Sitting of 12 May 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

    Service Personnel (Gulf)
    Mr. Jim Cunningham: When he expects all service personnel to be returned from the Gulf. [112215]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): Our military campaign objectives contain a commitment to the withdrawal of British military forces from Iraq as soon as is practicable. It is as yet too early to predict when there can be a complete withdrawal of UK forces—that will obviously depend on the circumstances. We will maintain an appropriate military presence in Iraq as long as that is necessary to set the conditions in which the Iraqi people can get their country back on its feet politically and economically.
    Mr. Cunningham: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Although I welcome any withdrawal of British troops from Iraq because they obviously want to get back to their families as soon as possible, what contingency plans have been made for policing in Iraq and the delivery of aid, especially humanitarian aid, in which British troops currently play a major role?
    Mr. Hoon: I thank my hon. Friend for drawing the House's attention to the need for as many of our forces as possible who have been engaged in war-fighting operations to return to the United Kingdom at the earliest opportunity for some well earned leave. Hon. Members may have noticed that some 400 Royal Marines arrived home this morning.
    With many of our forces returning, I am pleased to assure the House that others will be available to continue to bring security and stability to southern Iraq. That includes involvement in the reconstruction effort. British forces have already made a significant contribution to the stability and security of southern Iraq as well as to ensuring the availability of humanitarian assisiance. That effort will go on.
    Mr. Paul Keetch: May I join the Secretary of State in hoping that our forces will be home as soon as possible? I also wish to ask him about the comments of the retiring Chief of the Defence Staff, Sir Michael Boyce, whom the Secretary of State would doubtless like to join me in congratulating on his peerage. He said that the British Army would suffer "serious pain" if it had to make future deployments in the next few years. In Iraq, it appears that the Territorial Army is filling some of the gaps among our overstretched regulars. What proportion of UK forces in Iraq is from the Territorials? Does the right hon. Gentleman have plans to send more Territorials there? Since TA units do not have the same training opportunities and welfare packages as regular forces, does the Secretary of State intend to make any improvements to the TA's welfare package?
    Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for commenting on the Chief of the Defence Staff's elevation. I was able to pass on my personal congratulations and I am sure that other hon. Members would like to echo that.
    Andrew Mackinlay: So long as he toes the line from now on!
    Mr. Hoon: It is probably as well if I do not comment on that observation.
    The reserves are making a substantial contribution in Iraq and will continue to do so. The important point in the strategic defence review about the way in which we reorganise reservist forces is making them useful and useable. They have made a tremendous contribution so far and I am confident that they will continue to do so.
    Syd Rapson: Will my right hon. Friend congratulate the mothers in support of troops movement, commonly known as MIST, in Portsmouth? It has organised two marches so far in support of our troops so that we do not forget their sacrifices and activities on our behalf.
    Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend is right to draw to the House's attention the tremendous contribution of families in support of those who have served in the armed forces in Iraq and other places. I am delighted to endorse his comments.
    Dr. Andrew Murrison: The Secretary of State will be aware that there are threatened large-scale resignations from the reserve forces because of the perception that they have not been handled well in Iraq. Will he comment on that and let hon. Members know what he plans to do about it?
    Mr. Hoon: I am aware of press, but no factual, reports to that effect.
    Mr. Chris Bryant: Many tributes have rightly been paid to British service personnel serving in the Gulf. Would not the best tribute be to ensure that the ongoing and enduring medical needs of service personnel returning to the UK are catered for and that all the medical lessons of the first Gulf war are learned?
    Mr. HoonThat will remain a priority for the Ministry of Defence. Considerable effort has been made to ensure the availability of high-class medical facilities in theatre. That effort must continue, as my hon. Friend says, once our forces have returned to the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Bernard Jenkin: May I add my voice and that of the Opposition to those of congratulation to Admiral Sir Michael Boyce, who looks forward to taking his peerage? He stood shoulder to shoulder with the Secretary of State through many difficulties and appears to have earned an early peerage for plain speaking. I presume that such an invitation will not be extended to members of the right hon. Gentleman's party.
    4
    I congratulate all the armed forced on the crucial role that they continue to play in the effort to stabilise post-war Iraq. During the war, our armed forces distributed leaflets that assured the people of Iraq:
    "This time we won't abandon you. Be patient together we will win … We will stay as long as it takes."
    If the Secretary of State cannot say how long that will take, and what forces will be required, is this yet another open-ended and unfunded commitment for our overstretched armed forces?
    Mr. Hoon: It is neither open-ended nor unfunded. What is important, however, as the leaflet illustrated to the Iraqi people, is that British forces remain there as long as is necessary to ensure stability and security, and to play a part in the reconstruction of Iraq. Once those tasks are completed, I should want to see British forces return home as soon as is practicable.
    Mr. Jenkin: So it is not open-ended, but the Secretary of State cannot say when it will end. Today, we still have reports of looting and of the continuing breakdown of law and order crippling efforts to rebuild Iraq, and it is our troops who have to wrestle with the consequences. Does he recall how the Conservatives warned the Government about the lack of preparation for post-war reconstruction? Now that the Secretary of State for International Development has resigned, is it not clear that the Government's planning for post-conflict Iraq was paralysed by splits at the heart of Government?
    Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman makes two foolish points; given more time, he would probably have made more. So far as his apparent criticism of open-ended commitments is concerned, I invite him and other Members sitting behind him to think for a second about whether they would want to put a specific date on the conclusion of British military operations, given what has been achieved so far. He is simply making silly points—[Interruption]— and he repeats them now from the Front Bench. He really needs to give a little more thought to his observations before he gets up, even from his present position on the Front Bench, dependent as he appears to be on the Leader of the Opposition's grace and favour. In those circumstances, he ought to think about certain other observations as well. We have just seen an extremely successful military operation in Iraq, and a Government who were in any way divided could not have conducted it.

    Service Personnel (Gulf)
    Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: What provision he will be making for the welfare of (a) service personnel and (b) ex-service personnel after the Gulf conflict. [112216]
    Mr. Adrian Flook: What provision he will make for the welfare of ex-service personnel who have taken part in the 2003 Gulf conflict. [112222]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): All personnel returning from Operation Telic, whether regulars or reservists, are being provided with appropriate support measures, acknowledging that each individual's experience of the conflict will be different. The procedures vary slightly between each service according to need, but are essentially similar and delivered in three stages: recovery, normalisation and after care. Support services include debriefings and post-operational tour leave. Reservists will receive all appropriate briefs, a medical screening and support with the potential for follow-up action as required, including specific guidance on returning to their previous employer. Post-deployment medical screening is not provided automatically to regulars, as they are subject to routine health surveillance, and all personnel are able to consult medical staff at any time, should they feel the need to do so.
    Mrs. Gillan: Will the Minister tell me why our service personnel get such a raw deal when they are risking their lives on the front line, and why they lose out financially, particularly when compared with the American forces, alongside whom they are serving in the Gulf? Will the Minister now get the Armed Forces Pay Review Body to bring our soldiers' benefits to the level enjoyed by our American allies, and pay their council tax for them and give them income tax relief while they are deployed on active service? Is not it about time that the Government gave our forces a fair deal?
    Dr. Moonie: This seems to be one of the many myths that the Opposition perpetuate. The body responsible for armed forces pay and remuneration last year conducted an independent study into the package of benefits available to all serving men and women in a vast number of countries, including the United States of America, and concluded that our package, taken overall, was the equivalent of all of them. I do not think that we have anything to apologise for.
    Mr. Flook: Marines of 40 Commando returning home from Iraq this weekend may consider that now is the time to leave the forces and settle down to civilian life in Somerset and Taunton. Some of them may be suffering from the mental scars of conflict, so I welcome the setting up of the medical assessment programme run by the MOD at St. Thomas's, but given that it will assess patients and only recommend treatment, what discussions are being held to ensure that local NHS hospitals such as that in Taunton have the knowledge and resources to treat ex-servicemen properly?
    Dr. Moonie: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support. The measures that we have introduced should go a long way towards allaying anxieties about the support that we intend to give people on their return from the Gulf. We must try to cover every possibility, but he makes a good point about the management of mental stress, especially post-traumatic stress disorder.
    We have come a long way in the past 10 years, and we certainly have a much larger body of expert advice available in the NHS, which has experience of treating such people. The medical assessment programme can provide help and advice too, so, all in all, while we
    6
    cannot guarantee that no one will suffer as a result of their service, we are well placed to pick up on those who have served and to give them whatever help is available.
    Llew Smith: On the welfare of service and ex-service personnel, what are the Government doing to clean up the toxic and radioactive contamination that has resulted from the use of depleted uranium in the recent invasion of Iraq?
    Dr. Moonie: Any environmental programme will have to be drawn up as Iraq develops under its peaceful administration, and we are well aware of our obligations to take part in that, but I make it clear to my hon. Friend that there is no evidence whatever from anything that I have seen in the records of our people that any of our soldiers have been damaged by contact with uranium, depleted or otherwise.
    David Taylor: After the first Gulf conflict, the medical screening that was available for returning UK service personnel was incomplete, incoherent and utterly unsatisfactory. Further to the Secretary of State's answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant), will the Minister give a little more detail to show how we have learned from those serious mistakes of a decade or more ago in terms of the personnel returning from this conflict?
    Dr. Moonie: Our medical package has been carefully tailored to manage people appropriately within the situation in Iraq and on returning home. To that end, we keep better records and conduct more medical surveillance. We shall also take a great many steps as people return to debrief them adequately on their experiences and to provide medical help and assistance where necessary.
    In addition, as the House is aware, I announced last week a programme of research, which will look in great detail prospectively—that is important—at the health of a large cohort of those returning from service in the Gulf. That will aid us in helping with individual problems and in establishing a proper database on which future research and work can be conducted.
    Mr. Keith Simpson: On behalf of the official Opposition, may I warmly welcome the statement made last week by the MOD on setting up the research programme on the physical and psychological health of those involved in the recent Gulf conflict? Everybody will appreciate that move.
    May I raise unfinished business from the earlier Gulf conflict? On 4 February, the MOD launched a High Court challenge against the pensions appeal tribunal ruling last May in favour of Shaun Rusling, which officially recognised Gulf war syndrome. Is it still the case that the MOD does not recognise Gulf war syndrome as a medical condition? Given that the Department is not planning to appeal against the successful claim of Alex Izzet on 5 May at a pensions tribunal that the concoction of drugs that he was given

    7
    before planned deployment in the previous Gulf war caused osteoporosis, does that not, in effect, recognise the fact that such a concoction of drugs did cause severe medical problems for many veterans? Is it not time for a definitive ministerial statement on the subject, which so many servicemen and others feel needs addressing?
    Dr. Moonie: May I take the second point first? We did not appeal the Izzet decision because there are no grounds in law for an appeal. The fact that almost all informed medical opinion—certainly among all those who have studied the work that has been done and the practices used during the Gulf war—disagrees with the tribunal does not alter the fact that it is entitled to come to its decision. We cannot challenge it in law, and we will not do so.
    The position is different with regard to the definition—it is purely a definition—of Gulf war syndrome. I feel strongly that we should not use terms that have no basis in medical fact. To use the term "syndrome" to describe conditions that encompass almost every symptom known to man or woman is highly unhelpful. We have challenged that ruling, and our position remains unchanged. In our opinion, there is no such unitary illness or disease as Gulf syndrome. A great many people have become ill as result of their service, but that is quite different.
    I stress again that no one gets a penny more pension from us because they are diagnosed as having Gulf war syndrome. Pensions are paid on the basis of disability. At present, more than 1,200 are paid to veterans of the Gulf war. It does not matter to their financial recompense whether their condition is described as Gulf war syndrome. In my opinion, it matters greatly, because medical opinion in this country, in the United States and anywhere else where the condition has been studied properly is entirely in agreement with our position.

    Military Training Schools
    Dr. Vincent Cable: If he will make a statement on the privatisation of military training schools. [112217]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): The defence training review, published in March 2001, recommended that some types of military specialist training should be rationalised. It also recommended that industry should be engaged at an early stage in determining how that training can best be delivered. Accordingly, the Department is currently taking forward a programme to provide, in partnership with the private sector, modern, cost-effective training, better accommodation and facilities, and the more efficient use of the training estate.
    Dr. Cable: Is the Minister aware of the serious concern in his Department and in the armed forces that specialised training—from complex logistics to intelligence training—could be handed over to private companies that do not have the experience or the expertise of MOD trainers, and do not have the knowledge of long-term military requirements? When
    8
    they get that knowledge, they will have a long-term private monopoly over a service that is critical to national security.
    Dr. Moonie: I would be concerned if that were what we are doing, but it is not. The rationalisation programme is about modernisation of training, and ensuring that delivery continues to adapt to reflect operational need. The benefits that we will derive from a more efficient use of the training estate will help us to achieve those key aims. We are currently consulting prospective bidders to determine the scope of a future partnering arrangement. We expect to be ready to select short-list bidders and issue invitations to negotiate by the end of the year. Each prospective consortium has been carefully scrutinised to ensure that it has the full range of skills and experience required to meet the needs of our programme.
    Mr. Barry Sheerman: My hon. Friend will know that I am usually in favour of relationships between the public and private sectors, such as private finance initiatives. Does he agree that the training record of the British defence forces has been exemplary, and that most people recognise that our armed forces historically have the best trainers in the world? Whether he calls it rationalisation or anything else, he should be cautious before he destroys the critical mass of training in our armed services.
    Dr. Moonie: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. That is precisely what we are trying to do. Our training has been the best in the world, and our intention is not only to keep it the best, but to make it even better. Everything we are doing in the review is aimed at producing that outcome.
    Mr. Nick Hawkins: Does the Minister recognise that it is important to keep all Members of the House who have constituency interests in defence training informed of plans? He will recall that there has been a history of difficulties with defence training establishments in my constituency, but I shall not labour that point because he is well aware of the problems. I have the defence medical training organisation in my constituency, and I am sure that he would agree that there is nothing more vital to the interests of our armed forces personnel than defence medical training. Will he undertake to keep me and all other MPs fully informed of any further developments or changes in defence training, especially in the medical field?
    Dr. Moonie: I should point out that this is not part of the training review, but I am happy to assure the hon. Gentleman that I generally try to ensure that a Member is informed of any changes that are likely to affect the interests of his constituency. If I fail to do so, Members are not slow to remind me!

    European Rapid Reaction Force
    Sir Sydney Chapman: If he will make a statement on his policy on the European rapid reaction force. [112218]
    Mr. James Gray: If he will make a statement on the UK's role in the European rapid reaction force. [112228]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): Although we want European Union nations to strengthen their military capabilities, there is no standing European rapid reaction force or any EU agreement to create one. Existing national or multinational forces, declared under the Helsinki headline goal, will be made available to the EU on a voluntary, case-by-case basis when required for a crisis management operation. The United Kingdom has made a significant contribution, offering a wide range of capabilities and assets, but there are, overall, still significant capability shortfalls against the EU's headline goal. EU Defence Ministers will consider shortly how to take matters forward. The UK will look to member states to make firm commitments to improve European military capabilities, rather than duplicate existing capabilities.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: Will the Secretary of State confirm that it was agreed in 1999 that the European rapid reaction force should be concerned with peacekeeping—that that should be its role—and that last year it was agreed that the NATO reaction force should cover high-intensity conflicts? What on earth was the point of last month's summit between France, Germany, Belgium and Luxembourg? Would not any other arrangement be duplication at best—as the right hon. Gentleman suggested—and divisive at worst?
    Will the right hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to agree with the Prime Minister's recent statement that the basis of any European defence policy should be entirely compatible with our membership of NATO?
    Mr. Hoon: I do not think I shall have any difficulty with the hon. Gentleman's question. Having been involved in negotiations on the need for improved military capabilities, whether through the European Union or through NATO, I know that that compatibility is crucial. That is precisely why we judged that the recent Brussels summit was neither timely nor appropriate.
    Mr. Gray: The Secretary of State's very helpful answer seems to me to reaffirm three fundamental truths about the European rapid reaction force. First, if the intention is to provide a NATO rapid reaction force at the same time, we certainly have not enough forces for the purpose. Secondly, nothing emanating from Brussels could possibly be described as rapid in any
    10
    circumstances. Thirdly, the mini-summit held a couple of weeks ago clearly demonstrated that the whole thing is not European.
    Do I understand from the Secretary of State's response that he is straightforwardly and unashamedly condemning the notion of a European army? We do not need it at all.
    Mr. Hoon: Our criticism of the recent Brussels summit has been consistent, as has our criticism of all the attempts to create a so-called European army. What we want is for our European partners to make determined efforts to improve military capabilities, whether through the European Union or through NATO. We believe that those efforts should be concentrated specifically on the adding of new capabilities rather than the duplication of existing ones.
    Mrs. Ann Cryer: Will my right hon. Friend comment on the future of the European rapid reaction force, given the deep differences of opinion on Iraq that we have observed over the past month or so?
    Mr. Hoon: The future of the force will be in the terms I have set out to the House—in the improvement of European military capabilities. It will not have a future if it fails in that task. That is why the United Kingdom consistently urges our partners to invest in extra and more capable military forces, so that Europe can make an effective contribution when it chooses to act on a case-by-case basis through the European Union, or more commonly when it acts as a member of NATO.

    BAE Systems
    Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger: If he will make a statement on the strategic defence review and its impact on his purchase plans for equipment from BAE Systems. [112220]
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram): The 1998 strategic defence review and the new chapter published last year remain the foundation for the shape, size and capabilities of our armed forces. The defence White Paper to be published in the autumn will provide an updated statement of defence policy and explain our plans for the delivery of enhanced defence capability. This will provide the baseline against which the Department will work with companies such as BAE Systems to procure future battle-winning equipment.
    Mr. Liddell-Grainger: I thank the Minister for that reply. The Royal Ordnance factory in Puriton in my constituency has turned out an enormous amount of ordnance over the past few months to support our troops in the Gulf. BAE Systems has said that it will continue production there, but I wonder for how long. Does the Minister agree not only that that battle-winning equipment, as he calls it, should be manufactured in this country but that one should ensure that it can be procured at a moment's notice for use in any battlefield around the world? Will he therefore commit himself to continuing production?
    Mr. Ingram: I will always pay tribute to the work force of Royal Ordnance factories throughout the country. I gently remind the hon. Gentleman that the privatisation of that part of our supply was carried out under a Conservative Government. Indeed, the previous Member for Bridgwater may have been Secretary of State for Defence at the time, but I will check that.
    It is clearly important that we have a guarantee on supplies. Of course, all that will be subject to the lessons learned from the current conflict. We will conduct a deep analysis of what happened. It will take some time to come to decisions but I am sure that the view expressed by the hon. Gentleman will be reflected in some of the conclusions reached.
    Shona McIsaac: Is my right hon. Friend aware that 470 jobs at BAE Systems in Brough are under threat because of perceived delays in resolving the Hawk contract? Will he do all he can to lobby other Ministers in his Department and other Departments so that the contract can be sorted out sooner rather than later and the 470 jobs no longer be under threat?
    Mr. Ingram: The best advice and information I can give my hon. Friend is that BAE Systems's proposal is being evaluated, so it would be inappropriate to speculate on the outcome at this stage. It is incumbent on companies that depend heavily on the Ministry of Defence to be proactive internationally. Alongside what they do for the MOD, they should look for other commercial outlets for their work force. Again, we hope that a decision can be reached quickly on that matter. That may ease the minds of the work force there.
    Mr. Michael Jack: In the light of the retiring Chief of Defence Staff's remarks with reference to the Government's commitment to purchase 232 Eurofighters currently under production in my constituency, does the Minister understand that such remarks have caused much uncertainty and worry in the Wharton work force? The work force are also concerned that the Government have yet to make a clear decision about tranche 2 of that aircraft and the order for 80-odd aircraft, and uncertain about the Government's intentions in developing a ground attack capability for the Eurofighter Typhoon. May I ask him to put on record, if not now in the very near future, a clear statement of what the Government's precise intentions are about that weapons system to deal with the uncertainties that thousands of my constituents are experiencing?
    Mr. Ingram: That is a fair and reasonable point. There is no question but that the MOD consults very widely and comprehensively as decisions are taken both in moving forward and perhaps in terms of rationalisation or changes to decisions. That is what we seek to do.
    We expect the four partner nations to place the order for the tranche 2 aircraft, of which the United Kingdom's share is 89, later this year. Under the undertaking given in the four-nation memoranda of understanding, the UK has undertaken to acquire 232 aircraft out of a total production of 620. We will, of course, keep the capabilities of the defence programme under constant review, but our commitment to the Typhoon programme remains unchanged.
    Mr. Kevan Jones: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, under the strategic defence review, record numbers of orders have been placed with United Kingdom manufacturers? That has given a tremendous boost to economies such as that of the north-east of England. Does he further agree that the strong base that those orders have created gives UK manufacturing a strong and determined base from which to pursue export orders?
    Mr. Ingram: I agree entirely. It is a point well made. As it stands, our capability and equipment programme is of record-breaking scope. We just need to consider the shipbuilding programme and the many other important procurement decisions that are coming on-stream. My hon. Friend made a good point in saying that the quality and capacity of British engineering companies enable them to win their share of the contracts, and he is right that that gives them a tremendous platform on which to build for the future not just in seeking and obtaining further MOD and international defence contracts but in gaining a significant share of the commercial market that is out there.
    Mr. Gerald Howarth: As my right hon. and hon. Friends have made clear, serious question marks hang over a number of critical defence projects involving not just BAE Systems but the many British companies in the supply chain. I was astonished at the answer that the Minister gave the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona Mclsaac). Does he accept that what he said must set alarms bells ringing in the ears of the work force at Brough? It would be inconceivable for the UK Government to order an advanced jet trainer other than the proven, highly successful, world-beating Hawk aircraft. Nobody in this country would be able to understand it if he ordered anything else. He should get on and order the aircraft by the end of June if wants to keep those employees in continued employment.
    Will the Minister also confirm that the joint strike fighter programme is slipping, with consequences for our maritime air defence? Without the JSF, the new aircraft carriers that he is ordering will be rather pointless. What efforts is he making to get the Americans to sign up to giving Britain the technology access agreements that are required by BAE Systems?
    Further to the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), what about the Typhoon tranche 2 and its air-to-ground capability? The Minister must address that issue very quickly, or we will not have the right equipment for the Royal Air Force.
    Mr. Ingram: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman talk to the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer and find out whether all the commitments that he is making—
    Mr. Bernard Jenkin: You do not have the money, but they are in your programme.
    Mr. Ingram: I am trying to explain that we get a shopping list from the Opposition. On our programme, I gave a clear answer in relation to the Hawk. The final bid has been put in by BAE Systems, and it has to be evaluated. I do not know whether the Opposition spokesmen are saying that there should be a different

    13
    strategy in Departments and that they should just say yes no matter what bid a company makes. That would not be good—quality government.
    Let me explain about B,AE Systems. In the last financial year, the MOD made payments of about £250 million and the contracts awarded were worth in the region of £2.7 billion. That shows a significant measure of confidence in that company, and we could, of course, give similar figures for other major UK-based defence contractors. We are investing very substantially in British manufacturing through the defence sector. It would be nice for that to be recognised and applauded by the Opposition.

    Force Deployments
    Dr. Nick Palmer: How long the current level of ground forces will be deployed in Iraq. [112221]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): British forces will not be deployed to the region any longer than is necessary, but will remain there while the operational situation requires it. I have already announced a number of withdrawals and replacements of our forces and I shall continue to keep the House informed.
    Dr. Palmer: As my right hon. Friend is aware, the reserve armed forces who have been operating in the Gulf have been admirably supported by the national headquarters in my constituency. There are those who intermittently criticise aspects of what is happening in Iraq, but may I express the hope that he will agree that our forces will be in safe hands when they return with the support of the mobilisation centre in Chilwell?
    Mr. Hoon: I am delighted to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the contribution of the reserves in Iraq and, indeed, to the work of the reserves training and mobilisation centre in Chilwell in my hon. Friend's constituency. I have had the privilege of visiting the centre on a number of occasions.
    Although we will need to send further reservists to Iraq to help our forces to meet their continuing obligations there, we are also seeking to bring home as soon as is practicable those reservists whose tasks have been completed.
    My hon. Friend might like to know that Chilwell is playing its part in the reconstruction of Iraq. Secondees from British Government Departments to the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance are receiving their pre-deployment briefing and training at the centre.
    Mr. GrahamBrady: Will the Secretary of State turn his attention to the terms and conditions of members of the reserves and, especially, the situation faced by one of my constituents, who is a police inspector and a member of the volunteer reserves? If he is called to serve in Iraq, he will face a pay cut of £20,000 a year, which is a source of grave concern for his
    14
    family. Will the Secretary of State consider what might be done to revisit the banding of salary levels to take that into account?
    Mr. Hoon: The bands are kept under constant review, and I shall certainly examine any specific case that the hon. Gentleman cares to bring to my attention. Arrangements for the payment of reserves are long standing, tried and tested and generally work very satisfactorily.
    Andrew Mackinlay: Bearing it in mind that conflicts such as that in Iraq put pressure on our armed forces and front-line troops, will the Secretary of State reassure us that even if the political situation improves in Northern Ireland, the British Government will look on the home service battalions of the Royal Irish Regiment as a rich reservoir of skilled and professional soldiers, at low cost, who should be maintained in their existing numbers and not given up as a political pawn in some settlement?
    Mr. Hoon: I agree with my hon. Friend's tribute to the Royal Irish Regiment. I have had the privilege of seeing it in action in Northern Ireland and elsewhere on a number of occasions, and it does a tremendous job.

