(b) without a reasonably held belief that B consents to that penetration".
Let us pause for a moment. If the words "reasonably held belief" are used, then, first, it is possible to get rid of the Morgan defence of "unreasonably held belief and, secondly, it is possible to remove from the Bill altogether the provisions concerning the presumptions that we were discussing a moment ago and which we find so objectionable. So the words,
"without a reasonably held belief that B consents to that penetration"
provide a simple concept which can be explained to a jury. What it is important to note is that by using the phrase, A will not be compared with the hypothetical "reasonable person". Whether or not he shares those characteristics, the jury is asked to look at A; that is, to focus on the defendant. Did A believe that B consented? Did A believe that reasonably? Here the judge may say, "Members of the jury, the question of whether the belief was reasonable is a matter entirely for you. You can look at A, consider who he is and what is his background. You can consider what signals were given to him and what inquiries he may or may not have made. Then you can ask yourselves whether, in your view, the belief that A held in B's consent was reasonable. It is a matter for you".
That is what has been described in New Zealand as an "objective/subjective" approach. In other words, it introduces the concept of what is reasonable but does not compare the defendant with the hypothetical "reasonable person"; the jury look at a person in the context of the offence alleged against him.
So that is sexual violation by rape. Sexual violation by unlawful connection is framed in the same way. It is,
"where a person (A) has sexual connection with another person (B) … without the consent of B, and … without a reasonably held belief that B consents to that sexual connection".
Again, it is a simple matter on which to direct jurors and for them to understand.
"Sexual connection" does not relate merely to oral sex, although, as the Committee will see, that is covered in the proposed new Clause 1 (4)(b). New subsection (4)(a) includes the penetration of the genitalia or the anus by,
"any part of the body of any other person, or … any object held or manipulated by any other person, otherwise than for bona fide medical purposes".
So that expands the concept of penetration to objects and to parts of a person's body other than the penis. As I say, new subsection (4)(b) refers to oral sex.
For this unaggravated offence, I suggest a maximum sentence of imprisonment of seven years. Why seven years? Because, at the moment, simple rape carries a sentence of approximately five years. A maximum of up to seven years for simple rape without any aggravating features is consistent with the current level of sentencing.
Amendment No. 10 refers to circumstances which aggravate the simple offence into something more serious and which can carry a sentence of life imprisonment. Subsection (1) states:
"A person (A)commits an offence of aggravated sexual violation if he does an act of sexual violation by rape or by sexual connection"—
that refers back to the previous new provisions—
"in aggravated circumstances, and A knows that those circumstances existed"
The aggravated circumstances I have suggested are taken from Clause 78. These include the use of violence or the fear of violence; the complainant being unconscious, unlawfully detained or disabled by an incapacity to communicate; deception; impersonation or the complainant being under the age of 13. If any of those aggravated circumstances apply, the more serious offence is committed, carrying a sentence of life imprisonment.
I make no distinction between what I described earlier as "stranger rape" or "acquaintance rape" or "marital rape". The proposed clauses as drafted make no distinction. All that is necessary to bring in the more serious aggravated offence is that these aggravating circumstances exist. One can imagine, for example, that, in a case of stranger rape, violence or the fear of violence will be used. So immediately stranger rape will come into the heavier category.
Some of the other aspects will always apply in cases of stranger rape in one way or another—they may also apply in cases of acquaintance rape and marital rape—and will increase the sentencing power of the court up to life imprisonment. That means that in order to find someone guilty of aggravated sexual violation by rape the prosecution must prove penetration; that it was without the consent of the complainant; and that it was without A's reasonably held belief that the complainant was consenting. That is simple, understandable and easy to explain. There are no presumptions, no shifting burdens of proof, no hypothetical reasonable persons with or without the characteristics of the complainant. We can trust a jury to understand this and bring home a correct verdict in the appropriate case.
Amendment No. 19 would remove Clause 3. All that is required to deal with the sexual violation of a child under 13 is to have a new clause stating:
"For the purposes of sections 1 and 2—"
namely, sexual violation by rape or unlawful connection or aggravated sexual violation—
"(a) a child under the age of 13 is incapable of giving consent; and
"(b) the knowledge or belief of A as to that child's age is irrelevant".
Again, those are simple, easily understandable concepts which can lead to justice being done. In addition, I oppose Clause 4.
Amendment No. 22 deals with Clause 5 on sexual assault and would leave out subsection (1)(d) which provides that subsection (2) or (3) applies. Subsections (2), (3) and (4) deal with the reasonable person point and the Section 78 point that we discussed in relation
1146
to rape. All that would need to be proved for sexual assault is that A commits an offence if he intentionally touches another person, the touching is sexual, B does not consent to the touching, and, as Amendment No. 22 would specify:
"(d) A does not reasonably believe that B consents".
"Reasonably" implies an objective element but it still looks at the person and the circumstances and what could be expected to be his belief in those circumstances and having regard to who he is. Again, that would get rid of the Morgan defence but do it in an easily comprehensible and simplified way without all the difficult mechanisms contained in the Bill as drafted.
The same amendment would be made to Clause 7, which is about causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent. Amendment No. 34 would omit subsections (1)(d). Subsections (2), (3) and (4) contain the reasonable person test, the Section 78 presumptions and whether they are rebuttable or conclusive. The clause states that a person commits an offence if:
"(a) he intentionally causes another person (b) to engage in an activity,
(b) the activity is sexual,
(c) B does not consent to engaging in the activity".
Under Amendment No. 34, paragraph (d) would read:
"A does not reasonably believe that B consents".
If anybody thinks that we on these Benches are in any way trying to weaken the Government's thrust to get more convictions or whatever, they are entirely wrong. We are much more concerned to ensure that there are fewer acquittals when there should not be acquittals and fewer verdicts of guilty when there should not be verdicts of guilty. We believe that simplification and clarity will do that and not all these complicated mechanisms in the Bill which, as we have said from the beginning, have been drafted by people without practical experience of how the court works. I beg to move.
Baroness Walmsley: I support the group of amendments spoken to by my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford. They set out clearly a range of serious offences and label them in a way of which I believe the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, would approve and that would be understood by the general public at large. The amendments would give the courts the tools that they need to prosecute the guilty and give them an appropriate sentence.
I cannot compete with noble and learned Lords in your Lordships' House or with noble Lords who are also learned. I speak just as a woman who, like most women, has at some time feared that one day I could be raped, as can any woman. I considered the group of amendments we are discussing with those thoughts in mind. I believe that rape is rape. I also believe that if the person who is raped knows the rapist that is even worse as it constitutes an abuse of trust. I am satisfied that the set of offences so clearly described by my noble

1147
friend will ensure that those who are guilty of rape are more likely to be convicted and that they will avoid the possibility of erroneous convictions of the innocent.
The purpose of the group of amendments is not to propose anything that changes our belief that rape is rape, whether or not the victim knows the rapist. However, they lay down a clear framework of law which will give the courts the tools for which the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, has called and will achieve the objective of getting sound convictions of those who are genuinely guilty of rape. I believe that the amendments to which my noble friend has spoken will achieve that objective. That is why I support them.
I hope that members of victim support groups who have considered my noble friend's amendments carefully will agree that their purpose is clear and that they would achieve what we all want; that is, genuine convictions of genuine rapists and an avoidance of unsound convictions.
Lord Campbell-Savours: The more I listened to the debate on Second Reading and the more I listen to this debate, the more I am convinced that the whole Bill should have been subject to prior scrutiny. There are areas of the Bill which any reasonable person listening to the debate must recognise will lead to difficulties in the courts.
The proposals to which the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, has just spoken clearly provide for a much simpler arrangement which would be far more easily handled by juries, would be far more popular with the legal profession and in my view—I am not a lawyer—would undoubtedly lead to more convictions of people who are guilty and to the release of more people who are innocent.
The Government set up a working party which produced a report following a joint inquiry into the investigation and prosecution of cases involving allegations of rape. The report was produced jointly by the Crown Prosecution Service and Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary and was published in April last year. Why is it that in its 98 pages it never managed to address the issues we are discussing? The original remit made absolutely clear that it was to consider the high level of acquittal in rape cases. The remit is quite specific and states:
"It was against this background that Her Majesty's Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate and Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary were asked to hold a joint inspection, the aim of which was to analyse and assess the quality of the investigation and prosecution by the police and the crown prosecution service of allegations of rape, and to attempt to identify the causes of the decreasing conviction rate".
Its main findings dealt with training, inadequate incident centres, a lack of suitable FMEs and their retention, inconsistency in recording of data, poor investigation, a lack of presentation expertise, poor victim support services, a deficiency in court procedures, inadequacy in provision of information to victims and inadequate guidance to prosecutors.
1148
When it should have considered the question of the crime itself, it had absolutely nothing to say in all its 98 pages. Furthermore, in the Government's response, the Action plan to implement the recommendations of the HMCPSI/HMIC joint investigation into the investigation and prosecution of cases involving allegations of rape, we find no reference whatever to the question of the crime.