    Weapons of Mass Destruction
    Mr. Bill Wiggin: If he will make a statement on the searches which have taken place for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. [112223]
    Mr. Andrew Rosindell: If he will make a statement on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. [112224]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): There is no doubt that Saddam's regime continued to develop weapons of mass destruction in breach of United Nations resolutions, and that we will continue to find evidence of these programmes. Coalition forces are actively investigating sites, documentation and specific individuals connected with Iraq's WMD programmes. Both the United States and the United Kingdom have deployed specialist personnel and will send more in the near future.
    These investigations will take time. The Iraqi regime had every opportunity to hide these programmes, given their considerable experience in concealment. Gathering and collating evidence of WMD programmes from the various sources will be a long and complex task.
    I can confirm that UK experts have conducted preliminary assessments of the suspect mobile vehicle referred to by members of the US Administration last week. It is clear that this vehicle is military, and is a transportable system designed for producing microorganisms. As such it should have been declared by Iraq under United Nations Security Council resolution 1441, but it was not. It appears to match the information on Iraqi mobile biological agent production facilities described in our dossier of last September and by the US Secretary of State to the Security Council in February.
    Mr. Wiggin: Given that Amir al-Saadi, the chief chemical weapons scientist, and Dr. Salih Ammash, the

    15
    senior biological scientist, have been held in custody for some time, why does the Secretary of State think that the Americans have withdrawn their weapons inspectors and replaced them with the smaller Iraq survey group?
    Mr. Hoon: The purpose of the Iraq survey group is to provide a core of experts drawn from several different countries, including the United Kingdom, to pursue the necessary scientific inquiries that such investigations require. There is no diminution at all of the coalition's efforts to identify weapons of mass destruction and, indeed, to publicise them when appropriate.
    Mr. Rosindell: Has the Secretary of State had the opportunity to observe what was published in yesterday'sWashington Post?It said that the 75th Exploitation Task Force, which is charged with finding weapons of mass destruction, has found places that have been "looted and burned". Is there evidence that potential terrorists have looted any of those weapons, or that they could be used against the west?
    Mr. Hoon: I am aware of those reports and they are being investigated. There are reports of looting, although I cannot confirm them. It is obviously a matter of concern, which is why it is so important that we have detailed investigations on the ground carried out by experts.
    Mr. Malcolm Savidge: Does my right hon. Friend recognise the importance of reestablishing UN inspection teams, first, to reassert the UN's authority, which is also vital for the administration of Iraq, and, secondly, to provide credibility because there are growing suspicions that the immediacy and extent of the threat from Iraqi WMD—the reason given for the rush to war—was massively hyped on the basis of the selective use of unreliable or even specious intelligence information?
    Mr. Hoon: As the Prime Minister and the President agreed at Hillsborough, the UN has a vital role to play in the continuing efforts to rebuild Iraq. We have made it clear that it would be useful to have an independent source of verification for findings of weapons of mass destruction, and that might well include a role for the UN. As far as my hon. Friend's final observation is concerned, I have just drawn the House's attention to the discovery of a facility that was set out in the dossier on the basis of intelligence available to us last September which was also referred to by the US Secretary of State. I hope that my hon. Friend might reconsider his observations.
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: My right hon. Friend will recall that one argument for the invasion of Iraq was the discovery of weapons of mass destruction and the need to destroy them, especially as there was a danger that they would pass into the hands of terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda. Does he think that there is any possibility that weapons of mass destruction may have been transmitted to terrorist organisations in the present period?
    Mr. Hoon: I have no specific evidence of that at this stage, but it is obviously a concern while we are unable
    16
    to identify precisely elements of the weapons of mass destruction that we referred to previously. As I told the House, the effort goes on and is proving to be successful.
    Dr. Julian Lewis: Given the great importance of uncovering Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and, indeed, his links with terrorist organisations, will the Secretary of State explain how it was possible that British journalists were able to obtain key documents from Ministries several days after the fighting had ceased when such documents should previously have been secured by British and American intelligence officers?
    Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman knows full well that for a short period there was serious disorder and looting in parts of Baghdad in the immediate aftermath of the collapse of Saddam Hussein's regime. That was specifically aimed at elements of the regime, in particular the governing part. Not surprisingly, journalists on the spot were able to get access to documents that were not secured by the coalition. That should not come as a great surprise to the hon. Gentleman.

    European Defence Capabilities
    Huw Irranca-Davies: What discussions he has had with European counterparts on the future coordination of European defence capabilities. [112225]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): I take every opportunity to discuss with my European colleagues the need for improved coordination of military capabilities, particularly in the context of European security and defence policy, NATO's Prague capabilities commitment initiative and the United Kingdom's bilateral defence relationships. I will be meeting EU colleagues on 19 May and NATO colleagues in mid-June.
    Huw lrranca-Davies: I thank my right hon. Friend for that response, but does he agree that, with the one laudable exception of the UK, our European partners to date have failed to perform in terms of military procurement and commitment of troops, whether for peacekeeping purposes or conflict resolution? Is he surprised to hear voices in the Opposition criticise our support for enhancing European capabilities? Would he describe the position of Opposition Members as (a) ludicrous, (b) untenable, (c) illogical or (d) all of the above?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Those matters are nothing to do with the Minister.
    Mr. Hoon: Nevertheless, I am grateful for my hon. Friend's observations. It is important that the UK set an example both in spending more money on defence and in spending that money more effectively—something that I should hope Conservative Front-Bench spokesmen would support. What is interesting about their criticisms is the extent to which they fail to recognise the need for European nations to work

    17
    effectively together to improve the military capabilities available to all through either the European Union or NATO.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: Why should we trust the French?
    Mr. Hoon: The French have a substantial military contribution to make, should they decide that it is politically appropriate to do so.
    Mr. David Heath: Has the Secretary of State had the opportunity to examine the composition of EUFOR—the European Union force in Macedonia? Is he aware that it is made up of a number of very small contingents from a large number of countries, rather than units of command from single countries under their own commanders, as I would have expected? Does he believe that that is an effective way of deploying a European force?
    Mr. Hoon: Obviously, that is a matter for military judgment as to the capabilities of the particular force and from where it should be drawn. I am satisfied that the military advice that has been given is the right advice and that the force in Macedonia is doing a good job.

    Iraq
    Hugh Robertson: If he will make a statement on operations in Iraq. [112226]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): Decisive combat operations in Iraq have been completed. Saddam Hussein's regime, which had for years brutalised Iraq and threatened the wider region, has collapsed.
    In most areas of Iraq, coalition forces are now focusing upon stabilisation operations, setting the conditions for the restoration of the country's political and administrative structures. We will continue the humanitarian efforts already under way.
    British forces have played a major part in the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime. They have once again demonstrated their professionalism and expertise, combining combat operations with support for the civilian population. They are now helping the Iraqi people to take the first significant steps along the road to greater political and economic freedom and security.
    Hugh Robertson: The Americans apparently plan to publish their report on the friendly fire incidents on the internet this week. Given the sensitivity of the subject, not least for those units and regiments, such as my own, which lost soldiers in tragic incidents of that sort, will the Secretary of State tell the House precisely how many British personnel are involved in the investigations, when they intend to publish their findings, and what consultations they have had with our US allies on the subject?
    Mr. Hoon: There have been extensive consultations. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the investigations are conducted in parallel form through the national chain of command. We are represented in the American
    18
    process, as they are represented in ours. However, as he says, it is important that there be full transparency of both the conclusions and any action that is then required to be taken.
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: Am I the only one to be utterly astonished that, after interviewing goodness knows how many Iraqi scientists who were allegedly involved in developing weapons of mass destruction, the only thing that we have found to date is the transporter to which my right hon. Friend referred earlier? How many Iraqi scientists have been interviewed, and what has transpired as a result?
    Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend had better prepare himself for further astonishment, because I have to tell him that sometimes when they are interviewed, people do not tell us the truth. It is therefore necessary for us to continue investigations into where weapons of mass destruction have been hidden. As I said earlier, the Iraqi regime had many months in which to hide weapons of mass destruction; we have to have a similar period in which to locate them.
    Mr. Edward Leigh: Further to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson) about friendly fire, will the Secretary of State say more about what work has been done since the end of the conflict? Will he give the House a commitment that any progress made by the Americans will be matched by us? In particular, has he done any research into BCIS—battlefield combat identification system—developed by Northrop Grumman, an American company, which puts transponders into American tanks so that they have technical facility to deal with friendly fire? It is important that our kit for our soldiers is as good as the Americans'.
    Mr. Hoon: I think that the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members will accept that the most important work that needs to be done in the light of the conflict is to investigate thoroughly the friendly fire incidents in question, so that we can properly understand what went wrong—clearly, things did go wrong—before we take decisions on potential solutions. The Ministry of Defence and I are willing to consider any solution that guarantees the safety of our services personnel.
    Joan Ruddock: My right hon. Friend will know that 2,000 extended range bomblets and shells were used in the British battle for Basra. Will he ensure that the impact points of those munitions will be made available to the United Nations mine action service and to non-government organisations? Will he warn civilians of the consequences of unexploded bomblets? Does he agree that it would be more appropriate for the funding of such clean-up operations to be provided by the MOD rather than by the Department for International Development?
    Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend is right. Determined efforts are made to identify the location of unexploded bomblets. Records are kept, and members of Britain's forces are routinely engaged in making safe any unexploded ordnance. That work is under way in Iraq

    19
    as I speak, and it will continue. There is no difficulty about the funding of that work: it is carried out by the British Government.

    Service Personnel (Gulf)
    Patrick Mercer: What measures he is taking in support of widows and partners of service personnel who died in the Gulf conflict. [112227]
    Gregory Barker: What measures he is taking in support of widows and partners of service personnel who died in the Gulf conflict. [112233]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): I pay tribute to all those who gave their lives serving in the recent conflict in the Gulf and to their families. The country owes them a deep debt which we are determined to meet.
    Long-term financial support is provided to widows and dependants under the armed forces pension scheme and the war pension scheme. Where a service person died as a result of the conflict, and left a partner with whom there was a substantial relationship of interdependence, ex-gratia payments equivalent to benefits paid to a surviving spouse will be awarded to unmarried partners under the armed forces pension scheme.
    In addition to the financial support, my Department is providing emotional and administrative support and assistance to the families. That support will be maintained for as long as the families require it.
    Patrick Mercer: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply, but he will be aware that, on top of the measures to which he has referred, for a modest monthly sum, generous pay-outs can be received from PAX, the private insurance scheme. The difficulty is that that is a private insurance scheme, so it costs servicemen to buy it. Secondly, not every serviceman is enrolled in the scheme. Is it not now time for the Government to take on that burden to provide proper insurance for our servicemen so that their widows have a generous settlement?
    Dr. Moonie: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that a review of pensions and compensation is being undertaken. I hope to return to the House in the near future to discuss some of the changes that we shall be making. However, the hon. Gentleman hit the nail on the head. For a modest payment, additional insurance can be provided. We always recommend to our people that they should take that out. Whatever we provide for them, it will always be essential for people to take additional cover for themselves to provide for their families. It would be prudent for them to do that, and something that we would encourage them to do.
    Gregory Barker: The Minister will know how important holidays are to our service personnel and
    20
    their families, who necessarily endure long periods of separation. Family holidays not only bring quality time but also, when booked significantly ahead in the year, give something for servicemen and their families positively to look forward to and to focus on. Does he have any plans to compensate the many hundreds of servicemen who have lost out significantly in financial terms because of the Iraqi war or the firemen's strike? If he has any such plans, has he compensated any servicemen to date?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That supplementary question has nothing to do with the main question.

    Iraq
    Tony Cunningham: What discussions he has had with EU partners on allied support for the reconstruction of Iraq.—[112231]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): Now that decisive combat operations have been completed in Iraq, United Kingdom forces are concentrating on stabilisation and humanitarian tasks. In taking forward the wider political and economic reconstruction of Iraq, the coalition and, in due course, a new Iraqi Government, will need to draw on the expertise of the international community. Recent discussions with a number of countries, including European Union partners, have covered the possible contribution of numerous capabilities, including, but not limited to, infantry, medical personnel, engineers and logistic support.
    Tony Cunningham: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Can he assure the House that his Department will draw on the experience of our EU partners, particularly in the Balkans and Afghanistan, to ensure that vital services are restored in Iraq as quickly as possible?
    Mr. Hoon: I can assure my hon. Friend, as I said a moment ago, that we want to draw on the experience of a number of EU partners and, indeed, future EU partners. They have indicated their willingness to make military capabilities available, and we want to use them.
    Glenda Jackson: Surely, one of the lessons that we have learned from previous conflicts concerns our rather tardy approach to clearing up civilian areas post-conflict. What assurances can my right hon. Friend give the House that thousands of unexploded bomhlets will be cleared from civilian areas first, rather than from those areas that our troops our entering?
    Mr. Hoon: I indicated the priority that was given to the clean-up a few moments ago. Those efforts continue, and they do not discriminate between civilian and other areas. A determined effort is made to ensure the safety and security of both military and civilian personnel.

Iraq
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw): With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a statement about Iraq.
Last Friday, the United Kingdom, the United States and Spain informally circulated a draft resolution about Iraq's future to members of the United Nations Security Council. I have placed copies in the Library and the Vote Office. Our aim is to put Iraq in the hands of its people through an open and accountable process, in partnership with the emerging leaders of the new Iraq. The draft resolution sets out the United Nations' role in that process, and calls for the United Nations to
"play a vital role in providing humanitarian relief, in supporting the reconstruction of Iraq, and in helping in the formation of an Iraqi Interim Authority."
That reflects fully the undertakings given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and President Bush at their Hillsborough meeting on 8 April. I will set out for the House the main points of that draft resolution arid, in the course of doing so, deal with a number of questions that have been asked about it. Before I do so, however, I shall report briefly on the situation in Iraq itself.
After almost a quarter of a century of brutal, authoritarian rule in Iraq, creating a free and secure society was always going to take time. Barely a month has passed since the regime fell. Today, the security situation varies in different parts of the country. The United Nations regards the south as safe enough for its agencies to operate, albeit with significant precautions. The situation is improving in the north. In other areas, including Baghdad, the situation is unsatisfactory, and there are still too many cases of violence and lawlessness. Establishing security within the rule of law is the coalition's first priority.
Let me now deal with the humanitarian situation. Supplies under the oil-for-food programme are getting through. The United Nations' World Food Programme has supplies in the pipeline until September and there are no reports of widespread food shortages. We are urgently tackling the lack of access to drinking water, a problem that has blighted the lives of Iraqis for many years. Urgent efforts are continuing to provide adequate medical supplies and equipment to Iraq's hospitals. The reports of 16 cases of cholera in Basra are obviously a matter of great concern, although fortunately there have been no reported deaths from the disease. To put that in perspective, cholera is endemic in southern Iraq at this time of year. Work is continuing to improve water arid sanitation facilities, and the Department for International Development has positioned in Kuwait cholera kits for 11,000 cases, to be used by the World Health Organisation as required.
The coalition's Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance will tackle the huge task of restoring civil administration in Iraq. Increasing numbers of Iraqi public servants are now returning to their jobs. However, results in the early weeks have not been as good as we had hoped. I therefore welcome the appointment of US ambassador Bremer to ORHA. Working alongside the United Kingdom's Major
22
General Tim Cross and forty British secondees, he will bring fresh impetus to ORHA's efforts. On the political front, we have already seen evidence of the exercise of the new-found religious and political freedoms in Iraq. I welcome the peaceful return at the weekend of the Shi'a religious leader, Ayatollah Hakim to Iraq from Iran, and other religious and political leaders, none of whom could exercise any political or religious freedoms under Saddam's regime. The meetings of Iraqi representatives in Nasiriyah on 15 April and Baghdad on 28 April marked the start of a process of bringing together a national conference in which all Iraq's regions and ethnic and religious groups are represented in order to select an Iraqi interim authority.
This body, which will comprise both political figures and technocrats, will progressively take on responsibilities for the administration of Iraq as a whole, as operative paragraph 9 of the draft says,
"until a permanent government is established by the people of Iraq".
It is our hope that the national conference can be held within the next few weeks. In order to assist the process, and as I told the House last Tuesday, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has appointed a senior British diplomat, John Sawers, our ambassador to Cairo, as the Government's special representative to Iraq. His task is to work with US representatives and a wide range of Iraqi people to ensure an open process leading to a representative Iraqi interim authority. In the few days in which he has been in Baghdad, Mr. Sawers has already met a number of leading Iraqi political figures. In addition, as I told the House last week, we opened a British office in Baghdad, on the site of our former British embassy, headed by a British diplomat, Christopher Segar, who was deputy head of mission when the British embassy in Baghdad closed in 1991.
Let me now turn to the draft Security Council resolution. The United Kingdom and the United States fully accept our responsibilities under the fourth Geneva convention and the Hague regulations. That point is explicitly recognised in the draft resolution. Neither the Secretary-General nor members of the Security Council are proposing that the UN should run Iraq, but we are all concerned to ensure that the UN plays a vital post-conflict role. The draft resolution gives the UN the full opportunity to do just that. It does not deal with every issue; it concentrates on the main points that need to be settled now for the benefit of the people of Iraq. It sets out important principles for the future of Iraq, including those on territorial integrity and disarmament of its weapons of mass destruction. The resolution also provides, in operative paragraph 5, for member states to prohibit trade in, or transfer of, looted cultural artefacts.
The three key issues in the resolution are, first, the role of a UN special co-ordinator, and the associated political processes; secondly, the lifting of sanctions and the creation of a new Iraqi assistance fund to target resources on the reconstruction of Iraq; and thirdly, arrangements for the sale of oil and the handling of oil revenues. I shall deal with those in turn.
Operative paragraph 8 of the resolution sets out a substantial mandate for a UN special co-ordinator to be appointed by the UN Secretary-General and to play a full part in all aspects of post-conflict activity, from

23
humanitarian efforts through economic reconstruction, human rights, rebuilding police capacity, promoting legal and judicial reform, and, crucially, the political process. On the latter point, the draft provides that the special co-ordinator should work with the occupying powers and those assisting them—defined collectively in the resolution as "the Authority"—for
"the restoration and establishment of national and local institutions for representative governance".
Operative paragraph 9
"supports the formation, by the people of Iraq with the help of the Authority and working with the Special Co-ordinator, of an Iraqi interim authority as a transitional administration run by Iraqis until a permanent government is established by the people of Iraq".
Like all drafts, this one is open to improvement and we are discussing it constructively with our Security Council partners, but the mandate in the present draft will give the UN the scope it needs to play its full role in all aspects of post-conflict Iraq. One of the reasons why I would like to see the resolution passed quickly is to enable a special co-ordinator, appointed by the Secretary-General, to get cracking on the ground very soon.
The second of the three issues is the lifting of sanctions and the creation of a new Iraqi assistance fund. Economic sanctions relate to Iraq's past and now need to be removed, so operative paragraph 10 provides that all sanctions are lifted forthwith, with the sole exception of the arms embargo, which plainly has to remain in place until a permanent Government is established by the people of Iraq. Ending the economic sanctions regime requires new arrangements for dealing with Iraqi revenues. The wording in the resolution is designed to ensure that all funds from Iraqi oil revenues can be used quickly and effectively for the benefit of the Iraqi people.
The draft resolution gives the Secretary-General authority for a period of four months from its passage to ensure the delivery of priority civilian goods under contracts already approved and for which funding has been allocated.
Remaining funds in the existing escrow account, from what is known as the oil-for-food programme, will be transferred to the new Iraqi assistance fund. That will also receive funds from two other sources: revenues from the sale of oil, and funds of the former regime frozen by banks outside Iraq since 1990 under successive Security Council resolutions. The Iraqi assistance fund will therefore rapidly become the primary source of money for the development of Iraq. The funds will be disbursed by the authority in consultation with the Iraqi interim authority.
The resolution is specific about the purposes for which the money can be spent. Operative paragraph 13 spells out that
"the funds should be used to meet the humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people, for the economic reconstruction and repair of Iraq's infrastructure, for the continued disarmament of Iraq, and for the costs of indigenous civilian administration and for other purposes benefiting the people of Iraq."
24
The assistance fund will be subject to an international advisory board, including representatives of the UN Secretary-General, the IMF and the World Bank, and will be audited by independent public accountants, again chosen by the board, not by the coalition.
The third issue is the control of oil sales. Operative paragraph 18 requires that sales shall be made
"consistent with prevailing international market practices",
that they too will be audited by independent public accountants reporting to the international advisory board, and that the funds will go to the Iraqi assistance fund, except for a proportion, which will go instead to the UN Compensation Commission for claims relating to the previous Gulf war.
On weapons of mass destruction, a letter to the Security Council annexed to the resolution stresses the obvious and clear importance of this objective. Dr. Blix himself has recognised that the situation is not right at present for UNMOVIC to return, a point that I was able to spell out in the statement that I made to the House just 13 days ago. Separate arrangements may therefore be needed to provide international validation, so the role of UNMOVIC in Iraq is not an issue that needs to be dealt with in this resolution, although we may need to address it in future resolutions.
In the interests of the people of Iraq, the sponsors of the resolution will be working for its early adoption, but it is not a take it or leave it text, and negotiations with our partners in the Security Council are already under way. However, from my discussions with Foreign Ministers of Security Council members, and other discussions undertaken by our permanent representative in New York, I find a strong political will to get the UN back into the business of helping to build a better future for Iraq. This draft resolution gives the UN that very important role.
Mr. Michael Ancram: I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement and for giving me advance sight of it. He has dealt comprehensively with the draft resolution before the Security Council, which we welcome. In particular, we welcome paragraph 11, which seeks to lift sanctions, and paragraph 12, which establishes the Iraqi assistance fund and requires the regime's external assets to be frozen and transferred to it.
The resolution also deals with the role of the United Nations in the reconstruction of Iraq. I have heard what the Foreign Secretary has had to say on the details but, even so, I am still unclear as to precisely what that role is intended to be. The Prime Minister on 8 April in Northern Ireland referred to "a vital role." However, it is hard to discern any task in the resolution that can really be described as vital.
May I ask the Foreign Secretary again what he means by vital? This is important today when the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short) resigned from the Cabinet because, as she says, the assurances that the Prime Minister gave her
"about the need for a UN mandate to establish a legitimate Iraqi government have been breached"
arid are contracted by this resolution.