Why did those who were appointed to deal with those matters fail to address that absolutely central issue? I can only presume that it was because of political correctness. I am sorry to say it, but I see no other possible explanation. The project steering group had representatives from the Crown Prosecution Service, the medical profession, the Inspectorate of Constabulary, the Civil Service, policemen, the world of academia, assault and forensic centres and representatives of victims. However, there were no lawyers on the steering committee that conducted the inquiry, nor were there any representatives of juries. I do not know the name of the organisation that represents juries, but why were juries not represented? Why were they not asked why they believed that there was a high level of acquittal? I am sure that many of the arguments that we are having today would have surfaced, and would have been addressed in the course of the inquiry.
We are about to produce legislation that will not work because it has not been fully considered. Will the Government, even at this late stage, take on board all the comments made today by all the eminent members of the legal profession? They are supported outside by great numbers of people, who are watching our proceedings and saying that we are making fools of ourselves in the way in which we conduct our business on these matters. My noble and learned friend has clearly mastered the Bill and understands it in detail, but he must reassure the House. He must tell us why he believes that there will be an increase in the rate of convictions and a reduction in the rate of acquittals. We need absolute assurances that that will happen and be told in detail why he believes that it will happen.
In the joint report, there is an interesting section dealing with the review of cases. The recommendation from the joint committee suggests that prosecuters should,
"insert a standard paragraph in instructions to counsel, requesting a written report in any case involving an allegation of rape which results in an acquittal … Any written report is used to complete an adverse case report, setting out the factual and legal reasons for the acquittal … The adverse case report is used to discuss with the police any lessons to be learned".
In that recommendation, we may have the embryo of a report that might be used by Parliament in future in considering these matters. However, that is true only as long as those who draw up these comments and include them in these reports are prepared to talk about deficiencies in the law itself, particularly in relation to how juries treat rape. In a Question last November, the noble and learned Lord, Lord, Ackner, described cases of date rape in which juries would not be prepared to reach a verdict of rape.

1149
However, in their response, the Government accepted the recommendation of the joint committee. They said that the,
"CPS will draft a paragraph for instructions to counsel to reinforce the need for sufficient written information from counsel to inform the preparation of the adverse case report in such cases".
As a timeframe of January 2003 was also given, I presume that that recommendation has been implemented and that that advice is being given so that the reports can be produced. Will my noble and learned friend comment on that and tell us whether the reports might include information about deficiencies in the law and perhaps lead us down the route so ably advocated by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford?
10 p.m.
Baroness Noakes: I should like first to comment on the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, on pre-legislative scrutiny. We on these Benches, and I believe also those on the Liberal Democrat Benches, believe that that would have been an appropriate way to treat this Bill. As the noble Lord said, the further we proceed with this Committee, the more evident that fact will become. I tell the noble and learned Lord that it is not too late.
I turn to Amendment No. 8, which was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. I pay tribute to him for the extremely thoughtful way in which he approached this matter. He made an extremely impressive speech on Second Reading and we should be grateful to him now for his innovative approach. I am particularly attracted by the simplicity of that approach. I cannot tell him that we accept completely the nature of the amendment. I shall not presume to comment on the legal qualities of the new clause—that would be above my pay grade—but I should like to comment on a couple of aspects.
In particular, I think that we are concerned about creating a lesser offence of rape and sexual violation. We would find it difficult to support the introduction by the back door—or indeed the front door—of a date rape offence. We accept, as was found in Setting the Boundaries, that acquaintance rape is just as serious for the victim as stranger rape. It is therefore difficult to believe that the right approach would be to treat it as a lesser offence. If there were a lesser offence, a seven-year maximum sentence would also begin to seem particularly low.
As for the other major issue, we return to our old friend reasonableness. When I saw first Amendment No. 8, I was not clear whether it proposed an objective test or a subjective test. However, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, has explained that it is an objective/ subjective test. Every noble Lord asserts with great conviction that their particular version can be put to a jury. Those of us not accustomed to putting matters to a jury find it difficult to say whose version of how to present matters would be most easily understood and workable. I put that question mark over that aspect of the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Thomas.
1150
Although I shall take a little convincing, I commend him on giving us a more innovative way of considering how to structure the offence in a way that juries can easily understand. That is how we will ensure conviction of the right people and not acquittal of the wrong people.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: First, I want to say briefly that I agree with almost all the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours. I also pay tribute to the work that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, has put into his amendment. Of course I agree that we should all aim for simplicity, and the amendments certainly have that merit when compared with the Bill. However, they do not have any greater merit than the law as it stands.
The noble Lord and I agree that, for a person to be convicted of a crime, he must have a guilty mind. In the law as it stands, the guilty mind consists either of knowledge that the woman is not consenting, or recklessness—in other words, indifference to whether or not she is consenting. What exactly is the mens rea in the offences that the noble Lord now proposes? I have some difficulty in identifying that state of mind.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I shall deal first with the points made by my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours. In January 1999 the then Home Secretary set up a review. It took 14 or 15 months—that was quite right, because it consulted widely—and reported in April 2000. Setting the Boundaries was published and widespread consultation was sought in relation to it. In November 2002, a further document was published indicating the conclusions. The review has taken considerably over three years.
One will not reach a point when lawyers are not able to debate a better way to deal with matters. I do not think that the right course is not to proceed now with introducing a Bill. Indeed, if one did, there would be very considerable dismay from a large number of people, such as the noble Lord, Lord Rix, who have pressed for such a Bill for a considerable time. If one thought that one would get more agreement from the lawyers, it would be worth waiting, but I expect that one would not.
Lord Campbell-Savours: I do not want to pre-empt my noble and learned friend's speech, but have the ideas put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, been considered before? When the Bill was drawn up, were people in the department thinking on those lines and considering producing legislation of that nature? Have they conceived of the ideas previously?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: No one could have thought of the brilliance of the ideas of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. However, it is perfectly possible to produce such a structure. Five principles need to apply in constructing the provisions with which are dealing. The first is simplicity, and the second is the ability to be understood by the public. We agree with the noble Lord in relation to those two. The third is that the offence matches the level of

1151
criminality, a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. The fourth is that, in relation to those under 13, consent is presumed not to be present. The fifth is the objective element in relation to consent. The noble Lord agrees with the last two of those.
Do the noble Lord's amendments amount to a better proposal than ours? If they do, we shall certainly consider them. Our proposal divides the sexual offences into three—rape, assault by penetration, and sexual assault. The last of those covers offences not covered by the first and second. The noble Lord's amendments amalgamate the existing offence of rape with some of the more serious elements of the existing offence of indecent assault. In that way, the new sexual violation offences would cover non-consensual penetration of the vagina or anus with the penis or any other object, and also sexual assault by contact between the mouth of one person and the genitals of someone else.
I note the way in which oral penetration has been expanded in the noble Lord's amendments to cover non-penetrative activity such as cunnilingus. The maximum penalty for those offences would be seven years, unless the assault was aggravated by any of the factors listed in the proposed new Clause 2, including that the victim was a child under 13.
Therefore, the noble Lord's offence does not have the simplicity of our offences in relation to what is rape and what is not. The noble Lord has amalgamated the offence of sexual violation by rape with that of any other form of unlawful connection. That is the way that he defines it. Therefore, first, his offence does not have simplicity in relation to severity, and, secondly, so far as concerns understandability, terms such as "unlawful connection" are not everyday language. Everyone is familiar with the term "rape", and terms such as "penetration" are also easily understood.
I cannot see the merit of grouping together all these types of offending behaviour in this way as the result would be rather less clear; nor am I convinced that oral-genital touching is as serious as oral penetration, as would be the effect of Amendment No. 8, and that it should be brought within the same category as rape. Therefore, I do not believe that the scheme of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, is as good as the one proposed on grounds of either simplicity or understandability.
I was surprised by the intervention of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. Both she and the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, said—I thoroughly agree with this—that acquaintanceship rape or rape by someone whom you know, even though it may not involve violence, can be just as disturbing and traumatic as stranger rape. That is not reflected at all in the approach of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. If the offence is not carried out under "an aggravating circumstance", then seven years is the maximum sentence, even though it is an acquaintanceship rape and causes as much damage.
I have to agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. She will recall, as I do, that at Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, proposed that the right way to deal with the matter was
1152
for there to be a date rape offence—that is, an acquaintanceship rape offence—and another offence. I opposed that on the grounds that the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, put forward this evening. By reducing the offence in the unaggravated circumstances, that is precisely what the noble Lord seeks to do.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I said in terms that I make no distinction between date rape, stranger rape and marital rape. The offence comes within simple rape if it does not have aggravated circumstances. But if violence, fear or any of the other matters that l listed are used in a date rape, it is an aggravated offence carrying a life sentence. It is a misconception of my argument to say that Amendment No. 8 refers to date rape and that the others refer to something else. They are all treated equally. It is possible for a stranger rape not to involve aggravated circumstances. That is difficult to envisage because normally fear is involved, but it is possible. Certainly marital rape can take place in that way.