25
What were the exact assurances given to the right hon. Lady and other members of the Cabinet on establishing a legitimate Iraqi Government? Are they met in the resolution, and if they are, is the right hon. Lady wrong? If she is right, how does that square with the position of the Prime Minister? Who is telling the truth—the Prime Minister or the right hon. Lady? They cannot both be doing so.
Did the Attorney-General give the Government advice on what was required to establish a legitimate Iraqi Government? If he did so, does it support the right hon. Lady's contention or the Prime Minister's position? Would it not be helpful to the House if he were to publish that advice?
On a day when the Government are split on Iraq, warring over the euro and all over the place on foundation hospitals, is it not vital that at least on this, they do not fudge the issue? Does the Foreign Secretary share my regret at this crucial moment that this House will no longer be able to question the Secretary of State for International Development, who will now be in the House of Lords? Is that not a downgrading of this vital portfolio at a most sensitive moment?
Has the Foreign Secretary read reports today that the taskforce responsible for finding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq is winding down and is likely to be withdrawn? Is that true, and what does it mean in the light of the Prime Minister's assurances that weapons of mass destruction will be found?
It is now the fifth week since Saddam was toppled. The unexpectedly swift conclusion explained the immediate aftermath—the lawlessness, breakdown in public services and damage to infrastructure—but, before the war, the Foreign Secretary assured me and this House that plans for post-war Iraq were in place. Why then, after four weeks, are there still not enough police resources, either internal or imported, to maintain public order and disarm the militias? Why, even now, have not enough engineers and construction experts been seconded to Iraq to ensure electricity supplies, clean water and effective sewage disposal? Why is vital aid and health provision still taking so long to get to the areas that so badly need it? These are not military questions, but questions for the Foreign Secretary who told us that all this was in hand. We have a moral obligation to reconstruct Iraq as we promised to do. We have supported the Government on the principle of reconstruction. I have to say that, on the ground, after four weeks, patience is running out.
Our armed forces won the war brilliantly. It is for the Government to win the peace. They owe it to our forces and to the people of Iraq to do so, and they are not making a very good fist of it right now.
Mr. Straw: The right hon. Gentleman asked me a number of questions about the text and also about some comments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short). Let me deal with those matters in turn.
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for welcoming the statement and the clarification that it gives. He asked me first about the undertakings given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and President Bush at their press conference on 8 April following the Hillsborough summit and about where they are reflected
26
in the resolution itself. The commitment by the President and the Prime Minister is repeated in one of the opening preliminary paragraphs, so that they provide a template against which the rest of the resolution is measured. The paragraph states that it was
"Resolved that the UN should play a vital role in providing humanitarian relief, in supporting the reconstruction of Iraq, and in helping in the formation of an Iraqi interim authority".
That is an almost exact paraphrase of the words used by President Bush and our British Prime Minister at Hillsborough. I could take the right hon. Gentleman through the 24 operative paragraphs of the resolution—I hope that the whole House will go through them which spell out how that will work.
They include: all the duties that are imposed on the special co-ordinator to be appointed not by us, but by the United Nations Secretary-General; self-evidently, the lifting of sanctions; the future of the oil-for-food programme; the monitoring and supervision that the United Nations will have over Iraqi assistance; the UN's role in respect of oil revenues; and, above all and particularly, assisting and encouraging, alongside the assistance and encouragement of the coalition, the formation—not by the coalition or the UN, but by the Iraqi people themselves—of an Iraqi interim administration followed by a permanent Iraqi Government.
The right hon. Gentleman asks me about remarks that were made earlier today. I should first say how sad I am about the resignation of my right hon. Friend. She served the Department with very great distinction and placed British overseas aid contribution on the map in a way that never happened in the 18 years of the previous Government, from .the moment when they placed the Overseas Development Administration under the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. I am sorry to see her leave as a colleague. I have to say—since the right hon. Gentleman asks me this, it is right that I should give him my reply—that I do not agree with my right hon. Friend's view about the position of the Government. Obviously, I was not present at any discussions that took place between her and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister—that is a matter for them—but I can say two things.
Mr. Ancram: What about the Attorney-General?
Mr. Straw: I am going to come to that.
First, all the measures in the statement and every action that we have taken in Iraq and in the United Nations are fully consistent with the undertakings that we have given in public about the role of the United Nations. Secondly, it goes without saying—but I will repeat it, as the right hon. Gentleman raises the matter—that all the actions that we have taken have been taken strictly in accordance with legal advice. It would be unconscionable for any of us to believe that any action that we took or contemplated would be unlawful in international law or in domestic law, and it is quite inappropriate for the right hon. Gentleman to suggest otherwise.
The right hon. Gentleman asked several questions about the time that it is taking to get Iraq on its feet—I do not say "back on its feet", because Iraq was not on its feet before the military conflict took place. Yes, it is

27
taking longer than we expected in some parts—not all parts—of Iraq, and, yes, as I said, the situation in Baghdad is unsatisfactory. That is why I welcome the appointment of US ambassador. Bremer and the additional staff from the United Kingdom who are going in to back up ORHA. We have to see improved performance on the ground.
The right hon. Gentleman's last point—an extraordinary one for a Conservative spokesman—was the allegation that a vital Department has been downgraded because a Member of the House of Lords has been appointed as successor to my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood. I recall that during our 18 years of opposition there were at least two occasions on which very large and significant Departments of State were represented by a Secretary of State in the other place. One was when the Department of Trade and Industry was under Lord Young, and the other—at a time when the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) was an adornment to that Department—was when Lord Carrington was Foreign Secretary.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: In addition to the Foreign Secretary's own expressions of regret, does he understand that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short) enjoys great affection and respect on both sides of the House?
May I ask the Foreign Secretary what significance we are to attach to the recall of Barbara Bodine and to reports that General Garner may soon suffer a similar fate? Does not that indicate an admission of failure to comprehend the complexity of the reconstruction of Iraq; and what sort of signal or message does it give to the people of Iraq if such changes are necessary so quickly?
On the matter of a vital role for the United Nations, is it not now clear that the Government envisage that that role is one of giving advice and providing coordination, but is neither managerial, executive nor administrative? Although it is correct that sanctions should be lifted, why is it necessary to provide new arrangements for the administration of Iraq's oil revenues, as the oil-for-food programme is already in place?
Finally, on weapons of mass destruction, the Foreign Secretary used a rather delphic phrase when he said that separate arrangements for validation may be necessary. What exactly does he have in mind? Does he have in mind arrangements that will carry credibility because they are not based entirely on the work of those nominated by the coalition forces?
Mr. Straw: The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked first about the transfer from Baghdad of ambassador Barbara Bodine and reports of the earlier than expected transfer of former General Jay Garner. The Barbara Bodine transfer is earlier than expected, but, as far as I know, that does not apply to the transfer of General Jay Garner.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked whether there was a failure to comprehend the complexity of the position on the ground. In the case of any military
28
action, the circumstances on the ground are inevitably unexpected to some extent. That is the nature of warfare. In some parts of Iraq, matters have improved more rapidly than expected. However, I have been straightforward about the fact that the position in Baghdad is not satisfactory. We fully understand our responsibilities, as does the United States, to ensure that it becomes satisfactory quickly.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman claimed that there was no direct managerial role for the United Nations. Under international law, the fourth Geneva convention and the Hague regulations, the occupying power is responsible for managing Iraq in the immediate future. It would be wrong of us to try to hive off responsibility to people who do not have the power to undertake it. However, we are increasingly trying to provide a key role for the United Nations and, above all, the people of Iraq. Hon. Members who are worried about the matter should read the language of the text carefully—I do not suggest that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has not done so. Of course, colleagues on the Security Council have comments about the draft, but the atmosphere in the informal discussions that took place at the weekend was constructive.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked about new arrangements for the oil revenues. They are needed because until now, they were tied into sanctions and the oil revenues were available only for the elaborate and rather bureaucratic oil-for-food programme, which the United Nations has run. We want the oil revenues to be used more widely to benefit the people of Iraq. That will initially have to happen under the direction of the coalition or the occupying powers because there is no one else to do it. However, it will be done under strict supervision and auditing, including by the board with nominees from the Secretary-General, the IMF and the World Bank and, in time, the interim authority. Over tirne—as quickly as we can manage—that will be done by a separate, permanent, recognised Iraqi Government.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman's last question was about separate arrangements for validating any finds of weapons of mass destruction. We continue to discuss that matter, not least with our United States allies and other friends on the Security Council. Resolutions 1441 and 1284 remain current and are not affected by the draft resolution. I am clear that any validation arrangements would have to involve external validation for the reasons that the right hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned.
Mr. George Foulkes: May I say that I share the Foreign Secretary's view that we have lost a redoubtable Secretary of State for International Development? I served as her deputy for four years and she will be missed in the job. However, she has a worthy successor in Valerie Amos, who was a brilliant Minister in the Foreign Office and will do a tremendous job, whichever House she stays in—[Interruption.]—serves in.
When was the draft resolution circulated in Whitehall? To which Departments was it sent? What comments did the Foreign and Commonwealth Office receive?
Mr. Straw: I share the preliminary comments of my right hon. Friend. So far as Valerie Amos is concerned, I have seen her as a ministerial colleague in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and also answering for the Department for International Development in the House of Lords. She is a brilliant successor to my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short), and someone who is very experienced. My right hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) might recall that, when the previous Conservative Administration were in power years ago, it was possible to give up a title to a peerage in order to transfer down to this end, but I am afraid that a life peerage is now exactly that; it is a sentence for life. But that might change; you never know.
So far as the draft of the resolution is concerned, it was dealt with internally in the same way as resolution 1441 was dealt with. It was tightly held because we were discussing the details with a fellow member of the Security Council. In answer to my right hon. Friend's question, I orally briefed the Cabinet last Thursday—the Cabinet Committee was orally briefed by me last Thursday afternoon—and the draft was circulated at 9 o'clock the following morning.
Mr. Edward Garnier: Beyond the cost of the military engagement itself, can the Foreign Secretary tell us what the estimated cost of the British involvement and presence in Iraq will be for this financial year and the next financial year?
Mr. Straw: No, I cannot, but I will arrange for the answer to that question to be provided to the hon. and learned Gentleman, and for a copy to be made available to the House.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Whatever the virtues of Lady Amos, at this particular moment the Secretary of State for International Development ought to be in this House and not in the other place.
Can the House of Commons be told why documents held by the Iraqi authorities at the time of the coalition's control of their offices were left unprotected, to be exploited by journalists and others, when those documents might have formed the basis for a prosecution, or been collected or destroyed to deny the probability of a prosecution, or gone unchecked for the insertion of forged documents? Why was there no proper custody of documents of such major potential importance, which might have thrown light on the alleged existence of weapons of mass destruction, or on possible links between the Saddam regime and al-Qaeda?
Mr. Straw: On the appointment of my right hon. Friend Baroness Amos, I think that everybody in the House recognises her exceptional qualities. [Interruption.] It is an exceptional appointment. I have said before that, while there may be some reservations on the Labour and Liberal Democrat Benches about having a Secretary of State appointed from the House of Lords, it does not lie in the mouth of Conservative Members to object to that process for a second. Many of us accepted the arrangements under which Foreign Secretaries and Trade and Industry Secretaries were
30
Members of the other place. Perfectly satisfactory arrangements were made for them to answer through a Minister in this place, and the Prime Minister will make such arrangements in respect of the Department for International Development.
My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) also asked about the protection of evidence and the custody of documents. I cannot give him a direct answer to his specific question, but I can say that we are all seized of the need to protect all documentary and other evidence as far as is humanly possible, with a view to its use in future prosecutions of people responsible for the brutalities of the Saddam regime. If my hon. Friend is in any doubt about the evidence relating to Iraq's holdings of weapons of mass destruction, I refer him to two very public Command Papers that I have already published, including 173 pages of Dr. Blix's final report of 7 March, which sets out in forensic detail the nature of Iraq's holdings of weapons of mass destruction and its failure to answer questions about what has happened to those holdings.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: While we are all pleased to hear that progress is being made at the UN, is the Foreign Secretary aware that the situation in Baghdad, which he is only partly right in describing as serious, is in fact potentially catastrophic; that our American friends, after a stunning military victory, have grossly underestimated the very difficult situation that they face; and that extremely heavy-handed policing by American troops will do nothing to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqis for as long as there is poor security, the utilities do not work or even look like working, and there has clearly been no real progress on the civilian administration front?
Ambassador Bremer is an extremely competent diplomat, but it may not be enough that he will be the right person to run things. Would it not be sensible to suggest to our American friends that a British brigade should be put into Baghdad, as it would have much greater expertise at such policing, with a view to moving the whole thing forward much more quickly?
Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman is correct to raise concerns about conditions in Baghdad. I do not endorse the specific language that he uses, but I have made it clear that we regard the situation there as unsatisfactory. Our American allies and friends fully understand that it is unsatisfactory, that action has urgently to be taken and that they are in the lead on taking such action. Just before I came across to the House, I discussed that situation, as I do regularly, with the United States Secretary of State, Colin Powell, and I shall continue to engage with him on that, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will with President Bush.
On the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that a British brigade should be put in, we are all very proud of how British troops have operated, not only in the conflict, but post-conflict, and I shall refer it to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.
Hugh Bayley: May I associate myself with the remarks made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) about my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short)?

31
What obligations are there on the interim Iraqi administration and what obligations will there be on the full Iraqi Government to repay debts—some would say odious debts—incurred by the Saddam regime? Can my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary give the House an assurance that the Iraqi assistance fund may not be used to repay the cost of weapons buying by Saddam's regime and that he will resist pressure from, as well as the case that may be being made by, other Security Council members which are owed large sums of money by the Saddam regime for arms to block or resist a further Security Council resolution until they are repaid? We must consider the needs of the Iraqi people first, and I hope that that is what the Government will take to the Security Council.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Before the Foreign Secretary answers, I have to tell the House that I must have brief questions. We cannot have long questions.
Mr. Straw: Iaccept the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley), and I say to him that in the text, not least in operational paragraph 20, there is legal protection against, for example, revenues from the sale of oil, or the physical product of oil itself, being arrested in a third country to provide security for unpaid debts to third parties, which may include some countries that he has in mind. We are certainly seized of that. At the same time, we are also seized of the need to ensure that some compensation claims—for example, in relation to those in Kuwait—are honoured over time.
Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Does the right hon. Gentleman understand why there is some scepticism on the Conservative Benches as to why he chose to make this statement today? For example, can he tell the House whether he was planning to make it at 9 o'clock this morning? Will he give the House a straight answer to the question posed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) from the Front Bench as to what we are to make of the statement of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short) that the Prime Minister's assurance on the establishment of a legitimate Government in Iraq has been breached?
Mr. Straw: As it happens, I decided on Saturday that it would probably be a good idea to make a statement to the House. One was drafted. I spoke to the Leader of the House and the Chief Whip on the telephone yesterday, and suggested that I should make a statement. However, as ever with statements, we decided to wait until this morning to see whether there was a clear demand for one. As it turns out, there was such a demand.
I do my very best to keep the House informed of these matters, as I have done previously.
As for the other point that the hon. Gentleman raised, I am afraid that I disagree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood (Clare Short). The undertakings given by the Prime Minister at Hillsborough and elsewhere are reflected in this draft in every particular.
Mr. Tom Harris: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will have welcomed the comments from the French and German ambassadors to the United Nations. The French ambassador said:
"There are positive elements in this draft resolution in the humanitarian and economic field",
and the German ambassador said that
"this draft does not fight the fights of the past but is looking to the future and trying to deal with the problems that are at hand now".
In welcoming an emerging UN consensus on this issue, will the Foreign Secretary reassure the House that the United Kingdom's commitment to the immediate lifting of sanctions will not be allowed to be diluted in the negotiations on this draft that are to follow?
Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the welcome that this draft has received publicly in those quarters, which would have been unexpected a few weeks ago. We have worked hard with our partners. We are not suggesting that this is the final word on the matter, but we are pleased about the constructive atmosphere in which the negotiations are taking place.
As for the lifting of sanctions, they were imposed because of the bad behaviour of the Saddam regime and its failure to comply. Now that the Saddam regime has gone, the case for sanctions goes. However, that does not remove the case for us to be satisfied about the disarmament of Iraq, which is another matter.
Mr. John Maples: Baghdad fell into coalition hands on 9 April, and fighting was over five days later on 14 April. After an unexplained delay of two weeks, General Garner finally arrived in Baghdad following his leisurely progress via Kurdistan on 21 April. Five weeks after the fall of Baghdad, there is apparently still no water in large areas of the city. Does the Foreign Secretary understand that many of us, and no doubt many Iraqis, find it incomprehensible that with a magnificent display of military competence we can win the war in four weeks but we cannot get the water switched back on in five?
Mr. Straw: Iunderstand the hon. Gentleman's frustration. As I said, the situation in Baghdad is not satisfactory. He asks what we are doing about it. We are doing a great deal to turn it around.
Jeremy Corbyn: What is the legal basis for contracts that the Americans signed with Halliburton and Bechtel before the offer of this new UN resolution? Is not the world's image of what is happening that in reality it is the creation of an American colony in Iraq with British support?
Mr. Straw: As I understand it, the legal basis of those contracts was US domestic law, because they made use of US tax dollars and not of any Iraqi revenues. The use of Iraqi revenues in that way would be outwith international or domestic law.
Sir Peter Tapsell: Does the Foreign Secretary understand that there will be a widespread feeling on both sides of the House that in the months ahead the Secretary of State for International Development ought to be a Member of this House and

33
answerable to us? As the United States is in the process of dismissing its two most senior administrators in Iraq, and the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short) has just resigned, on whose expert advice is this draft resolution based? Presumably, it is on the basis of the draft resolution that the British Government will try to put things right in Iraq in the weeks ahead?
Mr. Straw: Highly qualified though those three people are, they are not the only source of advice available to the United States and United Kingdom Governments.
Ian Lucas: Is my right hon. Friend aware of early-day motion 946, signed by 106 hon. Members, which calls for the reconstruction of Iraq to be built on the broadest possible base? Does he accept that that can be achieved only by securing for the United Nations a leading role in the reconstruction of Iraq? Will he agree to include that amendment to the draft resolution?
Mr. Straw: Iam not familiar with the full text of early-day motion 946. I apologise for that, and I shall look it up. The leading role in the rebuilding or building of the new Iraq must be taken by the people of Iraq. We seek a partnership in support of that between the United Nations international community and the coalition on the ground.
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: May I associate myself fully with what the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) said about the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short)?
I welcome the reference to lifting sanctions, but the statement unfortunately made no mention of the Kurdish people. What consideration has been given to preserving the integrity of the northern lands where they currently reside?
Mr. Straw: Every consideration is given to that. The very first preliminary paragraph of the draft resolution reaffirms the commitment of all member states to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq. Within that, we fully recognise and respect the need for proper autonomy for various peoples in Iraq, including, obviously, the Kurdish people.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Will my right hon. Friend explain how giving Iraq back to the people of Iraq is accomplished by transferring the governance of Iraq to a crony of Donald Rumsfeld, and handing over a contract to a company with which Donald Rumsfeld has been associated? Does he accept that Members who voted in favour of military action did not do so, and the British forces who behaved with such immense decency and dignity did not risk and in some cases give their lives, to turn Iraq into a colony of the United States Republican party and to turn Iraq's reconstruction into the playground of American corporate capitalism?
Mr. Straw: Iunderstand my right hon. Friend's concerns, but I can give him the reassurance that he seeks. In the initial stages, the authority will be that of the United States and United Kingdom Governments
34
and nation states as the "occupying power" under the Geneva conventions and the Hague regulations. I think I have already dealt with the issue of the contract let to Halliburton. It was, I understand, a domestic contract in the United States, to be paid for with US tax dollars. I can reassure my right hon. Friend that the oil revenues of Iraq and other revenues of the Iraqi people must be used and administered in a very different way.
Mr. Henry Bellingham: Will the Foreign Secretary turn his attention to the many UK reserve medical personnel who are still deployed in the Gulf? Many were released from NHS trusts and hospitals where there is great pressure on waiting lists. To what extent are those medical facilities available to the Iraqi people? Has the Foreign Secretary thought of asking our European counterparts whether they might be able to send substitute personnel, so that some of those professionals could be released back into the health service here?
Mr. Straw: I shall have to write to the hon. Gentleman about the detail of his question, and place a copy of my answer in the Library of the House. As for his wider point, we have been involved in detailed discussions with our European Union partners and others about the contributions that they can make to the military forces and to other facilities. As the hon. Gentleman may know, meetings were held during the force contribution conference on two successive Fridays. A number of EU member countries are contributing to medical facilities as well as to the military forces.
Ann Clwyd: I agree with my right hon. Friend that the humanitarian problem was compounded, not created, by the war. Nevertheless, I think that the situation is serious and should not be underestimated. Anyone who, over the weekend, heard the aid agencies talking about the situation in Baghdad and elsewhere can only feel alarmed by their reports.
I ask my right hon. Friend to increase the number of British staff in Iraq. I think he mentioned the number 40, but that is not enough. I know four of the five interim leaders of Iraq, and they are all calling for more British involvement because they believe that the British understand them much better than the Americans and can handle the population much better.
Will my right hon. Friend's Department please be much more sensitive? When it sent delegates to the conference in Baghdad, the one woman whom it sent was the one woman from the Iraqi community in Britain who opposed the war and demonstrated against it. That, I think, is entirely the wrong signal to give all the other Iraqi expatriates in Britain.
Mr. Straw: I accept what my hon. Friend says. On the issue of increasing the number of United Kingdom staff, I know that that will be at the top of the agenda of Baroness Amos, the new Secretary of State for International Development. I take my hon. Friend's point, although, since we are trying to create a democratic Iraq, it is important that we have people of every opinion. However, many of them should reflect what was a very widespread opinion—that the military action that we took was entirely justified.
Rev. Martin Smyth: On behalf of many of my constituents and others in Northern

35
Ireland, I join in paying tribute to the work of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short).
May I press the Secretary of State? Is there any news about the missing billion that Saddam's family seem to have gone off with? Since the war was to free the Iraqi people, can he give an assurance that, in the long-term planning, there will be a greater role for the women of Iraq and free elections with a wider electorate than has hitherto been allowed?
Mr. Straw: On the first point that the hon. Gentleman raises, there are quite substantial sums in bank accounts, which have been frozen. Obviously, we know where those are. Investigations continue in respect of reports of billions of US dollars being taken out of the country by the Saddam family and regime just before military action commenced. On the role of women, we are very committed indeed to seeing women play a full role in the Iraqi Government, as we are in this country.
Mr. John Denham: I welcome my right hon. Friend's commitment that the resolution may still be amended but does he accept that, around the world, many people with whom we would wish to be influential friends still question the legitimacy and motives of the action that was taken? Would it not be in this country's long-term interests to ensure that the UN is given a sufficiently strong role in the reconstruction of Iraq to provide that legitimacy for our future actions?
Mr. Straw: I accept that there are people who still question the legitimacy of our action. I hope that we deal with that and provide reassurance in the draft resolution. Just to take one example, there are people around the world who believed, and may still believe, that the sole purpose of the military action was in order that the United Kingdom and United States could steal the Iraqis' oil. It was always totally and completely untrue; it was utterly untrue. However, for the avoidance of doubt, the resolution, a mandatory chapter 7 resolution, makes it clear that the revenues from oil and from other sources of the Iraqi people can only be used for the benefit of the Iraqi people, or to compensate other victims of the Saddam regime.

Personal Statement
4.23 pm
Clare Short: With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a personal statement.
I have decided to resign from the Government. I think it is right that I should explain my reasons to the House of Commons, to which I have been accountable as Secretary of State for International Development, a post that I have been deeply honoured to hold and that I am very sad to leave.
The House will be aware that I had many criticisms of the way in which events leading up to the conflict in Iraq were handled. I offered my resignation to the Prime Minister on a number of occasions but was pressed by him and others to stay. I have been attacked from many different angles for that decision but I still think that, hard as it was, it was the right thing to do.
The reason why I agreed to remain in the Government was that it was too late to put right the mistakes that had been made. I had throughout taken the view that it was necessary to be willing to contemplate the use of force to back up the authority of the UN. The regime was brutal, the people were suffering, our Attorney-General belatedly but very firmly said there was legal authority for the use of force, and because the official Opposition were voting with the Government, the conflict was unavoidable.[Interruption.] There is no question about that. It had to carry.
I decided that I should not weaken the Government at that time and should agree to the Prime Minister's request to stay and lead the UK humanitarian and reconstruction effort. However, the problem now is that the mistakes that were made in the period leading up to the conflict are being repeated in the post-conflict situation. In particular, the UN mandate, which is necessary to bring into being a legitimate Iraqi Government, is not being supported by the UK Government. This, I believe, is damaging to Iraq's prospects, will continue to undermine the authority of the UN and directly affects my work and responsibilities.
The situation in Iraq under international law is that the coalition are occupying powers in occupied territory. Under the Geneva convention of 1949 and the Hague regulations of 1907, the coalition has clear responsibilities and clear limits to its authority. It is obliged to attend to the humanitarian needs of the population, to keep order—to keep order—and to keep civil administration operating. The coalition is legally entitled to modify the operation of the administration as much as is necessary to fulfil these obligations, but it is not entitled to make major political, economic and constitutional changes. The coalition does not have sovereign authority and has no authority to bring into being an interim Iraqi Government with such authority or to create a constitutional process leading to the election of a sovereign Government. The only body that has the legal authority to do this is the United Nations Security Council.
I believe that it is the duty of all responsible political leaders right across the world—whatever view they took on the launch of the war—to focus on reuniting the

37
international community in order to support the people of Iraq in rebuilding their country, to re-establish the authority of the UN and to heal the bitter divisions that preceded the war. I am sorry to say that the UK Government are not doing this. They are supporting the US in trying to bully the Security Council into a resolution that gives the coalition the power to establish an Iraqi Government and control the use of oil for reconstruction, with only a minor role for the UN.
This resolution is unlikely to pass but, if it does, it will not create the best arrangements for the reconstruction of Iraq. The draft resolution risks continuing international divisions, Iraqi resentment against the occupying powers and the possibility that the coalition will get bogged down in Iraq.I believe that the UK should and could have respected the Attorney-General's advice, told the US that this was a red line for us, and worked for international agreement to a proper, UN-led process to establish an interim Iraqi Government—just as was done in Afghanistan.
I believe that this would have been an honourable and wise role for the UK and that the international community would have united around this position. It is also in the best interests of the United States. Both in both the run-up to the war and now, I think the UK is making grave errors in providing cover for US mistakes rather than helping an old friend, which is understandably hurt and angry after the events of 11 September, to honour international law and the authority of the UN. American power alone cannot make America safe. Of course, we must all unite to dismantle the terrorist networks, and, through the UN, the world is doing this. But undermining international law and the authority of the UN creates a risk of instability, bitterness and growing terrorism that will threaten the future for all of us.
I am ashamed that the UK Government have agreed the resolution that has been tabled in New York and shocked by the secrecy and lack of consultation with Departments with direct responsibility for the issues referred to in the resolution. I am afraid that this resolution undermines all the commitments I have made in the House and elsewhere about how the reconstruction of Iraq will be organised. Clearly this makes my position impossible and I have no alternative but to resign from the Government.
There will be time on other occasions to spell out the details of these arguments and to discuss the mistakes that were made preceding the conflict. But I hope that I have provided enough detail to indicate the seriousness of the issues at stake for the future of Iraq, the role of the UN, the unity of the international community and Britain's place in the world.
All this makes me very sad. I believe that the Government whom I have served since 1997 have a record of which all who share the values of the Labour party can be proud. I also believe that the UK commitment to international development is crucial. The levels of poverty and inequality in a world rich in knowledge, technology and capital is the biggest moral issue the world faces and the biggest threat to the future safety and security of the world. We have achieved a lot, and taking a lead on development is a fine role for the UK. There is much left to do and I am very sorry to have been put in a position in which I am unable to continue that work.
38
I do think, however, that the errors that we are making over Iraq and other recent initiatives flow not from Labour's values, but from the style and organisation of our Government, which is undermining trust and straining party loyalty in a way that is completely unnecessary. In our first term, the problem was spin: endless announcements, exaggerations and manipulation of the media that undermined people's respect for the Government and trust in what we said. It was accompanied by a control-freak style that has created many of the problems of excessive bureaucracy and centralised targets that are undermining the success of our public sector reforms.
In the second term, the problem is the centralisation of power into the hands of the Prime Minister and an increasingly small number of advisers who make decisions in private without proper discussion. It is increasingly clear, I am afraid, that the Cabinet has become, in Bagehot's phrase, a dignified part of the constitution—joining the Privy Council. There is no real collective responsibility because there is no collective; just diktats in favour of increasingly badly thought through policy initiatives that come from on high.
The consequences of that are serious. Expertise in our system lies in Departments. Those who dictate from the centre do not have full access to that expertise and do not consult. That leads to bad policy. In addition, under our constitutional arrangements, legal, political and financial responsibility flows through Secretaries of State to Parliament. Increasingly, those who are wielding power are not accountable and not scrutinised. Thus we have the powers of a presidential-type system with the automatic majority of a parliamentary system. My conclusion is that those arrangements are leading to increasingly poor policy initiatives being rammed through Parliament, which is straining and abusing party loyalty and undermining the people's respect for our political system.
Those attitudes are also causing increasing problems with reform of the public services. I do believe that after long years of financial cuts and decline, the public services need reform to improve the quality of services and the morale of public sector workers—the two being inextricably linked. We do not, however, need endless new initiatives, layers of bureaucratic accountability and diktats from the centre. We need clarity of purpose, decentralisation of authority and improved management of people. We need to treasure and honour the people who work in public service. As I found in my former Department, if public servants are given that framework, they work with dedication and pride and provide a service that, in the case of the Department for International Development, is known throughout the world as one of the finest development agencies in the international system. Those lessons could be applied in other parts of the public service.
I have two final points. The first is for the Labour party and, especially, the parliamentary Labour party. As I have said, there is much that our Government have achieved that reflects Labour's values and of which we can be very proud, but we are entering rockier times and we must work together to prevent our Government from departing from the best values of our party. To the Prime Minister, I would say that he has achieved great things since 1997 but, paradoxically, he is in danger of destroying his legacy as he becomes increasingly obsessed by his place in history.

39
Finally, I am desperately sad to leave the Department for International Development. I apologise to those in the developing world who told me that I had a duty to stay. I shall continue to do all that I can to support the countries and institutions with which I have been working. It has been an enormous honour to lead the Department. It is a very fine organisation of which Britain can be proud. We have achieved a lot but there is much left to do, and I am sure that others will take it forward. I hope that the House and party will protect the Department from those who wish to weaken it.

Points of Order
4.34 pm
Mr. Eric Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is there anything that you can do, even at this late stage, to protect today's business? You will be aware that we were already in the unacceptable position of being asked to process all stages of an important and potentially controversial Bill, which will affect democracy in part of our United Kingdom, between 3.30 pm and 10 pm.
Yet today, Mr. Speaker, with the usual casual attitude that the Government have sadly shown towards Parliament and this House of Commons, a statement was put on which, however important, was not that urgent, thus reducing further the time that we have to consider the Bill at hand. Can nothing be done even now to give the House more time—proper time—to perform a Second Reading, a Committee stage and a Third Reading of a Bill that is of the greatest importance for our democracy in this United Kingdom, so that we can properly consider it? The Government's attitude to this House of Commons has become unacceptable, and the casual and deliberate placing of a statement on a day such as this, further to reduce our opportunity to examine legislation, is the latest regrettable example of that. Please, Mr. Speaker, what can be done?
Mr. Speaker: I think the right hon. Gentleman's main complaint is about the statement by the Foreign Secretary, not the statement by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short). As Speaker, I have no say in those matters. When a Minister says that he wishes to come before the House to make a statement, I have to accept that statement and the House has to hear it. However, the right hon. Gentleman will have noticed that I did not run the statement for a full hour, but for 40 minutes, with the clear understanding that we have other business before us. The right hon. Gentleman asks, "Can anything be done?"; the answer is, not by me.
Mr. William Cash rose—
Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Gentleman have a point of order?
Mr. Cash: I have a point of order on the personal statement, Mr. Speaker. On 10 April, I raised a point of order on whether the Secretary of State for International Development would publish, as she could have done at her discretion, the advice of the Attorney-General, as the Prime Minister did on the legality of the war against Iraq in reply to a question that I put to him earlier. In her statement, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short) referred to the fact that it would have been better had the Prime Minister accepted the Attorney-General's advice. She could have used the ministerial discretion to publish that advice. My point of order is that that advice could still be made available and should be placed in the House of Commons as soon as possible.
Mr. Speaker: Once again, that is not a matter for me. It is for Ministers to decide whether they put that advice into the public domain.
Mr. Stuart Bell: On a point of order on a matter that relates to you and of which you are fully

41
aware, Mr. Speaker. The number of hon. Members who read questions at Question Time is obvious to me, the House and yourself. It is my understanding that questions should not be read and should be given, if you like, from the heart. I am sure that you would wish to remind all hon. Members that we are not here to read out questions, but should put our questions to the Secretary of State or the Minister and wait for an adequate reply.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. Supplementary questions should not be read from notes. Hon. Members sometimes use aids, but I would not encourage that practice. The hon. Gentleman is right that questions should be asked without notes.
Rev. Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Surely this is an unusual occasion because we are to discuss something—the right of people to exercise their franchise—that does not come before the House except, perhaps, once in a century. Surely the Government should have respect for this day and, given the very little time that we have, protect it. Although we appreciate that you gave only 40 minutes for the Foreign Secretary's statement and did not call everyone who stood, as a representative in this House of people from Northern Ireland, I find it an insult to them that, in this mother of Parliaments, we should have time taken away from our discussion of something that cuts across the root and foundation of democracy.
Mr. Speaker: I can understand the hon. Gentleman's concern, but at the risk of repeating myself, it is for me to ensure that the rules of the House are carried out. I do not make the rules of the House; the House makes the rules and I am the custodian of the rules. However, I have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's comments.
Peter Bottomley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In what circumstances is eavesdropping by official agencies on Members of Parliament's telephone conversations allowed?
Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for me.

Northern Ireland Assembly (Elections and Periods of Suspension) Bill (Allocation of Time)
4.40 pm
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Paul Murphy): I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to the proceedings on the Northern Ireland Assembly (Elections and Periods of Suspension) Bill—

Timetable
1. Proceedings on Second Reading, in Committee, on consideration and on Third Reading shall be completed at this day's sitting and shall be brought to a conclusion, if not previously concluded, at Ten o'clock.

Timing of proceedings and Questions to be put
2. When the Bill has been read a second time—

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

(b) proceedings on the Bill shall stand postponed while the Question is put, in accordance with paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 52 (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills), on any financial resolution relating to the Bill;

(c) on the conclusion of proceedings on any financial resolution relating to the Bill, proceedings on the Bill shall be resumed and the Speaker shall leave the Chair whether or not notice of an Instruction has been given.

3. On the conclusion of proceedings in Committee the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question and, if the Bill is reported with amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.

4. For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 the Speaker or Chairman shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;

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

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

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

5. On a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

Consideration of Lords Amendments
6.—(1) Any Lords Amendments to the Bill shall be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
(2) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall be brought to a conclusion, if not previously concluded, one hour after their commencement.
7.—(1) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 6.
(2) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question already proposed from the Chair and not yet decided.
(3) If that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment the Speaker shall then put forthwith—
(a) single Question on any further Amendments to the Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown, and
(b) the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House agrees or disagrees to the Lords Amendment or (as the case may be) to the Lords Amendment as amended.
(4) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the—
(a) single Questiion on any Amendments moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment, and
(b) the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House disagrees to a Lords Amendment or (as the case may be) to the Lords Amendment as amended.
(5) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House disagrees to a Lords Amendment.
(6) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question, That this House agrees to all the remaining Lords Amendments.
(7) As soon as the House has agreed or disagreed to a Lords Amendment, or disposed of an Amendment relevant to a Lords Amendment which has been disagreed to, the Speaker shall put forthwith a single Question on any Amendments moved by a Minister of the Crown and relevant to the Lords Amendment.

Subsequent stages
8.—(1) Any further Message from the Lords on the Bill shall be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
(2) Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.
9.—(1) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 8.
(2) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided.
(3) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair.
(4) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on or relevant to any of the remaining items in the Lords Message.
(5) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question, That this House agrees with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

Reasons Committee
10.—(1) The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment, nomination and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons in relation to the Bill and the appointment of its Chairman.
(2) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.
(3) Proceedings in the Committee shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion 30 minutes after their commencement.
(4) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with sub-paragraph (3) the Chairman shall—
(a) first put forthwith any Question which has been proposed from the Chair but not yet decided, and
(b) then put forthwith successively Questions on motions which may be made by a Minister of the Crown for assigning a Reason for disagreeing with the Lords in any of their Amendments.
(5) The proceedings of the Committee shall be reported without any further Question being put.

Miscellaneous
11. Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business) shall apply to any proceedings to which this Order applies.
12. The proceedings on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 shall apply to those proceedings.
13. Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply in relation to any proceedings to which this Order applies.
14. No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which any proceedings on the Bill are taken or to re-commit the Bill.
15. No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to proceedings to which this Order applies except by a Minister of the Crown; and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
16.—(1) This paragraph applies if—
(a) a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) has been stood over to Seven o'clock, Three o'clock or Four o'clock (as the case may be), but (b) proceeding to which this Order applies have begun before then.
(2) Proceedings on that Motion shall stand postponed until the conclusion of those proceedings.
17. If the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the conclusion of any proceedings to which this Order applies, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.
18. Proceedings to which this Order applies shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
In a moment, I shall explain the urgency with which the Government are seeking to progress the Bill and why it is necessary to take it through all its stages in the House today. However, before I do so, I am sure that the whole House will join me in condemning the cowardly attack carried out this morning on the offices of the Ulster Unionist party in Belfast. An explosive device was delivered to the offices in a clear attempt to kill or to maim. Fortunately, no one was hurt in the incident, but it is a salutary reminder to us all of what we are trying to achieve in Northern Ireland. Attacks such as that and the one some weeks ago on the offices of the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds) only make us more determined to achieve a complete and unambiguous end to paramilitary activity.
In my statement to the House last Tuesday evening, I explained the Government's assessment of the current state of political developments in Northern Ireland and the reasons for our conclusion that the elections to the Assembly due on 29 May should be postponed. It would not be appropriate to dwell in detail on those reasons in the debate on this motion. Hon. Members will have an opportunity later to debate the Government's analysis and policy more fully, and I intend to address those issues in my speech in that debate. Suffice it to say that the decision to seek a postponement was taken—with regret—on the basis that it is clear that without a clear and unambiguous end to paramilitary activity, there cannot be a revival of the trust and confidence necessary for the restoration of the devolved institutions.
There are two reasons why I am seeking the House's agreement to the motion. The first is that our decision to seek the postponement was taken only after weeks—indeed, months—of intensive negotiations aimed at securing acts of completion from paramilitaries and a common understanding of the basis on which the devolved institutions could be restored. As the House well knows, the Government have already sought one four-week postponement of the election date in order to try to facilitate that process. We naturally wished to give those efforts every chance of succeeding, so it was with great regret that we reluctantly concluded on I May that we had reached a point where there was no longer any prospect of the necessary trust and confidence being established in time for restoration of the institutions following an election on 29 May.

45
Now that we have reached that conclusion, no one will benefit from continuing uncertainty about the legal status of the scheduled election. The Northern Ireland electorate deserve clarity as soon as it can be given, arid the Northern Ireland political parties are, naturally, anxious to know how the Government propose to deal with a range of consequences of the postponement, from the question of reimbursement of electoral expenses incurred to the implications for the funding of party offices. They deserve certainty and clarity as soon as possible. We have worked to produce the Bill as fast as we can in order to provide that.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I appreciate many of the problems that my right hon. Friend outlines, but given that the issue is fundamental and there will be nowhere other than the House of Commons to debate democracy in Northern Ireland, why is it necessary to timetable the Bill?
Mr. Murphy: I shall address that issue as I can.
Andrew Mackinlay: It relates to the motion.
Mr. Murphy: I am aware of that. I shall come to that point in a second.
The second argument for dealing with the business under the terms of this timetable motion is the electoral timetable itself. The Assembly was dissolved on 28 April; at that point the statutory electoral timetable began to run. Nominations have already closed, and as the polling date currently set in law draws near, preparations have to be made for an election unless Parliament determines otherwise. That of course is quite proper, but it makes no sense to incur additional expense or to prolong uncertainty for any longer than is necessary. The Bill to deal with those matters therefore had to be dealt with today.
Mr. Eric Forth: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that part of his argument, which may or may not convince the House. However, why do we have to finish at 10 o'clock tonight? Even if it was necessary for the reasons given by the right hon. Gentleman that the matter be dispatched in the House today, that is no reason why we must truncate all stages of the Bill. We have not yet started consideration of the measure at nearly 5 o'clock in the afternoon, when we shall finish arbitrarily at 10 o'clock. Why cannot we continue to deal with the Bill after 10 o'clock, in proper consideration and detail?
Mr. Murphy: The right hon. Gentleman knows that I am not responsible for dealing with the workings of the House. However—
Andrew Mackinlay: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Murphy: No, I will not.
For the proposed legislation to go through the House this week, and through the House of Lords, where generally speaking legislation has to take two days, and
46
in the event of messages coming back from the House of Lords, it was necessary for us to deal with the Bill in the way that we have.
Andrew Mackinlay: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Murphy: I will not.
For these simple reasons, I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will agree that a compressed timetable for the Bill's passage through the House, while regrettable, is unavoidable in these circumstances.
4.45 pm
Mr. Quentin Davies: First, I echo what the Secretary of State has just said about the attack on the offices of the Ulster Unionist party. Thank God no one has been hurt. It is an unacceptable and shocking event. Everybody who stands for public office in Northern Ireland lives against the background of a potential threat. They are all particularly brave men and women. I have come to admire them all in all the parties that are represented in this place in the course of the two years that I have been doing this job. Many of them have had, on occasion, to resist serious intimidation. Many of them have experienced attacks on their own homes and properties. The most recent attack is just one more such incident.
I am sure that the House hopes that the Police Service of Northern Ireland will be able to apprehend the culprits as soon as possible, and that the courts will handle them in an exemplary fashion if, indeed, anybody is found guilty of the attack. In the meantime, on behalf of the Opposition, I extend my concern and sympathy to the UUP and to all those people who work in the UUP's offices, which have been under attack, and to express my confidence and assurance that once again these brave men and women will not allow themselves to be deflected by this utterly contemptible act.
I turn to the situation that has been opened up by the exchanges during the statement on Iraq, which were eloquently confirmed in the memorable critique of the moral and ethical basis on which government has been conducted by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short). I think that we have reached a new depth of cynicism in the management of our affairs when we are told of the difficulties—we shall come on to them in a moment—about an election that the Government want to call off but which has already started.
We are told that there is so little time and so much urgency that Parliament cannot have even two days to debate the measure, which the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) asked for last week. It is inexplicable that Parliament—we have had no explanation in response to the question of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), the shadow Leader of the House—cannot even sit beyond 10 o'clock. There is so little time that we are told that we must timetable consideration of the Bill. Then we are told—it has been dramatically revealed this afternoon—that the Government have been caught in the most distasteful, mean and snivelling type of trick, which is to bring forward a statement on Iraq, which

47
was unscheduled, merely to try to push the statement made by the right hon. Member for Ladywood further down the headlines. That really is a depth of cynicism.
I do not think that anything that I can say on this subject would be so convincing, so eloquent, so memorable and so likely to stand in the record for an extremely long time as the words that we have heard from the right hon. Lady.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Secretary of State used a rather strange set of words when he said that his understanding of the necessity for today's timetable was that the other place needed two days in which to consider legislation? Is the Secretary of State telling us that an unelected House can have two days to discuss legislation, but that the elected House of Commons can have only a day's debate? Is that not a disgraceful statement from a Secretary of State?
Mr. Davies: I fear that that is precisely what the Government are telling us— indeed, it is the only possible interpretation. They are telling us that they have a majority of 200 in the Commons, so they can do anything that they like here. They can overturn the procedures of the House and its Standing Orders any time that they see fit.
Mr. Forth: And they do.
Mr. Davies: Indeed, they have done so, as my right hon. Friend says, both on this occasion and countless other occasions. Poor Northern Ireland, however, has been the victim recently. An emergency Bill was introduced in March to postpone the elections, we thought, by a month. The Government, for reasons that we shall no doubt go into later, decided that they wanted more time. They have not actually said how much more time they want, so they introduced a new Bill simply to postpone the elections indefinitely. They think that they can get away with that—they think that they can get away with anything. If we do not do something about that, the situation will continue for, I fear, two years. I hope that over that period the Government will experience a sense of guilt and that a residual democratic conscience will be awakened in them. However, I can see no trace of that whatsoever, and I fear that Parliament is being abused so systematically that, after two Parliaments with a massive Labour majority, it will emerge with its credibility permanently eroded and its procedures taken much less seriously by the electorate, who will have less faith in them as objective procedures on which they can rely or which demonstrate the basis on which public business is done here. That is deplorable, and I share the sentiments of my hon. Friends and, I am sure, many Members on both sides of the House, about today's state of affairs. As I have said, those sentiments were eloquently expressed by the right hon. Member for, Ladywood.
Mrs. Dunwoody: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will be aware, and I am sure that you will want to remind the House, that personal statements are not only listened to in silence but are not commented on.
Peter Bottomley: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have not been here as long as the hon. Lady, so this may be an unnecessary comment. However, my understanding is that there is no comment on personal statements once they are concluded but they are often referred to in subsequent parliamentary debates.
Andrew Mackinlay: Or during a guillotine motion.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. A generalised reference post facto is permissible, but I was about to suggest to the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) that, having made a generalised point, he should perhaps nudge his focus on to the allocation of time motion before the House.
Mr. Quentin Davies: Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, personal resignation statements are an important part of our political history, and a great many of them have been referred to many years and, indeed, generations after they were delivered.
Rev. Ian Paisley: The Secretary of State seemed to hint that the usual channels had agreed today's arrangements. Can the hon. Gentleman assure the House that the Conservative Whips did not agree to a cut in the time for debate? No Member from Northern Ireland, as far as I am aware, whatever party they represent, was consulted in any way about today's time limit.
Mr. Davies: It does not surprise me in the least that the Government did not consult any of the Northern Ireland parties about the timetable motion, as they do not appear to consult the democratically elected Northern Ireland parties about the substance of their proposals on Northern Ireland. We shall discuss an example of that very shortly. I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks—no deal has been done between the usual channels, and I have not discussed the timetable motion at all with the Government. They do not know what I am about to tell them—what the attitude of the Opposition is towards the timetable motion.
Mr. John Bercow: Given the importance of communicating to the people of this country the extent of the Government's contempt for Parliament entailed by the allocation of time motion, will my hon. Friend confirm that, if we start the Second Reading debate at 5 pm, continue for an hour and have a further hour on Third Reading at the end, it means, in practice, that fewer than 10 minutes will be available to debate each of the 19 tabled amendments?
Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend always does his homework impressively and I am sure that his calculations are right. As he says, it is a disgraceful and also an extremely sad state of affairs.

49
Let me set the curiosity of the House at rest. Had there been some consultation and had we not had such an egregious example this afternoon of an attempt to manipulate Parliament and deliberately waste even more time—the Government acknowledged that it was scarce—I might have been open to the idea, because we accept the need to take a rapid decision on whether to hold elections in Northern Ireland, of accepting some form of timetable motion. However, in view of the circumstances, the Government's attitude and their squalid tricks this afternoon, there is no question of that. We must stand up for what we believe in—that Parliament deserves to be and must be treated with some respect, and that the Government's treatment of Parliament is nothing less than a constitutional disaster. I shall therefore urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against the motion. At this 11th hour, I do not have any great hopes, but I would like to see some last-minute repentance when the Government come to understand the impact of their actions, as viewed not just on this side of the House, but by distinguished Members on their own side.
4.55pm
Andrew Mackinlay: I shall enter the Division Lobby against the guillotine motion, which is an outrageous example of the House being brought into disrepute by the charade of our lawmaking process. It is the ultimate example. It was within the competence of the Government to have accorded some extra time for the Committee stage—[Interruption.] The Secretary of State, from a sedentary position, says nonsense, but he was not prepared to give way in his speech. I wanted to intervene on him and I believe I am correct in saying that when he was challenged, he said that he did not decide on Government business. Before coming into the Chamber I tried to inquire who was the guilty party and the Whips told me, "It is not us, Guy". The fact remains that someone somewhere in Government arrogantly decided that all stages of debate would be concluded at 10 pm. It is a shameful exercise, and I am not prepared any longer to acquiesce by my silence in this charade of lawmaking.
If the Secretary of State can contain himself, I shall take him back to 10 minutes to midnight last Tuesday evening, when I asked him when he would publish the Bill. He told me, "Thursday", but as he sat down, the blood drained from his face because he realised that he had screwed up: he did not mean Thursday and it was, in fact, published on Friday. The reason it was published on Friday is that it is a complicated Bill and the parliamentary draftsmen did not have enough time to complete it sooner. It is all right for the Government to have as much time as they need to prepare for a complicated Bill, but it is of no consequence to Parliament. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State should be more sensitive to the legitimate requirements of the House to see a final Bill properly printed, to be able to consider amendments and to consult other people and parties about them.
To buttress my case, I draw attention to clause 6—a catch-all clause lobbed into the Bill, which it makes it even more complicated. Basically, it provides that if anything in the Act needs altering, the Secretary of State has absolute power to alter it. That is a total power, which I believe requires the utmost scrutiny. It means
50
that the Secretary of State can alter anything by statutory instrument without an affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament. That demonstrates how the rivets have been put on the Bill as it has been going down the slipway. No one else has time to consider it and I am not prepared to go along with this charade. It is a thundering disgrace.
5 pm
Mr. Alistair Carmichael: I associate myself with the remarks of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in relation to the bombing this morning at the Ulster Unionist party's headquarters.
Since taking an interest in Northern Ireland matters in this place, I have been struck forcefully by the extent to which elected representatives in the House, in other councils and in the legislative Assembly in Northern Ireland require a great deal of courage to go about their day-to-day business, doing things that many of us on this side of the water have always taken for granted.
The Secretary of State, in introducing the timetable motion, referred to the need for urgency. Given that this is a mess of the Government's own making, no one on either side of the House could possible dispute that there is an element of urgency to today's proceedings. However, urgency is one thing, indecent haste is something quite different, and the terms of the timetabling motion, insisting on a conclusion by 10 o'clock, constitute indecent haste.
Having said that, I am mindful of the fact that it is already past 5 o'clock and that we are eating into valuable time. I in no way disagree with the hon. Members for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) and for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies), but I wonder whether, even at this late stage, everyone having put their objections on the record, it might be possible to recognise the inevitable and deal with this without a Division, which would be an unacceptable use of exceptionally precious time. It would be a good example of responsible opposition, which, I regret to say, would stand in stark contrast to the attitude displayed by the Government.
5.2 pm
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Members representing English constituencies who get themselves involved in Northern Ireland affairs are not usually those who seek general popularity. Indeed, some might say that they are not even very sensible. But the reality is that we are a United Kingdom, and Parliament, inadequate though it may be, represents every member of it, of every political party and every shade of view.
I have the greatest respect for the Secretary of State. He is an honourable man who fulfils a difficult task very well indeed. But I am today very concerned by the fact that it is felt necessary to timetable such important legislation in this manner. It has become a habit of the Government to treat the passing of legislation as merely a question of spending sufficient hours in a way that can be properly marshalled, and it is not good enough to come to the House of Commons and say, "It is true that the House of Lords must have two days, but despite this being a matter of such importance I intend you to have only one."