I entirely agree with my noble friend Lady Walmsley, first, that rape is rape and is a serious offence and, secondly—I believe I used the words earlier today— that date rape can involve a breach of trust and be just as psychologically damaging as violence with a stranger. I have said that.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I want to make three points in relation to that. First, it appears that the noble Lord has changed his position since Second Reading. Secondly, how is the case to which the noble Lord's noble friend referred to be dealt with under his scheme? What happens where there is no violence but simply intimidation and terror as a result of a long relationship leading to damage? Seven years is the maximum sentence in relation to that. The noble Lord shakes his head, but I ask him to identify within 'which provision of aggravation it fits. My third point is that I am comforted by the fact that the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, took exactly the same view as I did.
Therefore, in relation to the third test, in my view the proposal is not able to deal with the degree of wrong that rape sometimes involves. In relation to proposition number four, the amendment deals with the under-13s.
10.15 p.m.
Earl Russell: Can the noble and learned Lord take on board that if two couples—one who know each other and one who do not—do the same thing and are treated equally, this does not make a distinction between them? I support the amendment warmly. If it said what the noble and learned Lord thinks it says I certainly would not.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: The noble and learned Lord asked me specifically where there is reference to a long-term relationship. Subsection (2)(a) in Amendment No. 10 refers to using violence.

1153
Subsection (3) refers to a series of acts, which is exactly the same wording as in the Bill. Clearly, it covers exactly those circumstances.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The example I gave was one where the fear is such, where there is no immediate threat of violence, that the victim succumbs and feels totally violated by what has happened. It is about as serious an offence as it could be and it is not covered in those circumstances.
On the fifth item—the objective element—as the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, again accurately said, we both claim the same for our reasonableness test. We appear to be entirely in agreement about what the reasonableness test seeks to achieve. The noble Lord said, "Our test can be put simply to the members of the jury. They will be able to understand it and come to a conclusion". We say precisely the same for ours.
We have set out in our provision a detailed explanation of how the test works. On this point we think that a clear statement in statute is particularly helpful for everyone: defendants and jurors alike. We want our new legislation to send a clear message that it is the defendant's personal responsibility to satisfy himself on the issue of consent. The way in which he meets that requirement will obviously vary from case to case, but it will always require him to do something positive. We believe that referring to the actions of the defendant is a helpful way of explaining this in law and is in line with the approach suggested by Setting the Boundaries. Like the noble Lord, we believe that the right approach is to leave it to the jury to decide the question. I pay tribute to the innovation and thoughtfulness of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and to his change of position from his Second Reading speech. However, applying the five tests we have, with the greatest respect we believe that our provisions do this better.
Lord Lucas: I would be fascinated to hear the Minister's reply to the question asked by his noble friend concerning reports on trials which did not succeed.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I am not in a position to give a detailed reply. Perhaps I may write to the noble Lord. I apologise for not answering in the course of my speech.
Lord Skelmersdale: I realise that the Committee wants to adjourn as soon as possible. The noble and learned Lord was good enough to answer a question of mine at Second Reading at col. 880. He commented on the 10-year sentence for date rape, the maximum life sentence for rape and the conjunction between the two. Clearly, life does not always mean life in these particular circumstances. It would help the progress of the Bill to know whether the 10 years is to run consecutively in the Government's view, or whether it is in addition to the sentence.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I am afraid that I have completely failed to understand the question. Consecutive to what, and to what particular 10-year sentence does the noble Lord refer? I do not have before me the issue of Hansard to which the noble Lord refers. Perhaps I may write to him with an answer.
Lord Campbell-Savours: Does my noble and learned friend intend to go back to the department between now and Report and further consider the amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford? Will he consider them again with his officials to see whether, on consideration, they provide a better way forward?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: We have had an opportunity to consider the amendments. I shall consider all that has been said during the debate. The problems with the proposals are those that I, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, have indicated. We shall certainly consider them. However, I should make it absolutely clear that at the moment there are some insurmountable hurdles in the way of it being a sensible proposal.
Lord Lucas: I urge one last time the virtue of the formulation of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas,
"without a reasonably held belief".
It is one simple phrase to replace two subsections and 40 words. As a potential juryman I find it much easier to understand. I am sure that many others would too.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I am greatly heartened by the support of the noble Lord. I respectfully agree with him and have nothing to add.