51
I am very disturbed. I dislike the timetabling of Bills anyway, but on a matter that is of almost constitutional importance, I have to say that, in my political experience, Members, however discursive, ill informed or sadly misinformed they are, and from whatever part of the globe they come, have the right to express their views in the House of Commons in a proper way. To do that, they must have time, and we must have the time to disagree with them. Those who seek to curtail debate, whatever their reasons and whatever the so-called urgency, do democracy, and certainly the House of Commons, ill, and I am sad to see it today.
5.4 pm
Mr. David Trimble: I thank the Secretary of State and other hon. Members for their comments on the incident at my party's headquarters this morning. As hon. Members may know, an envelope containing a device and addressed to me was being opened by one of my researchers when the device was activated. Had it operated in the way in which the people who made it planned, that gentleman could have received fatal injuries. What happened was a very serious incident in itself. I say to the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies), who speaks for the Opposition, that I, too, hope that, like those who sent a letter bomb to my constituency office some time ago, the people responsible for today's incident will be apprehended. I am sure that the police will spare no effort in that regard.
We have always been opposed, and we continue to be opposed, to guillotines. They are wrong in principle and in this case. However, we are realistic and we know that the Government have a majority. We welcome very much the comments and support of the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay), but even reinforced by that formidable support we would be unlikely to defeat the Government were the motion pressed to a vote, so I shall not speak at great length. Two points will suffice.
First, the Bill is unnecessary and should not have been introduced. It would not have been if the Government had thought the matter through clearly. There is a conflict between the Northern Ireland Acts of 1998 and 2000. Conflict has been clear, and inconsistency has been clear for some time. Any simple thought by the Government from October onwards would have made them realise that there was a problem that could and should have been resolved. There was plenty of opportunity to resolve the problem, but rather than doing so, people waited to the last minute, hoping that somehow it would go away. It has not. That is unnecessary; with a little bit of thought, the Government could have dealt with it.
As the Government failed to think the matter through and to act, it is unfair that hon. Members should be penalised by lack of time. The Government could either have given more time after 10 o'clock or followed the good example of the other place and allocated another day. There is plenty of time for that, given the business that the Government have scheduled for the rest of the week.
Secondly, until a few minutes ago, I was under the impression that the Opposition line was to make their point on the guillotine, but not to divide the House.
52
That will only penalise us, as we will lose another 15 to 20 minutes. I ask the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford to think.
5.7 pm
Mr. Eddie McGrady: I have great sympathy with the position in which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has been put and the necessity, because of circumstance, of tabling this guillotine motion. I also felt sorry for him last Tuesday night, when we again addressed at 10 pm a very difficult problem in Northern Ireland. However, that is nothing new. This Administration, like earlier Administrations, have given us a dosage of late-night debates on some of the most crucial matters of life and death.
I must not waste time on this guillotine debate, because we as a party must oppose the guillotine. The reason is simple. We are talking about a fundamental change in the democratic process. It is not necessarily a suspension of the elections sine die. It might be an abolition of the elections, because the only redeeming aspect or possibility of bringing an election back to the political forum of Northern Ireland is, in the terms of my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State, if trust can be re-established. Who measures the degree of trust that would trigger an election? That is a very subjective theme on which to base whether we have an election. Is it the Secretary of State's judgment to say that trust has been reestablished or is it the Prime Minister's judgment? That is what the Bill is all about.
The reality is that, by the suspension and possible abolition of elections, we are handing to the parties in Northern Ireland—particularly Sinn Fein and, I must say, the Ulster Unionist party—a veto as to when, if ever, elections will be held. If they say that they do not have trust, there will, according to the Bill, be no elections. That is a very dangerous precedent. Although I have great sympathy for the Secretary of State, we must record our opposition to the guillotine. Such fundamental principles are involved that we cannot let them go without debate.
I extend my sympathy to the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and his party, and to the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds), who was attacked physically. That is an attack on us all, as we have said so often in this House.
David Burnside: Does not the hon. Gentleman underestimate the resent electoral strength, power and veto of the SDLP? The Assembly and the Executive would still be in existence and the election would already have taken place had the SDLP separated itself after Sinn Fein proved itself to be incapable of being a democratic party and was involved in Stormontgate—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not go down that route: it is outside the scope of the motion.
Mr. McGrady: You have disappointed me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by not allowing me to respond to that attack on my party, but I will abide by your ruling. We

53
know which party withdrew from the last Administration: it was the party of the hon. Member for South Antrim (David Burnside), and no other, that withdrew, bringing about the collapse of the Government. Had its members stayed on in their posts, we would not be here tonight.
Mr. Seamus Mallon: When my hon. Friend speaks about the hon. Gentleman's party, what exactly is he talking about?
Mr. McGrady: I wish that I had had notice of that intervention, because I am somewhat nonplussed as to how to respond.
We must record our opposition to the shortness of this debate on a very fundamental aspect of democracy in Northern Ireland. We now have the ludicrous situation whereby many party members who paid their deposits for nomination for election last Friday week and last Monday are still waiting for it to be repaid as the Bill goes through. That is how much politics and the democratic process have been, and are being, brought into disrepute in Northern Ireland.
5.12 pm
Rev. Ian Paisley: Of course, all hon. Members sympathise with the official Unionist party and condemn the attack on its headquarters. I wish that the leader of that party had been as liberal with my party after it was attacked in North Belfast with a 100 lb bomb in a building where two senior citizens were being attended to by their Member of Parliament. At the time, no one in this House, not even the Secretary of State, thought to mention that. I am glad that he did so today. I condemn all such actions equally. Whatever the place may be, no one should plant a bomb or anything that would cause grief, wounding or even killing. That must be utterly and totally condemned. I hope that the people who bombed the official Unionist party's headquarters and the people who bombed the advice centre of my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds) will be caught and brought to justice, and that the law will take its course, showing that the law does rule in Northern Ireland.
It is all very well for the Secretary of State to say that I am wasting time, but he tabled the motion and allowed us three hours to discuss it. He cannot say to me, as a representative from Northern Ireland, that I am wasting the time of the House. I had nothing to do with the three hours that he appointed; neither I nor my party were consulted. As he knows very well, because I spoke to him personally in the House last week, we are grateful that he made an effort to get Members from Northern Ireland a copy of the draft Bill. Otherwise, we would have received a copy only when we walked into the House today. The House should not conduct its business in such a way.
The Bill does not postpone but cancels the election. In the case of postponement, a date would be set. Even someone in Dublin, who must have been at the meetings there, gave a date in October. However, that disappeared when the matter came up for discussion. We have no date and the statement made it clear who
54
would make the decision. The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) referred to that. The Bill would wipe out a date for elections, so we are considering cancellation. That is very serious.
The Secretary of State is a fair man and I know that he wants to help the people of Northern Ireland. He may be helping them in the wrong way, but we shall not judge him for that. Some day he will answer to a higher authority. However, surely we should have time to debate the matter properly. I ask him to give us time to do that.
Mr. Tom Harris: The date of the next general election to this House has not been announced. It may be in 2005 or 2006, but we will not know until a month beforehand. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that elections to this House have been cancelled?
Rev. Ian Paisley: It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman has not read the Bill. The measure that set up the Assembly provided for a fixed-term Assembly. I sit in the European Parliament, and I know on the day I am elected when the next election will take place. That should apply in the case that we are considering. My party took the Government to court to deal with the matter, and we have therefore done our bit. After the Bill is passed, the election will be cancelled—that is the truth.
Mr. Peter Robinson: Is not the comparison that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Harris) made ludicrous? Clearly, elections to the House have to take place in a stipulated period of time. The Bill makes no such stipulation. The Secretary of State could decide to hold them in five years.
Rev. Ian Paisley: My hon. Friend is right. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Harris) made his point. The subject pulls together voices from all over the community. I do not often agree with the SDLP, but its members agree with me and I agree with them about the Bill. We should not pass it and the elections should take place when they were set to happen.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I am beginning to be sorry that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Harris) raised the matter, because it is taking us away from the motion. We must not discuss the Bill at this stage.
Rev. Ian Paisley: I believed that we were discussing the timetable motion, not the Bill.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: We are considering the timetable motion.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not want to get on the wrong side of the Chair today, because I mean to stay until the bitter end to vote on the Bill.

55
The House does itself no good with anybody in Northern Ireland when it acts in the way in which it is acting to put off the elections.
5.19 pm
Peter Bottomley: The answer to the dilemma is for the Government to ask permission to modify the timetable motion in the light of the debate and the time that was properly taken up by the two statements. At least that time should be added to our discussions. In the remaining minutes of the timetable debate , I make a plea to the Government to hold consultations, speak to the Chair and ascertain whether it is possible to make such a modification. Otherwise, debates in this place make no difference.
I do not believe that the arguments put forward for maintaining the timetable stand up at all. I do not want to be partisan, but this is the simplest answer. If this debate went on until about midnight, it might inconvenience some of the people who have got used to the idea of clearing up at 10, but I think that they would understand the importance of the matter.
I do not agree with the leader of the Ulster Unionists, or with the Liberal spokesman. I think that this is a matter on which a vote is necessary. We cannot start accepting this kind of trampling on the opportunities of Parliament. Most Members of Parliament have seen the Bill only today and have had no opportunity to table any amendments. Without going into the merits of the Bill, or of specific parts of it, I would like to draw hon. Members' attention to clause 6(5), which says that the Secretary of State can do whatever he likes within 40 days by putting an order through—and, by the way, clause 6(6) says that he does not even need to do that if he thinks it expedient not to. If I had had the time, I would certainly have tried to table an amendment that would have taken out subsection (6). We cannot deal with subsection (6) without considering clause 6. The timetable motion should at least allow for debate on matters on which there has been a chance to table amendments.
I would say to the Government that, of course, life is difficult, and the decisions that they have taken have not been easy. I would also say to those who are not here—namely, the Sinn Fein Members of Parliament—that I am very sorry that the IRA has not allowed them to take part fully as Members of this House, because they would then learn that Parliament is normally, although not today, a place where we can air our views and be defeated. In this case, however, we are not even to be allowed a debate before we are defeated on some of the things that we would like to change in the Bill.
I repeat my plea to the people on the Government Front Bench to think again, and to change the terms of this motion in the light of the debate. I suspect that the Chair would be amenable to the tabling of an amendment to this timetable motion. Although two days' debate would be better, to go on until midnight rather than 10 in the light of the time taken up by the two statements today would be appropriate.
5.21 pm
Mr. Richard Shepherd: Things have come to an extraordinary pass when I am the only one who is going to compliment the Secretary of State on moving this motion. The House has reduced itself to such an extent that the Government do not, as a rule, even trouble the House with a Secretary of State in command of a Department giving the reasons why they should truncate debate. Having heard his inadequate explanation, however, I well understand why many Secretaries of State do not advance such arguments. He has given no real explanation as to why there is such a supernatural necessity to deal with this matter within the terms of this extraordinary guillotine motion, which truncates debate in as reckless a manner as any that we have seen under this Government.
The Secretary of State suggested that he was bringing to an end expense for parties and for individuals, but he is already making provision in the Bill to ensure that such expenses are met. So that is not a reason for the urgency. We know that the Government, who operate the majoritarian principle with such ruthlessness, will be assured of securing their business. Some sophists have tried to distinguish between a timetable and what we in the House have always known colloquially as a guillotine. There is no attempt at serious timetabling here. The Government have not sought consultation, or asked the participating parties for their views on this matter. There has been no endeavour whatever to suggest that this is a timetable motion. It is simply, in the oldest expression of the House, a guillotine.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, you very kindly submitted to the Modernisation Committee a memorandum on the operation of timetabling and the use of the guillotine, which was published in the report on the proceedings of that Committee. One of your objections—I will give you the reference if you wish, Sir—reflected something that many of us on both sides of the House fear, namely the exclusion of Back Benchers from the debate. Every amendment on the Order Paper, with the exception of amendment No. 2, tabled in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), has been tabled in the names of Back Benchers. It is the simplest thing for a Government with a great majority to determine that the matter in hand shall be dismissed without regard to the calibrations which individual elected Members of the United Kingdom Parliament may wish to raise in respect of part of their country and which deeply affect those they represent. That is the most profound statement of why we are here, and we have made it time and again.
I do not think for one moment that the Secretary of State will relent on timetables or whatever, as the Government march to another drum. In fact, his audacity is such as to commend the fact that, due to necessity, unelected people elsewhere, who are now mostly appointed, will have two clays to discuss the measure. That puts the matter in perspective.
Mr. Bercow: Further to the speech of our hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley), does my hon. Friend agree that even if the Government were not prepared to recommend to the House a reconsidered motion allowing for debate until midnight,

57
there is no good reason whatever why full consideration of the measure should not take precedence over this Thursday's proposed debate on a motion for the Adjournment of the House on developing a national skills strategy—an important matter, but palpably not urgent?
Mr. Shepherd: I have experience of guillotine motions and debates that take place under them, and I honestly have no idea how long it would take to debate the measure sensibly and within terms, as I understand them from the amendments. I do not know whether we would finish by 10 o'clock, but I am interested to note that, often, when I have opposed a guillotine motion on the basis that a matter should be allowed its time, the debate has dried up within the time allotted.
We are talking not about the measurement of time, but about the principle as to whether serious Members of Parliament should be allowed the flow and the proper time in respect of passing legislation. That is the profound matter of principle involved when we discuss such a guillotine motion. Having read the amendments—some of which I support—my guess is that the matter would perhaps have been disposed of in the time ordinarily available for the business of the House. Of course, two statements have altered the tempo and timing of the day.
My last point involves not a discussion of your memorandum, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but a reflection on the fact that we have come to a serious pass when leaders of great parties—for instance, the Ulster Unionist party—say, "We accept that we are working under such a burden as this guillotine motion. Accepting that, and knowing that the matter will be dealt with in the House of Lords or wherever else, we would rather get on and will not vote against." Surely that relates to as profound a principle that secures and supports the rights of the Ulster Unionists as any I know in the House.
In the Division, I hope that the Ulster Unionists will join Conservative Front Benchers and all those good Members of the House who stand up for the principle of freedom of speech on parliamentary business.
5.29 pm
Mr. Kevin McNamara: I had not intended to speak, but the comments of the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) cannot be allowed to pass. I well remember a Conservative Government taking through the House in a day a manuscript Bill that sought to justify all the actions of the British Army in Northern Ireland from the outbreak of the troubles until 1971. The Chair accepted no amendments, bar one, which would have allowed us to look at it again after six months. Only 15 Members voted for it, and not one Tory Member was there to fight for Parliament's right to consider every single matter.
Having said that, I shall vote against the motion, because I think that it is wrong. It little behoves the Tory party in particular to be arguing this case, and it little behoves the Ulster Unionists to be arguing that we should not vote against the motion. We know that all these proceedings favour the position of the Ulster Unionists, and that that is why we are here in the first place.
The House divided: Ayes 274, Noes 175.

Division No. 182]

[5:30 pm

AYES

Ainger, Nick

Dean, Mrs Janet

Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

Denham, rh John

Allen, Graham

Dhanda, Parmjit

Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

Dobson, rh Frank

Atkins, Charlotte

Donohoe, Brian H.

Austin, John

Doran, Frank

Bailey, Adrian

Drew, David (Stroud)

Baird, Vera

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Barren, rh Kevin

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Battle, John

Edwards, Huw

Bayley, Hugh

Efford, Clive

Beard, Nigel

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Bell, Stuart

Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

Benn, Hilary

Farrelly, Paul

Benton, Joe (Bootle)

Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

Berry, Roger

Fisher, Mark

Blackman, Liz

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Blears, Ms Hazel

Follett, Barbara

Blizzard, Bob

Foster, Michael (Worcester)

Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

Francis, Dr. Hywel

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Gapes, Mike (llford S)

Bradshaw, Ben

Gardiner, Barry

Brennan, Kevin

Gerrard, Neil

Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend

Gibson, Dr. Ian

Gilroy, Linda

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Goggins, Paul

Browne, Desmond

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Bryant, Chris

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Burden, Richard

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Cairns, David

Grogan, John

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Hain, rh Peter

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

Casale, Roger

Hanson, David

Caton, Martin

Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

Challen, Colin

Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Chaytor, David

Healey, John

Clapham, Michael

Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

Hendrick, Mark

Hepburn, Stephen

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Heppell, John

Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

Heyes, David

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Clelland, David

Hinchliffe, David

Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

Hope, Phil (Corby)

Coaker, Vernon

Hopkins, Kelvin

Coffey, Ms Ann

Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

Cohen, Harry

Coleman, Iain

Howells, Dr. Kim

Colman, Tony

Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

Connarty, Michael

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Cooper, Yvette

Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

Corston, Jean

Hutton, rh John

Cousins, Jim

Iddon, Dr. Brian

Cruddas, Jon

Irranca-Davies, Huw

Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

Jamieson, David

Dalyell, Tarn

Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

David, Wayne

Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

Davidson, Ian

Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

Kaufman, rh Gerald

Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

Keen, Alan (Feltham)

Dawson, Hilton

Keen, Ann (Brentford)

59

Kemp, Fraser

Purchase, Ken

Khabra, Piara S.

Quinn, Lawrie

Kidney, David

Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

Kilfoyle, Peter

Raynsford, rh Nick

King, Andy (Rugby)

Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

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

Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

Rooney, Terry

Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Lepper, David

Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

Leslie, Christopher

Ruane, Chris

Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Salter, Martin

Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

Sarwar, Mohammad

Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

Savidge, Malcolm

Linton, Martin

Shaw, Jonathan

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Sheerman, Barry

Love, Andrew

Sheridan, Jim

Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

Singh, Marsha

Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

McAvoy, Thomas

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

McCabe, Stephen

Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

McCartney, rh Ian

McDonagh, Siobhain

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

MacDonald, Calum

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

MacDougall, John

Soley, Clive

McFall, John

Southworth, Helen

McIsaac, Shona

Spellar, rh John

McKenna, Rosemary

Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

McNulty, Tony

Steinberg, Gerry

Mactaggart, Fiona

Stevenson, George

McWalter, Tony

Stoate, Dr. Howard

McWilliam, John

Straw, rh Jack

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Mallaber, Judy

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Mandelson, rh Peter

Tami, Mark (Alyn)

Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

Marshall-Andrews, Robert

Tipping, Paddy

Martlew, Eric

Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

Miliband, David

Trickett, Jon

Miller, Andrew

Truswell, Paul

Moffatt, Laura

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Moonie, Dr. Lewis

Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

Morley, Elliot

Morris, rh Estelle

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Mountford, Kali

Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

Mudie, George

Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

Mullin, Chris

Walley, Ms Joan

Munn, Ms Meg

Ward, Claire

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Wareing, Robert N.

Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

Watts, David

Naysmith, Dr. Doug

White, Brian

Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

Whitehead, Dr. Alan

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

Wicks, Malcolm

Olner, Bill

Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

O'Neill, Martin

Williams, Betty (Conwy)

Organ, Diana

Winnick, David

Owen, Albert

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Palmer, Dr. Nick

Perham, Linda

Wood, Mike (Batley)

Picking, Anne

Woodward, Shaun

Pickthall, Colin

Woolas, Phil

Pike, Peter (Burnley)

Worthington, Tony

Plaskitt, James

Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

Pollard, Kerry

Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

Wright, David (Telford)

Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

Wright, Tony (Cannock)

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Wyatt, Derek

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Primarolo, rh Dawn

Mr. Ivor Caplin and

Prosser, Gwyn

Gillian Merron

60

NOES

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Heald, Oliver

Allan, Richard

Heath, David

Ancram, rh Michael

Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Hendry, Charles

Baldry, Tony

Hermon, Lady

Barker, Gregory

Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

Baron, John (Billericay)

Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

Barrett, John

Holmes, Paul

Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

Horam, John (Orpington)

Bellingham, Henry

Howard, rh Michael

Bercow, John

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Beresford, Sir Paul

Hunter, Andrew

Blunt, Crispin

Jack, rh Michael

Boswell, Tim

Jenkin, Bernard

Bortomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Keetch, Paul

Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

Brady, Graham

Key, Robert (Salisbury)

Breed, Colin

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Browning, Mrs Angela

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Burns, Simon

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Burnside, David

Lamb, Norman

Burstow, Paul

Lansley, Andrew

Burterfill, John

Laws, David (Yeovil)

Cable, Dr. Vincent

Leigh, Edward

Galton, Mrs Patsy

Letwin, rh Oliver

Cameron, David

Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

Liddell-Grainger, Ian

Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

Lidington, David

Carmichael, Alistair

Lilley, rh Peter

Cash, William

Llwyd, Elfyn

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

Loughton, Tim

Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

Chope, Christopher

McGrady, Eddie

Clappison, James

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Mackay, rh Andrew

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Mackinlay, Andrew

Collins, Tim

Maclean, rh David

Conway, Derek

McLoughlin, Patrick

Corbyn, Jeremy

McNamara, Kevin

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Malins, Humfrey

Cotter, Brian

Mallon, Seamus

Curry, rh David

Maples, John

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Maude, rh Francis

Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

Mercer, Patrick

Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

Moss, Malcolm

Murrison, Dr. Andrew

Djanogly, Jonathan

Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

Dodds, Nigel

O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

Osborne, George (Tatton)

Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

Ottaway, Richard

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Page, Richard

Fabricant, Michael

Paice, James

Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

Paisley, Rev. Ian

Portillo, rh Michael

Flook, Adrian

Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

Forth, rh Eric

Foster, Don (Bath)

Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

Fox, Dr. Liam

Redwood, rh John

Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

Rendel, David

Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

Robathan, Andrew

Gidley, Sandra

Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

Gray, James (N Wilts)

Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

Grayling, Chris

Roe, Mrs Marion

Green, Damian (Ashford)

Rosindell, Andrew

Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Grieve, Dominic

Sanders, Adrian

Hague, rh William

Sayeed, Jonathan

Hammond, Philip

Selous, Andrew

Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

Shepherd, Richard

Simmonds, Mark

Harvey, Nick

Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

Hawkins, Nick

Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

61

Soames, Nicholas

Waterson, Nigel

Spelman, Mrs Caroline

Watkinson, Angela

Spring, Richard

Whittingdale, John

Stanley, rh Sir John

Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

Streeter, Gary

Wiggin, Bill

Stunell, Andrew

Willetts, David

Swayne, Desmond

Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

Willis, Phil

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Wilshire, David

Taylor, John (Solihull)

Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

Wishart, Pete

Thurso, John

Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

Trend, Michael

Young, rh Sir George

Trimble, rh David

Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

Tellers for the Noes:

Tyrie, Andrew

Hugh Robertson and

Walter, Robert

Mr. Mark Francois

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the following provisions shall apply to the proceedings on the Northern Ireland Assembly (Elections and Periods of Suspension) Bill—

Timetable
1. Proceedings on Second Reading, in Committee, on consideration and on Third Reading shall be completed at this day's sitting and shall be brought to a conclusion, if not previously concluded, at Ten o'clock.

Timing of proceedings and Questions to be put
2. When the Bill has been read a second time—
(a) it shall, notwithstanding Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of bills), stand committed to a Committee of the whole House without any Question being put;
proceedings on the Bill shall stand postponed while the Question is put, in accordance with paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 52 (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills), on any financial resolution relating to the Bill;
(c) on the conclusion of proceedings on any financial resolution relating to the Bill, proceedings on the Bill shall be resumed and the Speaker shall leave the Chair whether or not notice of an Instruction has been given.
3. On the conclusion of proceedings in Committee the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question and, if the Bill is reported with amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.
4. For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph I the Speaker or Chairman shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—
(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;
(c) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;
(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.
5. On a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

Consideration of Lords Amendments
6.—(1) Any Lords Amendments to the Bill shall be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
(2) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall be brought to a conclusion, if not previously concluded, one hour after their commencement.
7.—(1) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 6.
(2) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question already proposed from the Chair and not yet decided.
(3) If that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment the Speaker shall then putforthwith—
(a) a single Question on any further Amendments to the Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown, and
(b) the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House agrees or disagrees to the Lords Amendment or (as the case may be) to the Lords Amendment as amended.
(4) The Speaker shall then put forthwith—
(a) a single Question on any Amendments moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment, and
(b) the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House agrees or disagrees to the Lords Amendment or (as the case may be) to the Lords Amendment as amended.
(5) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House disagrees to a Lords Amendment.
(6) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question, That this House agrees to all the remaining Lords Amendments.
(7) As soon as the House has agreed or disagreed to Lords Amendment, or disposed of an Amendment relevant to a lords Amendment which has been disagreed to, the Speaker shall put forthwith a single Question on any Amendments moved by a Minister of the Crown and relevant to the Lords Amendment.

Subsequent stages
8.—(1) Any further Message from the Lords on the Bill shall be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
(2) Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.
9.—(1) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 8.
(2) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided.
(3) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair.
(4) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on or relevant to any of the remaining items in the Lords Message.
(5) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question, That this House agrees with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

Reasons Committee
10.—(1) The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment, nomination and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons in relation to the Bill and the appointment of its Chairman.
(2) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.
(2) Proceedings in the Committee shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion 30 minutes after their commencement.
(3) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with sub-paragraph (3) the Chairman shall—
(a) first put forthwith any Question which has been proposed from the Chair but not yet decided, and
(b) then put forthwith successively Questions on motions which may be made by a Minister of the Crown for assigning a Reason for disagreeing with the Lords in any of their Amendments.
(5) The proceedings of the Committee shall be reported without any further Question being put.

Miscellaneous
11. Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business) shall apply to any proceedings to which this Order applies.
12. The proceedings on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 shall apply to those proceedings.
13. Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply in relation to any proceedings to which this Order applies.
14. No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which any proceedings on the Bill are taken or to re-commit the Bill.
15. No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to proceedings to which this Order applies except by a Minister of the Crown; and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
16.—(1) This paragraph applies if—
(a) a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) has been stood over to Seven o'clock, Three o'clock or Four o'clock (as the case may be), but
(b) proceedings to which this Order applies have begun before then.
(2) Proceedings on that Motion shall stand postponed until the conclusion of those proceedings.
17. If the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the conclusion of any proceedings to which this Order applies, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.
18. Proceedings to which this Order applies shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

Northern Ireland Assembly (Elections and Periods of Suspension) Bill
Order for Second Reading read.
5.44 pm
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Paul Murphy): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This Bill provides for deferment of the elections for the Northern Ireland Assembly that were due to be held on 29 May. I very much regret having to introduce the Bill. I should have much preferred to present an order for the restoration of devolved Government. Elections should be deferred only for the most compelling reasons. However, I am clear that, in presenting the Bill, the Government are doing what is most likely to sustain the Good Friday agreement and a political process that will bring nearer the day when we shall be able to restore the devolved institutions.
I have already set out in my statements of 1 May and 6 May the advances that we, the Irish Government and the political parties in Northern Ireland made over the six months following the suspension of devolved government in October last year. We had arrived at a comprehensive set of proposals for the full implementation of the Belfast agreement. A fundamental element of those proposals was that there must be an end to all paramilitary activity. Those Members who have read or will read paragraph 13 of the joint declaration of the two Governments will have seen or will see that that is spelled out in detail.
The paragraph says:
"We need to see an immediate, full and permanent cessation of all paramilitary activity, including military attacks, training, targeting, intelligence gathering, acquisition or development of arms or weapons, other preparations for terrorist campaigns, punishment beatings and attacks and involvement in riots. Moreover, the practice of exiling must come to an end and the exiled must feel free to return in safety. Similarly, sectarian attacks and intimidation directed at vulnerable communities must cease."
Nothing is clearer than paragraph 13 and that statement, which defines in detail what is meant by paramilitary activity.
The IRA statements that were puwblished last week and the clarifications offered by the president of Sinn Fein were significant developments but, taken together, they do not give the clarity that is needed in response to the single question: will there be an immediate end to all paramilitary activity? That lack of clarity is very damaging. A very broad range of opinion in the UK, in the Republic of Ireland and elsewhere has found the statements of the republican movement lacking the assurance that it is legitimate to demand in a democratic and civilised society.
Our central goal is to make the Good Friday agreement work. At the heart of that agreement, which the vast majority of the House supported at the time and which a vast majority continue to support, was a commitment to pursuing political goals by exclusively peaceful and democratic means. It is self-evident that, after five years of what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister called "creative ambiguity", we now need clarity if the institutions are to work.
We did not have that clarity. Consequently, we believe that the institutions would not work. The election would not have given us government as

65
envisaged in the agreement, and so it was to defend the agreement that, with a very heavy heart, we decided that a deferment was necessary. I would not pretend for one second to the House that it was an easy decision; it was not. However, I believe that it was the right decision.
David Burnside: The Secretary of State has been very clear in defining the non-violent democratic activities to which we expect the republican movement to adhere. Does he therefore agree that it would be wrong and undemocratic for the Provisional IRA to carry out any action against an informer who has been in its military organisation in the past 30 years and who, at present, may feel under great threat from its execution squads?
Mr. Murphy: The hon. Gentleman must have someone in mind. I assure him that none of the attacks made on whatever persons in Northern Ireland can be justified. No attack on anybody in whatever circumstances is justifiable. It would be condemned by all of us in the House.
Let me recall how the agreement came about. It was the product of several decades of political activity, and many Members of the House spent many months-indeed, years—in arranging political activities so that we could come to an agreement as we did in 1998. However, effectively there was intensive negotiation in 1997 and 1998. The agreement held the promise of a final transition from deep-rooted community conflict and the plague of terrorism to a normal and peaceful society.
The key characteristic of the system of government that the agreement established was the institutionalisation of cross-community partnership. Many different features of the agreement are valued by different people in Northern Ireland, but I believe that that feature inspired the electorate of Northern Ireland to vote by 77.1 per cent. in favour of the agreement. The prospect of an agreed future in place of division and conflict enthused many people on both sides of the community. That promise still leads a majority of people on both sides of the community to say that they still want the agreement to work, which was shown by a poll in the Belfast Telegraph in February, to which 60 per cent. of the respondents were Protestants.
The mechanics of such institutionalised partnership government are different from the system in the House or the institutions in any other democracy that I know. Nearly all elections to such institutions yield a government, even if time is required to build a coalition. Cross-community government, as we all know, is different. It depends on widespread willingness to participate, and that is dependent on trust. That trust was lost last October when we had to suspend the institutions.
As the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) said last week, an election now would not be an election to the institutions prescribed by the agreement because those institutions would not work. It would be an election to a set of non-functional institutions. Had we held such an election and then lifted suspension, we could well have faced administrative chaos and further early elections. Far from democracy being enhanced, it would have been undermined. That would not protect
66
the agreement. All hon. Members who support the agreement must ask themselves whether holding an election now would represent a step toward its longterm success.
Mr. Kevin McNamara: Does my right hon. Friend recall that 15 months passed after the elections to the Assembly before an agreed Administration was formed?
Mr. Murphy: I do remember that, because I was involved in trying to bring the institutions back together during at least half of those months. The difference lies in what I said earlier. The reasons why we were in difficulty during those early months are not as stark as the reasons why we are in difficulty today. The Prime Minister's speech in Belfast in October 2002 was echoed and agreed by the Taoiseach. He said that we had reached a "fork in the road" and that after five years, there must be an end to paramilitary activity, although there might have been creative ambiguity for some years before. The world has changed in five years and people have lost patience with continued paramilitary activity, which is why trust was lost in October 2002.
My hon. Friend was right to imply that we can experience a long and involved process. He will recall that just after 5.30 pm on the Good Friday in 1998 when Senator George Mitchell said that the agreement had been approved, one of the first things that he said was that we were at the beginning of the difficulties, rather than the end of them. He said that a bumpy road would be ahead of us. Of course we knew that, but everything depends on how big the bumps are. Some institutions can survive specific difficulties. However, he knows that the Assembly will operate properly only within the terms of the Belfast agreement that allow for proper power sharing throughout the community, which were approved in the referendum.
Jeremy Corbyn: I am interested in what the Secretary of State says about the postponement of the elections, but will he explain how postponing elections will assist the development of democratic institutions in Northern Ireland, since those who did not want the Assembly in the first place do not want the elections to be held and, indeed, have a vested interest in ensuring the breakdown of the Good Friday agreement?
Mr. Murphy: There are certainly people—I shall refer to them in a second—who do not. and never did, agree with the Belfast agreement. They have sincere reasons for that position, and they were explained to the electorate when the referendum was called. However, the majority of people in Northern Ireland voted in favour of the Belfast agreement in the referendum, as did the majority of people in the Republic of Ireland.
Mr. Peter Robinson: Times change.
Mr. Murphy: Time does change things, as I hear the hon. Gentleman say, and that is precisely the point that I am making: times have changed over the past five years and we can no longer tolerate continued paramilitary

67
activity. Such activity must stop so that trust and confidence may be built up among politicians in Northern Ireland.
Mr. Andrew Hunter: If it is the demands of the Belfast agreement that prevent the restoration of a devolved and democratic Government in Northern Ireland, is it possible that it is the demands of the agreement that are at fault?
Mr. Murphy: That is possible, but I do not think that it is the case. The hon. Gentleman knows that the nature of the Assembly that was suspended and eventually dissolved is different from that of any other Assembly in the United Kingdom. The Assembly is based on complicated and sophisticated rules of cross-community voting to ensure that nationalists and Unionists feel comfortable and able to accept it. It is a very special institution and, as I have said, it is not the same as the Assembly in Cardiff or the Parliament in Edinburgh.
The Assembly is an integral part of the Good Friday agreement and those who were involved in drawing up the agreement will remember that during the strand 1 talks, which I had the honour of chairing, we spent month after month working out the intricate rules and regulations on cross-community activity and the sharing of power and responsibilities that were necessary to keep the Assembly going. If the Assembly had not had those special rules and had become an ordinary Assembly like any other in the United Kingdom, the Belfast agreement would not have worked. I do not believe for a second that the Assembly would be accepted across the board in Northern Ireland unless everyone in Northern Ireland who wanted the agreement accepted that it is very special and different.
Mr. Nigel Dodds rose—
Mr. Murphy: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will put me right on that and tell me that other views are held in Northern Ireland about the nature of the Assembly. Those views are sincerely held and may be debated, but they are not compatible with the Good Friday agreement.
Mr. Dodds: The Secretary of State talks about the nature of the agreement and the institutions set up under it and thus the need for Unionist as well as nationalist support. How does he respond to the assertion that the majority of Unionists do not support the implementation of the Belfast agreement? He should refer not to the referendum results but to the more recent results of the general election to this House. A clear two thirds of the Unionists elected were opposed to the agreement. How can the right hon. Gentleman sustain the notion that the Belfast agreement is the only way forward given that, although it clearly has the support of nationalists and republicans, it does not have the support of a clear majority of the Unionist people of Northern Ireland?
Mr. Murphy: How can that be reconciled with the point that I made earlier? An opinion poll held more
68
recently than those elections showed that people want the Belfast agreement to work. People want a peace process and a political process to work. The way in which the Belfast agreement works could be changed, and the hon. Gentleman knows that paragraph 8 of the agreement provides for the parties represented in the Assembly—including his—to sit around a table and determine how best to improve on practices used for the last four or five years. I do not suggest for a second that the agreement is static, but it is the only basis on which we may move the process forward. I cannot conceive of an Assembly in Belfast that did not allow the power sharing that the present agreement allows being workable. That is why the Government's decision last week was still, nevertheless, a difficult one. Last week, it was argued that, with an election campaign out of the way, dialogue and compromise would be easier for those involved. That is not manifestly an unreasonable point of view, but on the basis of what we have heard in recent exchanges—including in the House in the last fortnight—I cannot believe that that is the reality. An election held now, in the conditions created by the uncertainty surrounding the commitments, would simply have polarised opinion further and made it much more difficult to get the institutions up and running again.
The other point is that the Good Friday agreement also refers to the other institutions of Government—the machinery north-south, east—west—and other issues that are interconnected. When people voted for the agreement, they voted for a host of different things, some of which were unpalatable to some and more palatable to others. What it has done, however, is to produce peace for five years, and no one—but no one could underestimate the significance of that.
David Winnick: Has there not always been a lot of antagonism towards power sharing? Is that not why the original concept of power sharing rightly produced by the Conservative Government in the early 1970s—the Sunningdale agreement—was destroyed on the ground? We have undoubtedly improved on that agreement, but power sharing has always been opposed by a powerful section of the Unionist forces.
Mr. Murphy: That may well have been the case, but I am sure that the parties, even the party represented by the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), would agree that in the years of devolution since the Good Friday agreement was signed, the institutions that it established—in particular, the Assembly— were institutions in which all Unionist parties in Northern Ireland were willing to discuss with nationalists and, indeed, republicans, decisions that affected all the people of Northern Ireland.
I am not saying for one second that everyone agreed with the Good Friday agreement, because people evidently did not. However, devolution worked and Ministers in the Executive came from the Democratic Unionist party, the Ulster Unionist party, Sinn Fein and the Social Democratic and Labour party. All those parties, representing the broad spectrum of Unionism and nationalism in Northern Ireland, worked to bring benefits to all the people of Northern Ireland. I am convinced that that was the case. I am not saying that it was always the happiest of families, but it never is. It is

69
clear from events in the House today that we are riot always a happy family here and sometimes disagree, but there is no question in my mind but that the people in Northern Ireland valued devolution because local Ministers made decisions for local people and were locally accountable.
Some people, of course, do not want the agreement to succeed. I do not agree with them, but nor do I believe that their outlook is widely shared in the House. I am proud to defend the agreement and the benefits it has brought to Northern Ireland. It is not possible to argue that Northern Ireland was a better place before the agreement. Let us consider the economic benefits. We have 100,000 new jobs since the agreement's conclusion and the lowest levels of unemployment since 1975; and manufacturing output is up 15 per cent., compared with a fall elsewhere in the UK. Most of all, people are not being killed as they were when the conflict was raging.
Of course, the situation is far from perfect. There is still criminality, including much violent criminality. In particular, the threat of paramilitarism looms. To cite one instance, all of us would deplore the attacks on the offices of democratically elected politicians from whatever party. Nevertheless, grave though some of the problems that still trouble us are, there is no doubt that the picture has greatly improved since, and directly because of, the Good Friday agreement.
Mr. John Taylor: The Secretary of State commented on Northern Ireland's economy. As one who spent several days as a private citizen in Northern Ireland over Easter, I was reminded of what a beautiful country it is. Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that enough is being done to promote tourism there?
Mr. Murphy: We must do as much as we can to develop tourism. There is no doubt in my mind that it has improved over the past few years compared with 10 years ago. The work that the Assembly did through its Ministers encouraged tourism in Northern Ireland. I entirely agree that it is well worth visiting. There are great examples of geographical, topographical and geological places that we need to sell as well as we possibly can. The Giant's Causeway is one of the greatest sights that can be seen. All those places are there to be promoted, but that is best done in the context of peace. Tourism was not developed for 30 years because people were frightened to go to Northern Ireland to see what it had to offer. There is enormous potential for tourism right across the board, in the countryside, in the cities and the towns and on the coast—
Mrs. Iris Robinson rose—
Mr. Murphy: Not least in the hon. Lady's constituency.
Mrs. Robinson: How many jobs have been lost to Northern Ireland since the Belfast agreement came into play?
Mr. Murphy: There is a net gain. That is the point that I am making. [Interruption.] Obviously, I do not have the figures and the detail with me, but the hon. Lady knows as well as I do that Northern Ireland has the fastest growing economy of all the regions and nations in the UK. [Interruption.] Perhaps she has the figures.
70
As Secretary of State for Wales, I had the benefit of seeing what happened in Wales. As a member of the Government, I have had the opportunity to see what has happened in the English regions and Scotland. Despite the setbacks, the fastest growing economy in the UK is in Northern Ireland. I do not underestimate the problems of redundancies in parts of Northern Ireland, but I am sure that the hon. Lady would be the first to say that over the past five years Northern Ireland has been a better place in which to live than it was 10 years ago.
Mr. Stephen McCabe: I am perplexed by the comments by the hon. Member for Strangford (Mrs. Robinson). I know that her party takes a cynical view of the agreement, but is there any evidence to suggest that jobs—other than those directly associated with terrorism—have been lost as a direct result of the benefits of the agreement?
Mr. Murphy: I reiterate that there is a net gain in jobs in Northern Ireland.
Mr. Seamus Mallon: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that Tourism Ireland, one of the cross-border bodies established by the Good Friday agreement, is responsible for marketing the whole of Ireland to tourists? Will he also confirm that Tourism Ireland is without the political direction that it was designed to receive? Indeed, the 600 people who work in various cross-border bodies are also without the indigenous political direction that they were designed to receive. When we talk about tourism and job creation, will the Secretary of State explain that there is a dynamic within the cross-border arrangements for job creation on a massive scale?
Mr. Murphy: There is no doubt in my mind that tourists want to come to the island of Ireland. Traditionally, many more have visited the Republic. I am glad that thousands more are now coming to Northern Ireland as a consequence of visiting the island of Ireland.
Mr. Hugo Swire: The Secretary of State paints a rosy picture of the Northern Ireland economy. The other economy that is prospering in Northern Ireland is the black economy. While the extortion and smuggling propagated by the paramilitary organisations continue apace, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there can never be full completion until fundraising is added to the list that he outlines time and time again in talking about completion by Sinn Fein-IRA or, indeed, any other paramilitary organisation?
Mr. Murphy: There is nothing wrong with fundraising—it is the nature of the fundraising that matters. None the less, I agree with the general thrust of the hon. Gentleman's remarks.
We shall pursue the continuing implementation of the Belfast agreement. The joint declaration sets out a programme of reform in line with the agreement that benefits everyone in Northern Ireland. We shall proceed with a number of the proposals in the joint declaration in the interests of everyone in Northern Ireland. There are very important proposals relating to security

71
normalisation. Some of them can be achieved only in the event of steps taken by others: they rely on the creation of a new security context. Obviously, they must wait.
Helen Jackson: On the joint declaration, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is crucial that both Governments believe, with huge regret, that it represents the right way forward? Is not the publication of the joint declaration an important reason why we should reluctantly accept this difficult decision?
Mr. Murphy: The joint declaration is the result of almost seven months of discussion and negotiation. It represents a shared understanding between the Governments and the pro-agreement parties that this was the best way forward. Even though we did not agree on elections, relations between the British and Irish Governments remain robust and firm. Without that good relationship, we could not make the progress that is necessary.
Mr. Jeffrey M. Donaldson: I ask again: what indications has the Secretary of State been given by the Ulster Unionist party that the joint declaration is a shared understanding of the way forward?
Mr. Murphy: That was not a bad try. The hon. Gentleman tried it last Tuesday, and given that he has asked the same question, I will give him the same answer. The declaration is a shared understanding among those who negotiated and discussed these matters at Hillsborough and elsewhere. It is up to the individual political parties in Northern Ireland through their own mechanisms to decide how best to deal with these matters. Let me again emphasise the fact that the joint declaration is one document, but there are two others. The hon. Gentleman's party did not like the one that deals with on-the-runs, so it was not a shared understanding between that party and the Governments. Sinn Fein did not like the other document, which referred to the monitoring body and the verification procedures and sanctions; again, the two Governments decided to put it forward.

Some, including the hon. Gentleman, have suggested that the declaration is a charter of concessions to one side. I do not believe that—nor do I think that such an assertion is supported by the facts. Proper policing, justice, rights and equality are fundamental to everybody, whatever side they belong to, in a modern democratic society. The joint declaration includes an end to all paramilitary activity and sets out an extensive catalogue, which I have already quoted, of activities that must cease. It includes plans for an independent body for monitoring conformity with commitments in the agreement and the declaration, in particular the monitoring of paramilitary activity. We shall bring forward early legislation in thatrespect—legislation for which we shall have more time that also covers the means for giving effect to the body's findings.
The further implementation of the agreement is not about concessions to one interest or the other. It is designed to reassure all parties that in due course they can go into elections confident that the institutions are being restored on a stable, long term, basis. What we
72
need now is the continuation of political dialogue. It is essential that we continue to work vigorously and without any loss of momentum to resolve our difficulties. It is also important that we do not lose focus. A great many issues have stood in the way of political progress in the past, but we are now essentially down to two: trust about the use of exclusively peaceful means and about the stability of the institutions. We will work with all the parties and the Irish Government, with our intention being to hold an election in the autumn.
Mr. Peter Robinson: The burden of the Secretary of State's argument is that the IRA might not step up to the mark in terms of a full commitment to non-violence. If the sanctions that he mentioned worked, why would he stop an election when he could have dealt with the IRA through the sanctions process? Is that not an admission on his part that the sanctions were hopeless?
Mr. Murphy: But the sanctions that are to be proposed as a consequence of the joint declaration are new ones, which would have to be—indeed, will be—legislated for in this House of Commons. That will take time. My argument is that it is a pointless exercise electing people to a suspended Assembly which, if it is restored, will not produce a Government in the context of the Belfast agreement. That is the heart of the matter. Why is the Assembly suspended? Because of a lack of confidence and trust. Why are confidence and trust lacking? Because of continued paramilitary activity. We must address the paramilitary activity in order to restore the trust needed to restore the institutions and hold elections to them.
David Burnside: If we had an Executive in operation and the new sanctions process—the fourperson sanctions committee—was operating in law, and if the activities of the Provisional IRA in Colombia were repeated, and Castlereagh happened again, and Stormontgate happened again, would that lead to the automatic expulsion of Sinn Fein from the Executive?
Mr. Murphy: No doubt the hon. Gentleman has read the joint declaration and the annexe to it and has seen the proposal for a gradation of offences, so that the most serious— I do not underestimate the seriousness of the matters he mentions—would be referred in the first instance to the Assembly itself. Decisions would then have to be taken, because the finger would have been pointed by the verification body at the offence in question. No such monitoring body exists at present. The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that the existence of that body will be an extra protection for those who want to ensure that the institutions are safeguarded.
Conscious of the time, I turn to the provisions of the Bill. Clause 1 provides for the setting of a new election date. We hope, as we have said, that it will be possible to hold an election by the autumn, but the Bill sets no fixed date. In our view, setting dates alone will not advance the process—instead, it risks impaling the process on a hook and inhibiting sensible discussion. I know that some hon. Members feel strongly that the Bill should contain a date for the election, but I think that that is

73
much more likely to lead to polarisation and the striking of positions than to a willingness to find accommodations and reach out to others.
Andrew Mackinlay: The Secretary of State will notice from the amendment paper that a common purpose of all the political parties represented in this House is to ensure that the Bill contains a sunset clause, in part to focus the minds of all the parties—with a small "p" and with a large "p"—on the need to reach a resolution. In the event of a failure to do so, it would be appropriate for him to return to the House with new policies and perhaps new legislation, but the Bill should contain a sunset clause—some statement of a date by which either elections must be held, or the Secretary of State must make a fresh statement to the House and start again. It is absurd to leave the matter open. Does he have an open mind on the possibility of inserting a sunset clause?
Mr. Murphy: I am certainly happy to listen to the points that my hon. Friend makes and which may well be made later in the course of the debate, but I have to tell him that the Government's preferred option is to ensure that we are able to call elections as soon as possible—in the autumn. He wants to know what will happen in the event of that not happening. I shall reflect on the points that he and others make during the course of the debate.
Mr. Dodds: If the Secretary of State is arguing so strongly now that there should be no date for the next election put into the provisions of the proposed legislation, does he not admit that all the arguments that he advanced only a few weeks ago in favour of a precise date, 29 May, in a previous election Bill, are completely invalid?
Mr. Murphy: I would not say that they are completely invalid, because I think that some progress was made during the course of the past few weeks. For example, we had an IRA statement, which was more transparent and discussed and debated than any other such statement that we have heard. Secondly, only two of the answers to the questions of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the IRA were satisfactory. In my view, the third answer was completely unsatisfactory. However, there was some progress. The hon. Gentleman is right to say, of course, that there was insufficient progress. That did not work. That is why there is a danger in putting in a date. We need some flexibility if we are able to go into the talks to ensure that we get the institutions up and running.
I say to the hon. Gentleman, and to the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), who referred to the cancellation of elections, that I hope that the Bill as I have described it, and the points that I am making, will ensure that that is not the case, and that there will not be a cancellation. It is a postponement; it is a deferment. It is our intention and desire that elections will be held in the autumn.
I shall move to the clauses, because perhaps they will add to the points that I am making.
Mr. Eddie McGrady: The argument that my right hon. Friend seems to be developing is that
74
it is not possible to fix a date for the next election because we must establish that trust is recreated, if that is the word. I asked earlier, without response, by whom and by what criteria that trust is to be measured. Is that the Government, the right hon. Gentleman's office or individual parties? If it is individual parties, is not the right hon. Gentleman creating an unending veto to a party that does not want to participate in elections?
Mr. Murphy: No, I am not. As we have said many times in this place, the veto can easily be exercised by anybody in the Belfast agreement. That lies at the heart of the suspension. It was not the fact that the Social Democratic and Labour party or the Ulster Unionist party did not agree. It was the fact that confidence collapsed because of continued paramilitary activity.
The hon. Gentleman knows that as well as I do. If I may say so, he spoke eloquently some weeks ago at Prime Minister's Question Time about what was happening in his constituency, when he asked that very question. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman knows more than most in this place about the difficulties to which I am pointing. Although it is possible to say that this party or that party will not engage in the Assembly, at the end of the day every party has a right when it comes to whether or not it wants to engage in the political process, including forming part of the Executive.
I want—it is what everyone is looking forward to—to find a solution so that all parties can live together to make the Executive and the Assembly work. That will be the thrust of our negotiations and discussions in the months ahead.
Mr. McGrady: The right hon. Gentleman is certainly correct to state that any party can withhold its consent and participation. The point that I am making is whether any party has the right to prevent other parties participating and agreeing.
Mr. Murphy: No party is doing that anyway. At the basis of all of this is the fact that we must see an end to paramilitary activity. We can have our debates and discussions about whether a party should have done this or that, but we know what has caused the difficulty. Everybody in Northern Ireland understands that paramilitary activity must come to an end now. We have had five years during which it has been given that chance. Until it comes to an end, there cannot be trust. Some progress has been made over the past number of months, but we need some more time. It is the timing that we are buying between now and the autumn to ensure that the negotiations go forward, that we can sit around the table and discuss these matters and that we can resolve the problem of activity and set up the institutions.
Clause 2 annuls steps taken towards 29 May election, and provides for return of deposits. That is a great help to members of parties who have already put them down.
Clause 3 provides for reimbursement of moneys spent both by the political parties and individual candidates in preparation for the elections scheduled for 29 May. We agree with the widely expressed view that Northern Ireland political parties and individuals should be reimbursed for genuine, unavoidable expenditure related to the election campaign.