I have already dealt with the date rape point. I do not deal in Amendment No. 8 with date rape and in Amendment No. 10 with other types of rape. The aggravating circumstances do not relate to the particular way that rape occurs. If I said something different at Second Reading, then I have changed my position. I shall go back and read it because I do not recall ever being an advocate for a specific date rape charge. Perhaps I said something which caused the noble and learned Lord to believe that. He probably has it in front of him, but I shall check it and find out.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, asked me what would be the mens rea of my proposed offences. It would that A does not have a belief that B consents to the penetration, but it is subject to the test of reasonableness. In a number of jurisdictions in the Australian states, in New Zealand, in Canada and I believe in parts of the United States a test of reasonableness is applied to that belief. However, I have already indicated to the Committee— and I have been supported by every lawyer with hands-on experience of rape cases who has spoken today— that I do not know and have not come across any situation where an unreasonable but honest belief in the consent of the complainant has been urged as a defence. It is absolutely impossible to find out whether a jury has ever reached a conclusion about a defence

1155
that in my experience has never been urged. I cannot envisage circumstances where such a defence has succeeded in the past.
So the Morgan issue is really a red herring. I do not think it ever had any practical utility. As I pointed out to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, during an earlier debate, Morgan was convicted. His belief was based upon being told by the husband of the complainant that if he went to make love to her, she would struggle and protest, but that that was all part of it. He was convicted. It was held that although it was open to him to hold a belief that was unreasonable, nevertheless his appeal would not succeed. Since that time—I repeat—the collective experience of those who have spoken today is that we do not know of such a defence succeeding.
Who has the best "reasonable man" argument? The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, thinks that we are talking the same language. We are not. He is talking about the hypothetical reasonable person with whom the defendant is to be compared. Before one can compare the defendant with that hypothetical reasonable person, one has to decide who is that hypothetical reasonable person, hence our earlier debate as to whether he shares the characteristics, or some of them, of the defendant. That is a different reasonable test from the one that I postulate of members of a jury looking at that defendant, considering all the circumstances and asking
1156
themselves a simple question: he tells us he had an honest belief and, looking at him, at the kind of person he is and at his intelligence and not comparing him with the hypothetical person, is that reasonable? If they think that it was, they will find him not guilty. If they think that it was unreasonable, as sure as daylight, as they do at present, they will find him guilty. That is a very different route, coming to a simple conclusion, from the convoluted trip around the presumptions—whether rebuttable or conclusive—set out in the Bill.
I shall certainly return to the matter. I shall take into account the Minister's criticisms—perhaps a little touching-up of some of the wording would be in order—but I shall return to the matter on Report. I should be prepared to have further discussion with the Minister and his advisers on the topic if he thinks that that would be fruitful. However, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at twenty-six minutes past ten o'clock.

  Israeli Embassy Bombing 1994
  Israeli Embassy Bombing 1994
  Young People who Sexually Abuse
  Young People who Sexually Abuse
  Mr Justice Collins
  Mr Justice Collins
  Criminal Justice System: Statutory Time Limits
  Criminal Justice System: Statutory Time Limits
  UK-USA Extradition Treaty
  UK-USA Extradition Treaty
  Hull: Ethnic and Religious Breakdown
  Hull: Ethnic and Religious Breakdown
  EMU
  EMU
  Armed Forces: Recruitment and Training
  Armed Forces: Recruitment and Training
  Defence Export Services Organisation
  Defence Export Services Organisation
  Defence Medical Education and Training Agency
  Defence Medical Education and Training Agency
  Broadband
  Broadband
  Tourism and Leisure: Start-up Funding
  Tourism and Leisure: Start-up Funding
  BSE
  BSE
  Disposal of Fallen Stock
  Disposal of Fallen Stock
  Game Licences
  Game Licences
  Tourism and Heritage
  Tourism and Heritage
  North West: Regional Planning Guidance
  North West: Regional Planning Guidance
  Housing
  Housing
  National Archives
  National Archives
  THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS 2003–04¹
  THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS 2003–04¹
  Central America: Diplomatic Representation
  Central America: Diplomatic Representation
  NHS Complaints Procedure
  NHS Complaints Procedure
  Children in Care: Education
  Children in Care: Education
  Interception of Communications Commissioner
  Interception of Communications Commissioner
  M11: Litter
  M11: Litter
  Life Satisfaction
  Life Satisfaction
  Ml, Junction 19
  Ml, Junction 19