75
The Bill gives me the power to make payments. I will do so in line with a scheme that will be developed by the Electoral Commission. I am grateful to the commission for its willingness to assist us in that task. These proposals are not about the Government subsidising Northern Ireland political parties. They recognise that participating in the democratic process costs money. It is necessary in the wider public interest to postpone the election due on 29 May, but it is only proper that the political parties and individual candidates are not financially disadvantaged by the decision that the Government have taken.
We also have to deal with difficult questions about the people who operated the institutions in Northern Ireland, and often worked extremely hard for the successes of devolved government that we saw for a period of two years. We cannot avoid the fact that the Assembly is devolved, nor seek to perpetuate the Assembly. However, we hope that those who have been Members, many of them new to public life in Northern Ireland, and who have often made great sacrifices to take part in the political process, will want to remain in democratic politics, and to continue representing the interests of those who were their constituents.
We have concluded that it is right to pay a continuing salary, rather than a resettlement allowance.
Mr. Peter Robinson: Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr. Murphy: I will, but I shall finish the point before the hon. Gentleman intervenes on me. He may be able to taunt me for a bit longer.
It would not be acceptable either for the salary to be at the rate payable before the election, or that it should last indefinitely.
Clause 4 gives me the power to fix salaries and allowances, but we shall consult all the parties in Northern Ireland on the detail over the next week or so. In the light of our belief that the previous rates would not be at all appropriate in the new circumstances, we shall review the situation in six months.
Mr. Robinson: This is purely a housekeeping matter. It appears that the Secretary of State is proposing that Assembly Members who were elected in 1998 and those who were substituted since then should, in relation to remuneration, be treated as if they were still Assembly Members. Do they have any other rights? Are they allowed to continue to refer to themselves as Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly after the Assembly has been dissolved? Can they use the facilities at Stormont? What is the Secretary of State proposing?
Mr. Murphy: I shall come to one or two of those points, if the hon. Gentleman allows me to do so. First, I shall make a general point. As the hon. Gentleman knows—he has been a Member of this place for a very long time—when the House is dissolved, Members of Parliament cease to be Members of the House and cannot continue to use the title MP, but they still get paid. [Interruption.] I understand the point that is being made. That is not for six months. However, Members of
76
this place get paid and they are entitled to use their constituency offices in the pursuance of the best interests of their constituents. At the same time, they would be contesting the election. I know that there is a difference between that and what we are now proposing. That is why I am proposing to pay a reduced allowance but to talk to the parties about what they think should happen. That includes, of course, the hon. Gentleman's party.
Andrew Mackinlay: My right hon. Friend has said that he will consult on what remuneration should be during the duration. I do not mean this facetiously, but he is forgetting about the House of Commons. In my view, we have a right to approve a settlement. After all, the House agrees ultimately the recommendations of independent bodies in respect of their pay and remuneration. It seems not unreasonable that whatever proposals my right hon. Friend makes should be the subject of affirmative resolution in the House of Commons.
Mr. Murphy: I am not sure about that. When I was Minister of State, Northern Ireland, I remember meeting some of the Members who are now in the Chamber to talk about various matters of remuneration. Under the powers given to the Secretary of State, and therefore to me as Minister of State, we were able to vary and waiver the amount paid. I am not saying that we should be paying full salaries or the salaries that Members have been receiving over the past number of months. It is incumbent on me to consult all the parties in Northern Ireland—after all, some of them may disagree with me—and that consultation will take place. No one, of course, is obliged to take the allowance.
Andrew Mackinlay: They are.
Mr. Murphy: I do not think so.
Mr. Richard Shepherd: There is a slight problem, as many people who want to stand will have taken holiday leave for an election that will not now take place. The payment gives a clear advantage to incumbents, who will now have a period of whatever length to carry on propagating the need for them to be returned to the Assembly. The ordinary individual or Ulster person standing for election, however, will be at a disadvantage, as they will not be paid and will have lost out. Having taken holiday leave now, they may be in an inconvenient position when an election is held because they may not be able to take time off to stand.
Mr. Murphy: I accept the point that the hon. Gentleman is making, but he knows that we get paid too, even if the period is much shorter. We, too, have advantages as incumbents because we get paid, unlike the political opponents who stand against us. However, I think that the House will accept—and I may be speaking against myself here that Assembly Members in Northern Ireland are in their current position because of a decision taken by the Government with the approval of Parliament. It is not because of anything they have done. Every single Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly expected an election to take place, and ordered his or her life accordingly. It is important to

77
understand that difference when considering our decision to move the election date and its implications for those who have decided to stand for political office in Northern Ireland. However, I take the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) and the hon. Member for Aldriclge Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). We are looking carefully at the position, and shall certainly review it regularly.
Mr. Swire: I should like to follow up the good point made by my hon. Friend the Member for AldridgeBrownhills (Mr. Shepherd). What would the Secretary of State say to people who have resigned from their profession to stand in elections that have now been indefinitely postponed, subject to review? What will they do for the next few months, as postponement could go on longer than the Secretary of State expects, and they are without compensation of any sort?
Mr. Murphy: If someone resigns from their job before they are elected, they make that decision for themselves but, frankly, to do so is to take the electorate for granted. However, there is a difference between a candidate who gives up their job in the hope of winning and someone who has been an Assembly Member for four years and expected the election to be held on a certain date.
Mike Gapes: My right hon. Friend referred to something equivalent to a resettlement allowance given to Members of Parliament who stand down or lose their seat after an election, but can he give us an assurance that if there is an extended period of payment for former Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly, it will be taken into consideration when any future resettlement payments are made? There should not be a bottomless pit of payments to non-elected politicians for a considerable period.
Mr. Murphy: People cannot do both things—they must make up their mind whether to stand or not. If a Member of the Assembly has told the relevant authorities that they do not propose to stand for reelection, there is provision for resettlement, as there is in the House. I looked at the question of having a one-off payment rather than a salary, albeit reduced, for Assembly Members, but I thought that that would give the distinct impression that were closing down the Assembly. We are not doing that—we expect an Assembly to be elected again in the autumn.
Mr. Michael Connarty: My right hon. Friend referred to constituency offices so what will happen with allowances for Assembly Members for office costs during suspension? Would those allowances be included in remuneration and, as the election period is prolonged, what safeguards can be built in to make sure that offices are not turned into electoral offices for Members who wish to be re-elected?
Mr. Murphy: The same rules apply to us. Our own constituency offices are used for parliamentary purposes, not electoral ones. However, I am about to come on to that very matter, which was also raised by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) en passant.
78
We will pay a limited office cost allowance to enable a presence in constituency offices to be retained. I acknowledge the need for the parties, with a return to devolution in prospect, to maintain a modest core of support officials at Stormont. Clause 5(6) therefore permits me also to continue to pay party allowances. Again, those allowances will be based on consultations that I propose to hold with the parties this week and next. The rest of clause 5 makes technical provision consequential on a prolonged dissolution. Clause 6 is designed to permit changes in electoral law necessary to ensure the successful running of the election. Of course, the power could be exercised only in line with the provisions of the Bill. For example, an autumn election would coincide with the annual canvass. At present, the chief electoral officer is required to publish the new register on 1 December. It is sensible to make provision for delaying that slightly if it proves necessary. While I am speaking about the chief electoral officer's responsibilities, I should like to pay tribute to him and the professionalism of his staff in discharging their important responsibilities.
That is the detail of the Bill. Although it defers an election, it is intended to advance the day when we can restore the devolved institutions in Northern Ireland, and proceed to complete the implementation of the agreement. Political leaders on all sides in Northern Ireland have worked very hard to make the advances that we have seen in the past six months. We must continue that work with even greater energy. The prize of a truly peaceful and co-operative future for Northern Ireland is close at hand, and we must not give up now. I commend the Bill to the House.
6.36 pm
Mr. Quentin Davies: I am afraid that I must start by reminding the Secretary of State and, indeed, the House that the situation we now face is quite unnecessary. The confusion and mess now confronting us could have been avoided if the Government had adopted a proposal that I put to them last July. I suggested that the House should take powers to enable the Secretary of State—at the time, the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor—to exclude from the Executive any party either in breach of its obligations under the Belfast agreement and the ceasefire or in concert with persons so in breach.
I made that proposal because, as I told the Government last July, they had not responded to successive, extremely grave breaches of the agreement and ceasefire by Sinn Fein-IRA, so it was sadly inevitable that there would be another. Of course, I did not predict Stormontgate, but I was convinced that the mistaken policy of non-response would, regrettably, encourage future breaches. I told the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor from the Dispatch Box that we should take powers to provide for that so that if such a crisis arose the Secretary of State could use those powers to exclude that party from the Executive. The Assembly, of course, could carry on, and the Executive would carry on without the party in breach.
Had the Government adopted that proposal, they would have had that weapon in their armoury when Stormontgate duly occurred in October. It would have been possible not to ask the Assembly for a decision—basically, the Social Democratic and Labour party had

79
to bear the onus of the decision to exclude Sinn Fein. The Secretary of State would have had the power to exclude parties from the Executive and could have used it. Sinn Fein would have been excluded back in October, and the Assembly and Executive would have carried on without it. Instead of spending a lot of time negotiating the conditions under which the Assembly could be reinstated or Assembly elections take place, we would be negotiating with Sinn Fein the basis on which it could be allowed to return to the Executive.
The fact that my idea made a lot of sense has now been proven or at least acknowledged by both Governments, as it is in the joint declaration. They have taken on board the need to provide for discipline in the peace process and the power of exclusion that I proposed last year. Sadly, I must remind the Secretary of State that if the Government had adopted last year the powers that we were prepared to give them very rapidly, none of this evil would have occurred.
Before I go any further, I shall cite something that the Prime Minister said only last Wednesday—not very long ago. I shall quote him in full without any deletions or manipulation of the text, which often happens when quotes are thrown at us. I quote the Prime Minister straight, from column 690 last Wednesday at Prime Minister's questions. He said:
"I assure my hon. Friend that we work on our own account and also inside the European Union to promote democracy, good governance and civil rights. It is worth pointing out that, just in the past year or so, there have been elections in Yemen, Bahrain and Morocco, and a referendum has been held in Qatar to approve the new constitution. There are also forthcoming parliamentary elections in Jordan. There is, therefore, a continuing programme of work happening. We and our European partners will do everything that we can to shape the emergence of democracy in the Arab world and to support it, although ultimately these decisions must be for the Arab people themselves."—[Official Report,7 May 2003; Vol. 404, c. 690.]
The Prime Minister evidently preaches very different principles abroad from those that he lives by at home. Doubtless, the rulers of the countries that he cited last week could find many reasons—good reasons to them, no doubt—why elections there should be cancelled or postponed, but if they cancelled or postponed them, the Prime Minister would apparently disapprove. He has no such compunction about cancelling elections in Northern Ireland. He can say about the middle east that
"ultimately these decisions must be for the Arab people themselves",
but he does not appear to believe that democratic decisions in Northern Ireland can equally safely be left to the people themselves.
The levity and high-handedness with which the elections in Northern Ireland have been called off is not the only affront to the traditions of our parliamentary democracy that the House has had to face today. There are two further affronts. The first is that, although there was no proper consultation in the House before the Government took the decision—none at all with the Opposition or with most of the Northern Ireland parties, and judging by the evident ignorance of the Leader of the House at business questions less than an hour before the announcement, no consultation within the Government either; and we heard much about the
80
charade of Cabinet government from the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short) earlier this afternoon—the decision was clearly negotiated privately, in secret, over I do not know how long in advance, with the Irish Government. Indeed, it was traded with the Irish Government, and we know the price, or at least part of the price: the dismantling of the two towers in Armagh. No doubt more of the price will be uncovered in the coming weeks.
The decision was not merely negotiated in secret with the Irish Government—it was announced by the Irish Minister of Justice, Michael McDowell. There could be no more dramatic illustration of what so-called direct rule actually means under this Government. It is diarchy, or to use the term often used in the island of Ireland, joint authority. Like so much else with this Government, it is diarchy by stealth. No one can have any illusion about that. Important decisions are taken in concert with Dublin. Nobody at Westminster is consulted at all. We are presented with a fait accompli.
Then there is the unseemly haste with which the Government are trying to force the Bill down the throat of Parliament, publishing the Bill on Friday when the House was not sitting, and expecting us to digest it, to consult—for the Opposition believe that consultation is an essential element of good legislation, even if the Government do not—to draft and table amendments, and to give the Bill all the parliamentary consideration it deserves in the course of one day, now reduced to the course of half a day by the manipulation to which I referred.
Andrew Mackinlay: I should be interested to know whether the Opposition approached the Government business managers, and if so, when they approached them, to ask for more time for the Bill.
Mr. Davies: We had no opportunity to do so. The hon. Gentleman must know that Parliament was not sitting on Friday, when the Bill was published. I did not see the programme motion until this morning. I have not had any conversations with the Government nor, as far as I know, have they made any attempt to consult us, either on the programme motion or on the substance of the Bill.
David Winnick: The hon. Gentleman has been very critical of any consultation between the two sovereign Governments. Is it not a fact that the Anglo-Irish agreement, signed when Lady Thatcher was Prime Minister, first started the process of involving the Republic in matters concerning Northern Ireland, and hence was the reason Ian Gow resigned from the Government?
Mr. Davies: One of the things that I resent most about the Government is their stealthiness. There is no openness about what they intend to do. If they acknowledged that they were planning to run Northern Ireland in concert with the Irish Republic—in co-dominion with the Irish Republic—we could discuss that. But they do not do that. They try to conceal it. That is what I particularly resent. Clearly, it makes sense to have as co-operative a relationship with the Irish Republic as we can in respect of Northern Ireland. I have always been a great supporter of that, but I resent

81
the fact that highly controversial decisions are being imposed on the House by the means that I described, having already been negotiated in private with the Irish Government.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Desmond Browne): Before the hon. Gentleman moves on, will he confirm two things to the House—first, that he had, by arrangement made between him and the Secretary of State, a draft of the Bill on Thursday, and that there is not one comma of difference between the draft that he was given and the Bill that was published? Secondly, the hon. Gentleman must have made a mistake when he told my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) that he knew nothing about timetabling. He raised the issue with me in the House on Thursday evening, in the presence of other Members.
Mr. Davies: Indeed, I received a copy of the draft Bill, but I did not get a copy of the timetable motion. I have just said in the House and I repeat that the first time that I saw the timetable motion was this morning in the Order Paper. Secondly, I raised with the hon. Gentleman the matter of timetabling, and what is more, I have protested several times to the hon. Gentleman and to the Secretary of State about their proposals to postpone elections in Northern Ireland, but I have never been consulted. Consultation means going to the Opposition and saying, "What do you think? Before we take a decision, we would like to hear your view." That process has never been undertaken by the Government: never with us and never, I believe, with the majority of the Northern Ireland parties. I have been very clear and definitive on that, and I now move on.
Let us get to the real reason why the Government seek to postpone or cancel the elections. The statements made by the Secretary of State on 1 May, 6 May and this afternoon have been contradictory. There have been different explanations at different times, and we must get down to the real explanation. The right hon. Gentleman claimed on 1 May that the reason the Government wanted to postpone the elections was that Sinn Fein-IRA had not fulfilled their commitments under the Belfast agreement and had not sufficiently clarified their intention of doing so. He reverted to that explanation this afternoon, but it makes no sense. There is nothing new about Sinn Fein-IRA not fulfilling their commitments under the Belfast agreement. If that were the reason for suspending elections in Northern Ireland, it would have been valid months and years ago.
In March, instead of asking for an exceptional one-month extension to enable all parties to respond to Hillsborough, the Government could have said that there would be no elections unless Sinn Fein complied. That would have been an entirely different Bill to bring before the House in March, but that was not the Bill that the Government introduced in March.
The only change over the past few weeks is a positive change. On two important items, Sinn Fein-IRA have clarified their intentions in the way demanded and accepted by the Government. We can argue about how positive that is and how near we are to complete fulfilment of the agreement by Sinn Fein-IRA, but indubitably it is a positive step, so it makes no sense to say that elections could have taken place when the
82
situation was worse, when Sinn Fein-IRA had done less to comply, and that they should now be punished for making at least two clarifications out of three.
Mr. Andrew Mackay: Is it not always helpful to encourage a sinner to repent? As my hon. Friend says, for a long time the Opposition have complained that the agreement has not been fulfilled in full, particularly by the paramilitaries. Now we have a Secretary of State who is demanding that they fulfil their obligations, and rightly in my view has postponed the elections, and I think that the Opposition should support the Government in that.
Mr. Davies: In dealing with Sinn Fein-IRA, my tactic, which I have always defended from the Dispatch Box, and which seems universally valid in dealing with such situations, is that if people do the right thing, they should be rewarded. If they make a step forward, a step forward should be made to them. If they do the wrong thing—for example, if they breach their obligations under an agreement—some sanction should be taken. They should not be given new concessions. The Government's attitude for most of the past few years has been the exact reverse. When Sinn Fein-IRA have not done what was required under the agreement, they have scratched around for new concessions to offer them, and that has been a disastrous policy. I am sorry to say that it is the policy that the Government seem to be reverting to, offering the destruction of the two observation towers in south Armagh, despite the fact that we still have no comprehensive agreement.
Mr. Bill Tynan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Davies: I shall not give way at the moment. It is the fault of the Government whom he supports that we have so little time for today's debate, and if he suffers from his Government's decision, he must complain directly to those on his own Front Bench.
Whatever brought about last week's sudden panic by the Government, it was assuredly nothing said or done by Sinn Fein-IRA. In any case, as I have said many times, it would have been as senseless as it is unjust to punish everyone in Northern Ireland for the failings of one party.
What exactly was the reason for this extraordinary last-minute reversal if it was not to punish Sinn Fein-IRA? Was it because, as the Secretary of State perhaps rather hastily said on 1 May:
"Everyone has a veto in the … process."—[Official Report, 1 May 2003; Vol. 404, c. 465.]?
I am glad to say that he did not repeat that today, but surely he cannot have meant that in any democratic process any one party can at any time veto scheduled elections taking place at the end of a parliamentary mandate? What an extraordinary idea that is. No form of representative Government could be run on that principle. Anyone who thought that he might do worse in new elections would simply veto them until he thought that he could do better. We would never have elections at all on that principle anywhere. Someone would always have an incentive to veto them. We need a better explanation than that.

83
I think that the Government themselves recognise that neither of those two hasty explanations, delivered on that day of panic, 1 May, makes any sense. That is why by the time the right hon. Gentleman made his second statement on Tuesday, and again this afternoon, he had changed his tune, giving a different explanation, a third one. He said that in the present circumstances an election would not produce an Assembly capable of agreeing on an Executive. He said almost exactly what he said on 6 May, when he said:
"What sense would it have made to proceed if, at the beginning of the election campaign, as it was, we knew precisely that it would have been impossible to have set up an Assembly that could have produced an Executive? What would have been the point of that?"
Bizarrely, he then added:
"In exactly the same way, what would be the point of returning Members to this House of Commons when we knew that could never produce a Government?"
I shall not hold the right hon. Gentleman to that second statement. We can all reach for a false argument or a mistaken simile under pressure.
I have a lot of sympathy for the right hon. Gentleman, who is an honest man and a genuine democrat, and knows and cares about the people of Northern Ireland, but who finds himself in the position of having to defend a thoroughly misconceived policy imposed on him by the Prime Minister, so 1 shall not allege that he has some secret ambition to carry out a coup before the next election. However, I do take seriously the main thrust of his comments, which means—it is a serious matter—that the election is to be cancelled because
"we knew precisely that it would have been impossible to have set up an Assembly that could have produced an Executive."—[Official Report, 6 May 2003; Vol. 404, c. 648.]
Let us consider that explanation, because several questions arise from it. The obvious one is: how could the Government possibly have known "precisely" the outcome of the elections? It reminds me of Nikita Kruschev's famous remark that the trouble with bourgeois elections is that one never knows what the result will be. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman meant that he knew "precisely" that Sinn Fein could never serve on the Executive because they would not comply with the agreement or complete their clarification of the three points. That is a very different thing. As I have said many times, there is no reason to deny everyone else the right to a democratic election and to a devolved government because one particular party is misbehaving. But how could the Government have known that "precisely" either?
As I said on Tuesday, there are at least two plausible reasons why Sinn Fein might have been deliberately holding back from completion before the elections. First, they might have wanted to provide for possible new negotiations with whatever combination of other political forces might emerge after the election. Secondly, they might have thought that whatever they did no Unionist leader would be likely to announce that he was satisfied with those statements while still in the throes of an election contest, so they might well have held back.
Of course, there can be no precision about those hypotheses either. In both cases we are speculating. But I think that on reflection the right hon. Gentleman will
84
concede that what he meant was that there was a risk of a combination of forces emerging that would make it more difficult to bring the peace process to a successful conclusion. But risk is a very different thing from certainty, from precision. It makes no sense to trade a risk of something bad happening for a greater risk of something bad happening. It makes even less sense to trade a risk of something bad happening for the certainty of that happening. I fear, as I shall now show, that that is precisely—if I may use that term strictly for a moment—what the Government have done.
If the Bill passes today, I put it to the Government that there are two logical possibilities. Either elections will genuinely be postponed—the right hon. Gentleman said on 1 May and again today that his intention is that there should be elections in the autumn, but the Bill makes no mention of that—or they will not happen at all; they will effectively be cancelled. The right hon. Gentleman has rejected that term, but I hope that he will acknowledge that an indefinite postponement is tantamount to a cancellation, with the sole difference again that the Government have not been frank about it. It would be a cancellation by stealth, as it were.
Let us take the first of those two logical possibilities. If the decision was to postpone, that is only a rational decision to take—given for the sake of this argument that the Government have no constitutional or moral scruples about doing that—if there is a reasonable assumption that the result will be more desirable, more favourable for the peace process, at the later date, perhaps the autumn, when the elections do take place. But nothing that the Government have said this afternoon or at any other time provides the slightest basis for assuming anything of the kind, and I challenge the right hon. Gentleman now to rise at the Dispatch Box and tell me on what ground he assumes that elections in a few months' time, or at any other time that he may care to name, would have a result more favourable for the peace process than elections held on 29 May.
Surely the setting aside of the constitutional rules will itself, in so far as it has any impact, weaken the credibility of devolution—it can hardly strengthen it—and strengthen parties who have opposed that decision, not weaken them. In other words, the Government's own intervention can hardly be productive in their own terms, and may very likely be counterproductive, and there is no reason why any of the other variables should have changed at all between now and whenever an election takes place. In short, the Government, if they postpone, will have exchanged a risk of things going wrong, as they see it, for a greater risk of things going wrong. That is not good logic and it is not good policy. On the other hand, if the shelving of elections continues indefinitely, at a certain point, it must clearly result in 1 he end of devolution—the complete abandonment, not the temporary setting aside, of the whole structure of devolution set out in the Belfast agreement and the Northern Ireland Act 1998. In short, in order to avoid the risk of failure, the Government would have brought about the certainty of failure and the definitive collapse of devolution. That is even worse logic and even worse policy.

85
Of course, one may argue about how long a postponement would need to be in order to become a cancellation and constitute the end of the process. In normal circumstances, it might be difficult to give a precise answer to that question, but it can be said without hesitation that the longer a democratic process remains in abeyance, the more public confidence in it is eroded and the greater the danger of people abandoning hope or ceasing to believe in it altogether.
In this case, however, a crucial and precise date is on the horizon. Paragraph 8 of the final section of the Belfast agreement provides for a review four years after the commencement of the devolved institutions. Let me read to the House the relevant passage:
"In addition, the two Governments and the parties in the Assembly will convene a conference 4 years after the agreement comes into effect, to review and report on its operation."
I am not sure that the Government recalled that very important provision of the agreement before they took their hasty decision, so I shall, if I may, repeat that quotation:
"In addition, the two Governments and the parties in the Assembly will convene a conference 4 years after the agreement comes into effect, to review and report on its operation."
Rev. Ian Paisley: There is no Assembly, so that does not apply. They got of rid of the Assembly, so we cannot do that.
Mr. Davies: My logic is obviously so compelling that I have carried the hon. Gentleman with me. He has filled in the next line in the equation. He is absolutely right, as the review is an important—indeed, an essential—part of the Belfast process. It is a milestone in the process, or road map, for those who like to use the modish phrase. The process cannot proceed if that review is removed; it will have no route to proceed past that point.
The removal of any element of such an agreement, except with the agreement of all parties, will invalidate the rest of it. That is the law of all treaties, agreements and contractual obligations. What is more, even if all the parties were agreeable, the sort of review process that is envisaged could not occur if no Assembly was in place. That is exactly the point on which the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) picked up. In such circumstances, there would be no such thing as "Assembly parties". The individuals and parties not represented here would merely be private citizens speaking for themselves alone. They would have no democratic mandate whatever for the purpose of taking part in a review or anything else.
Thus the provision that the "Assembly parties" would summon the review together with the two Governments would be physically impossible to implement. Could the term be changed—I anticipate the thoughts in the Secretary of State's mind—to "Westminster parties"? That would disfranchise many people in Northern Ireland, but most importantly, it would amount to renegotiation of the agreement—something that the Government have always said is impossible and would be tantamount to the failure of the agreement. That is the Government's judgment and those are their words. What that means is simple and should be very sobering in the Government's own terms: unless the Assembly is
86
restored by 1 December, the peace process will be able to go no further. There is a precise date—I use the word
"precise" very strictly— by which elections must take place if the peace process is to survive: 1 December.
It will now be clear to the House that the Government have made a catastrophic mistake. As a failure of practical judgment, it is on a par with the mistake of releasing all the prisoners without securing any decommissioning in return. In their contemptuous disregard for democratic norms and electoral laws, that mistake is in a class quite of its own.
What should the Opposition do about that? Clearly, we dissociate ourselves entirely from this lamentable shambles. Many people, including many of my hon. Friends, will say that we can do that most obviously by voting against the Bill here and in another place. That would indeed be the most obvious thing to do and I appreciate the strong feelings of those of my hon. Friends whom I know are looking to me to urge them to do just that. Indeed, I share those strong feelings, but the Conservative party is a responsible Opposition. We never fail to take account of the practical consequences of our actions and never vote except when we genuinely wish for the consequences that will flow from that vote if it is successful.
So I must ask myself what will happen if we defeat the Bill today or in another place. I fear that that can only make even worse the disaster of an aborted election. Some people would claim that they had lost campaigning time or not secured campaign funds that would otherwise have been available to them because of the uncertainty involved. Some people would no doubt argue, truly or otherwise, that they would have put in nomination papers but for the Government's announcement last week. They would say that it was not their fault, as they took the Government's announcement seriously. Of course, the chaos that ensues will be entirely the fault of the Government. One thing is clear: we will not now be able to have a fair, democratic election on 29 May. Sadly, if the Bill is thrown out, there will be chaos. A postponed election must be a lesser evil than the travesty of an election.
That is the position of the Conservative Opposition and I hope and believe that it will be the position of others who are equally offended and horrified by what the Government have done and equally sad about the consequences for the peace process of this ill-conceived initiative, but are as concerned as we are to ensure that we do not have in Northern Ireland an election of which all of us would be thoroughly ashamed.
Mr. Dodds: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Davies: I was about to finish my speech, but I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman. I wish to explain to him why I make this exception. I am extremely sorry that I did not comment in the House about the attack on his advice centre and office at the time when it occurred, but I am afraid that I did not know about it on whichever day it happened. When I referred earlier to Members of the House from all three Northern Ireland parties represented here today having often suffered attacks on their homes and families, he was one of those whom I had in mind, especially in respect of the particularly appalling attack on a child.
Mr. Dodds: I am grateful to the shadow Secretary of State for giving way and for his remarks. Attacks on any elected representative, no matter what party they belong to, are to be deplored.
May I ask the hon. Gentleman about the consequences of a defeat of the Bill? Would not those disadvantaged by such an outcome have disadvantaged themselves by taking the advice of the Secretary of State and, for example, not lodging nomination papers? That would be their fault, as people should await the outcome of the democratic vote in Parliament and not listen only to the Secretary of State. People should wait to hear the voice of Parliament and its decision, rather than that of a Minister.
Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman has a good intellectual and moral argument. As I have said, I take that view very seriously indeed. He is right. Incidentally, the Conservative party, whose members believe in observing the law as it is, not as it was or might be if we can change it, has of course put in its nomination papers, paid deposits and so forth. We have proceeded on that basis. It is very important for the reputation of this country's democracy, of which we are proud and to which many people around the world have always looked with admiration, that as far as possible we do not have an election if we can see that it will be a shambles.
The hon. Gentleman knows how controversial everything is in Northern Ireland and I am sure that he can see the scope that would arise for people to say, "I have been unfairly treated and disadvantaged." They would say, "Well, of course, if this had been a decent, proper election I would have won or done well, but I've been done down because of the shambles." I cannot, on reflection, recommend the hon. Gentleman's suggestion to my colleagues, much as I understand the force of his argument and the considerations that will be in the minds of many other hon. Members.
We have tabled an amendment that would ensure that there is indeed an election later this year. I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that if we reach that stage I may catch your eye so that it is selected. The Liberal Democrats' amendment is very much along the same lines, with a difference of a couple of weeks in the maximum time allowed. We are being slightly more generous to the Government than the Liberal Democrats in that we are giving them another two weeks. If theirs is the amendment that you choose to put to the vote, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to support it, because the central principle is that this must be a postponement, not a cancellation. It is a regrettable shelving of the democratic process in Northern Ireland, and a thoroughly unjustified one, but it must not be something that is even worse than that.
7.11 pm
Mr. Kevin McNamara: As the Secretary of State will know, I wrote to the Prime Minister on 25 April urging him not to take the gravely mistaken step that we are considering today. The Good Friday agreement is rooted in, and underpinned by, the foundation of the democratic process. Its negotiation was conducted by elected representatives. Its principles were endorsed by referendums north and south of the border. Its Assembly was elected, and its Executive selected, proportionally by the d'Hondt method.
88
Cancelling the elections—until there is a date, we must assume that they are postponed indefinitely—is the wrong way to deal with the situation. It sends exactly the wrong message about making politics work. It appears to reject what all the commentators agree is the most significant forward movement by the IRA towards the exclusive use of peaceful and democratic means. It creates a break in the process of implementation that will leave a dangerous political vacuum during the traditionally tense marching season in the coming summer. Political vacuum incites violent alternatives. The Government are seen as fiddling the timing of an election to get the results that they want and as bending the rules to meet the short-term electoral needs of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble).
The Ulster Unionists argue that an election should not be held because it will not result in the formation of an Executive, but that is not the purpose of this election. Its purpose is to renew democratic mandates, not to elect an Executive. I referred earlier, in my intervention on the Secretary of State, to the precedent of not electing an Executive. There were 15 months of negotiation before we had the Executive.
Mr. David Trimble: This is the second time that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned the so-called 15-month delay. In fact, 12 of those months were occupied by the inevitable and necessary transitional arrangements that had to be made, but there had been an election to an Assembly. As matters stand at the moment, there is no Assembly.
Mr. McNamara: That is precisely why I want an election for the Assembly—to enable the necessary negotiations to continue, hopefully not for as long as 15 months.
Mr. Browne: My hon. Friend is in danger of falling into exactly the same misunderstanding of the Secretary of State's speech as the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies). At no stage have the Government made any argument—and at no stage have I heard the right hon. Member for Upper Bann, privately or publicly, make any argument—that relates to the outcome of elections. It is about whether the trust and confidence is there to restore the institutions. If my hon. Friend would address himself to that, we would all be debating the same issue.
Mr. McNamara: I understand my hon. Friend's point. I shall come to it in a moment, when I shall perhaps take another intervention.
The significant point is that the Government's decision means that we will have politicians arguing without a renewed mandate after a long period of time. Cancelling the elections undermines those nationalists who believe in the primacy of politics. It strengthens rejectionists of all shades and gives them a veto on the forward movement of the process. The Government's decision is dangerous and reckless, and they should, even at this late date, step back.
The Prime Minister has spoken of the need for clarity to promote confidence and build trust. I agree with that. So let us have some clarity in this Chamber. Let us forget the word play, the sophistry and the spin. In paragraph

89
13 of the joint declaration, the British and Irish Governments restate their long-standing determination that paramilitarism and sectarian violence will be brought to an end—and, indeed, should be brought to an end. Nobody can disagree with that.
When the IRA made its statement, the Governments acknowledged significant progress but said they were not satisfied. The Prime Minister asked three blunt questions to clarify the republican response. The republicans said that they thought that the IRA's answers were perfectly clear, but the Sinn Fein leader responded to the Prime Minister and expanded on the three questions. According to most commentators, the Prime Minister was satisfied on two counts, but thought that the third answer stopped short. Sinn Fein was told that agreement was "within a whisker", but the Governments wanted a "will" instead of a "should". Mr. Adams came back with the missing word and, according to his own account, the IRA was poised to seal the deal by putting a large quantity of munitions beyond use—except that that did not happen. Instead, the elections were halted in mid-track and the process was thrown into crisis. The Ulster Unionist party, whose members told us at every opportunity that the IRA and Sinn Fein were one and the same, suddenly decided that Mr. Gerry Adams' interpretation of the IRA statement was not good enough—that he could speak only for Sinn Fein. Now, we discover from the IRA that its position is accurately reflected by Mr. Adams.
So where do the Government stand? On whether the IRA is committed to decommissioning its weapons, they say: the IRA says that it
"has clearly stated its willingness to proceed with the implementation of a process to put arms beyond use at the earliest opportunity…Obviously this is not about putting some arms beyond use. It is about all arms."
On whether the war is over, they say that the IRA says:
"If the two Governments and all the parties fulfil their commitments this will provide the basis for the complete and final closure of the conflict."
On whether the IRA will end paramilitary activity, they say:
"The IRA leadership has stated its determination to ensure that its activities will be consistent with its resolve to see the complete and final closure of the conflict".
It has also been said:
"The IRA statement is a statement of completely peaceful intent…Its logic is that there will be no activities inconsistent with that."
There is a long way to go from the words to bringing about a verifiable end to targeting, intelligence gathering, punishment beatings, military training, arms procurement and all other manifestations of paramilitary activity. However, that is precisely why the two Governments have drawn up their joint declaration, which proposes to establish safeguards and assurance mechanisms to ensure compliance and build trust. Sinn Fein does not like or want that, but it has not said that it will not enter an Executive because of it.
The mechanism to which the Governments and most of the parties agreed was established through negotiation, not cancelling elections. The question is not therefore whether the Government accept the IRA's statement, but what undertakings they have received that, whatever the IRA or Sinn Fein say, the Ulster
90
Unionist party is prepared to contest the election on the basis of taking its seats in a power-sharing Executive as prescribed by the Good Friday agreement. When has it said that? Would it have been said before the proposed date of the elections?
Where do we go from here? The two Prime Ministers have met and reaffirmed that the Good Friday agreement is not open for renegotiation. That is right and proper. They have published a joint declaration and stated their commitment to push firmly ahead with implementing measures that flow from the Good Friday agreement and are not contingent on any other development. Progress can and must be made on security normalisation, policing and justice, rights and equality. Forward movement is the best defence against the approaching political vacuum.
Details of the measures that are needed to complete the process of devolution must be worked through. I am in favour of pressing ahead with the discussion on a Bill of rights and an all-Ireland charter. I am in favour of transferring responsibility for policing and justice matters to the Northern Ireland Assembly and for that to be negotiated as a proposal that will follow elections. I would go further and revisit the whole range of reserved and excepted matters with a view to extending the process.
I should like more progress on cross-border matters and to re-examine the neglected east-west dimension to find new methods of increasing participation. I should like Unionist representation on the British-Irish Interparliamentary Body. The obstacle to developing all those aims and the brake on such progress is the delay in holding elections.
There can be no formal review of the Good Friday agreement this side of the elections. For that reason, the democratic mandate of parties involved in negotiations must be renewed. I disagree with the postponement in principle, but if the Government are set on that course, we must ensure minimum damage by setting a new date as early as is feasibly possible. Without the anchor of democratic legitimacy, the Good Friday agreement will drift on to the rocks and might end up a wreck. I believe that none of us wants that.
7.23 pm
Mr. Alistair Carmichael: As others have observed, we are considering a Bill on Northern Ireland elections for the second time in eight weeks. First, I want briefly to examine the Government's conduct. Since the completion of the Belfast agreement, the Government have rightly placed great stress on the necessity for bipartisanship and partnership in dealing with Northern Ireland matters. My party has always been keen to participate in that process.
Hon. Members will remember that when the matter was discussed on 17 March, my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) made an important point at the end of his speech. He said to the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browrne), who is present, that there must be no prospect of a further delay. He continued:
"Although we are not pleased about the change, we understand it, but if that date were to change after such an assurance were given, Ministers and the Government would begin to lose the confidence of the Liberal Democrats, and perhaps of the House in general."—[Official Report, 17 March 2003; Vol. 401, c. 661.]

91
The Under-Secretary replied:
"let me say to all who have sought clarification that the people of Northern Ireland will have a chance to deliver their verdict on 29 May if the Bill is passed."
He continued:
"I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire for his support, even if that, too, was conditional. I hope that my earlier answer about the election date has matured the conditionality of his contribution."—[Official Report, 17 March 2003; Vol. 401 c.691-694.]
Mr. Browne: What does that mean?
Mr. Carmichael: As one member of the Law Society of Scotland to another—[Interruption.] As one failed member of the Law Society of Society to another, I appreciate that there is some ambiguity in the Under-Secretary's words, but on any reasonable construction, he gave us the guarantee that we sought.
In that context, the Government's actions on 1 May, when they gave no notification of their intentions to the Liberal Democrat party, the official Opposition or any Northern Ireland parties that are represented here, constitute poor conduct. The Government presumed that after they had made their decision and their announcement, Parliament would simply acquiesce in the decision. I did not come here simply to acquiesce in Government decisions. The hon. Member for rantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) was right to speak about the possibility of chaos, but it would be chaos of the Government's making, and they must be mindful of the possible consequences.
I believe that the decision is wrong for all sorts of reasons. The Secretary of State said that the "people" had lost patience and that "people" wanted the peace process to work. I lost count of the number of references to people and what they wanted. How does one determine what the people want in such circumstances? An election should be held to allow the people to speak through the ballot box. I cannot understand the logic of the Secretary of State's position when he says that he is promoting what the people want but denies them the opportunity to express that.
The Secretary of State is right to regret the lack of clarity that led to the postponement of elections. However, I do not understand how we achieve clarity by removing the impetus created by the immediacy and pressure of an election campaign. It is a logical non-sequitur. Postponement is bad strategically for the peace process because in removing the impetus of the election campaign, the Secretary of State takes the heat off the paramilitaries, especially the IRA
Postponing the elections is also bad for elected politics in Northern Ireland. I gel the clear impression from the time that I have spent there that the Assembly has run its course and that the democratic mandate must be renewed to give further legitimacy to its pronouncements. That can only be done through further elections.
The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford also referred to the need for a paragraph 8 review—an important part of the agreement—which should be held by 1 December. If that review is to be meaningful, it
92
must take place after elections. That is why a vacuum will be created without the renewal of the mandate, as the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) said, and there will be no shortage of strangers to the democratic process who will be only too keen to step in and fill that vacuum, particularly if that gap is allowed to extend over the summer months.
It is our view that the Government have lost their place badly here. The reason for that is that they now seem to view the peace process as a game to be played between the political parties. That ignores, or perhaps forgets, the context in which the whole process started. That context was one in which the overwhelming will of ordinary people in Northern Ireland was for a peaceful, normal existence. They had got sick and fed up with living under the shadow of violence and they wanted peace. Cancelling the elections removes the people from that process. If the Government were to continue with elections and if the verdict were one that they might regard as being unhelpful, that could only be a challenge to the parties in Northern Ireland to say to the people that they were prepared to find some solution. It should not be the job of Government to second-guess the outcome of elections before deciding to go ahead with them.
David Burnside: The hon. Gentleman keeps raising the question of why the Government postponed the election for some indefinite period. Is he aware, as I am, that the polling—perhaps the Minister might pay attention to this question—carried out privately by the Northern Ireland Office proved that an immediate election would put a majority of Unionists into the Assembly who were not satisfied with the present implementation of the agreement, and who would force the Government to negotiate something better for the people of Northern Ireland?
Mr. Carmichael: I fear that the hon. Gentleman perhaps overstates the case when he says that polling "proved" the case one way or the other. There are some very disappointed and redundant politicians in Scotland this week who thought that the security of their future had been proved by opinion polls, but when the actual poll— the one in the ballot box—came to pass, a very different verdict was delivered.
Mr. Mackay: Name them.
Mr. Carmichael: I will not name them, but none of them was a Liberal Democrat, I am pleased to say.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Is the hon. Gentleman taking into account what was found out recently when an opinion poll went against Government thinking and pressure was put on people not to release those figures? When the figures were released, the majority against the agreement was watered down to make it more acceptable to the people who wanted a particular result. I do not know whether that happens in Scotland, but it happens in Northern Ireland.
Mr. Carmichael: All of which surely makes it more important that we have an election, which is the definitive poll—the one with which there really is no argument.

93
The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford has referred to the fact that chaos would ensue if we did not now cancel or postpone the elections. I have said that I am broadly in agreement with that. I take the view, however, that the Bill is far too broad in its compass. The Government have shown that they are not particularly well equipped in their adherence to deadlines when such deadlines are in place in primary legislation. I have no confidence that they will improve their performance in any way if one removes the compulsitor of a fixed date. That is why, later this evening, I hope to press to a vote in Committee an amendment tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik).
That amendment would put a fixed date into the legislation. That is where the Government have an opportunity to redeem themselves from their earlier poor performance in relation to the lack of consultation. I shall listen to the Minister's reply, and hope to hear some sign that he will listen to votes here, and possibly in the other place, where the Government do not have the same overwhelming majority.
Mike Gapes: If there is another deferment to a fixed date, what certainty do we have that that date will be met? Is it not dangerous if we have fixed dates that are unrealistic? The hon. Gentleman spent the beginning of his speech talking about the fact that we now had to deal with a situation in which we had a deferral to a fixed date that proved unworkable. What guarantee do we have that another fixed date would be any more likely to work than the one we have already had?
Mr. Carmichael>: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there is no such guarantee. It is infinitely preferable, however, that such a decision should be made in this Chamber, rather than in someone's office in the Northern Ireland Office. That is a fundamental basic principle of democracy, from which we should not be departing. Further to that, all I seek to do is to hold the Government to their own aspiration when they say that they hope that the election will be in the autumn, by fixing a date in October. If that is a genuine aspiration on the Government's part, they should have no problem putting their money where their mouth is, and fixing a date, rather than being vague.
Mr. Quentin Davies: I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument with interest, and I very much agree with it. Does he recall that the Secretary of State this afternoon put it even more strongly than saying "hoped for"? He said that he intended that there would be an election in the autumn, which surely makes it even less likely that the Government, if they thought about the matter sensibly for more than a few minutes, would want to resist the hon. Gentleman's amendment.
Mr. Carmichael: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and his argument has a great deal of force. I thought in passing that the Government have found themselves in difficulties in the past, caught between their policy pledges on one hand, and their aspirations and wishes on the other. I would not want to pursue them too vigorously on that point tonight.
94
If I may draw my remarks to a conclusion while I still have some voice to do so, the remainder of the Bill is unexceptionable, in my view. It is proper and decent that measures should be put in place for Assembly Members and their staff to have some degree of certainty. Although I would enter the obvious caveat that we await the details of that provision, I have little quibble with it. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about clause 6, whose compass seems to have been drawn exceptionally wide. That perhaps shows a certain degree of nervousness on the Government's part, and that they have introduced the legislation in haste. I hope that it will not be a case of legislating in haste and repenting at leisure.
7.39 pm
Mr. Seamus Mallon: I have a divided mind in relation to some of the elements that we are debating tonight. I abhor a political vacuum. I learned that lesson considerable period of time ago, after the fall of the then Sunningdale Executive, which was followed by the Northern Ireland convention. I was arrogant enough to make a substantial bet with a journalist that within three months, Humpty Dumpty would be put together again. Thirty years later, the process of doing that began. For that reason, I am almost paranoid about vacuums in a political process.
There is another reason why I have a divided mind. I listened intently to the Prime Minister at his press conference and to the Secretary of State on two occasions here in the House, and they made what seem to be compelling arguments in relation to what can only be described as the salvation of the agreement in electoral terms. I lave to ask myself, given the arguments that they have made: what does the Prime Minister see in relation to the immediate future in the north of Ireland that the rest of us may not see? What insight has he that has prompted him not just to postpone an election, which of itself is a fundamental decision, but to bring about the first significant disagreement between him and the Taoiseach on an issue that is of constitutional importance to the Government of the Republic of Ireland? What has led him to act in a way that is contrary to the wishes of all the political parties in the north of Ireland, except, I understand—possibly, maybe—the Ulster Unionist party? In effect, that takes a political process that can survive only on activity and its own dynamism and parks it, stalls it or immobilises it, call it what you like, when it should be challenged to face the problems in front of it.
The problems that the Prime Minister himself foresaw should be faced rather than parked, and the problems that may arise from the political process—they may arise, as there is no such certainty whatever—should be faced down. The only basis on which they can be faced down is proceeding with an election and getting the mandate for the support for the agreement. I believe that, for those reasons, the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State did not make the decision lightly. I have seen them in action at close hand on the issue, and I commend them for 1 he time and effort that they have put into trying to solve this problem. I bow to no one in my admiration for what they are doing and for what they have tried to do. All the more reason, then, to try to probe the Government's mind in relation to the

95
decision. In an attempt to do that, I must ask five questions, some of which are fairly easy and others of which are difficult. I believe that they must be answered, and I shall now talk about the first.
Having posed in paragraph 13 of the joint declaration the questions to the IRA as to its future activities, the two Governments required direct answers. They wanted absolute clarity, not creative or selective ambiguity, and the IRA was asked to say that there will be no more punishment beatings, no more targeting, no more intelligence gathering, no more procurement of weapons and no more enforcement of exile.
Those seem to me to be questions that, in their bluntness, could and should be answered by those who are not involved in violence and who, a matter of weeks previously, showed their abhorrence of war in Iraq, yet they refused to step to the mark in relation to things that affect the community in which we live. Punishment beatings are not carried out on people from other parts of the island. They are carried out On people in the same street, in the same townland and in the same parish.
The refusal to give those answers has been one of the core problems. It has been and could be argued that there are forms of words that, if one wanted to pass and analyse them in certain directions, might lead to a conclusion, but the difficulties of Northern Ireland will be solved not by forms of words, but by the understanding that when people say that a war is over—I believe that it has been over this past seven or eight years—they also say that the attendant elements of war, such as keeping control of a community through punishment beatings, are over as well.
I couple policing with that, too. I was rather surprised in the last policing debate on the Floor of the House, when, despite probing, I got little indication that participation in the Policing Board would be, in effect, one requirement for the type of new beginning that is required. So be it. The time will come when that is faced, but I say to the republican movement in terms of the IRA and Sinn Fein, "Look what you have done. You have done what one of the parties sitting opposite has failed to do. You have done what the anti-agreement parties could not possibly do. You have created, or possibly recreated, an apolitical situation in the north of Ireland." I hope that it is proud of what it has done. I believe that the community that we all represent deserves better than to have its political process dealt away in terms of paramilitary requirements by paramilitary people.
In relation to that, I must ask whether come October—come the autumn—the approach will have changed and whether the process, including all the forms of words, will recommence. Will we go again for clarity or the studied, creative ambiguity? It will be interesting to see, but surely the experience has been that things are never done the same way twice. Once we have looked at that and asked that question, we have the right to ask what happens in September, October or whenever that period may be.
The second question is one that I would dearly like to have answered, because then I would be able to make up my mind as to the insights that the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State may have had. If the IRA had said
96
that there would be no more of the activities in paragraph 13 of the joint declaration, would the Ulster Unionist party have agreed the joint declaration? I do not know the answer to that, although I would dearly love to know it. Maybe we will get an answer at some stage tonight. [Interruption.]
I address this remark to the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson): it is not becoming of any person in a political party to stab his own party in the back on such issues—not just tonight, but on previous occasions. The question has to be asked and answered. Had the IRA stepped up to the mark, would the joint declaration have been accepted and supported by the Ulster Unionist party? I have no doubt that there are those in that party who would have done that, but I have no doubt whatever that there are others—at least four are sitting here—who would not.
We must look carefully at what we are talking about here: on the basis of the IRA announcing an end to those activities, would the Ulster Unionist party have gone into an election on a pro-agreement platform? It is crucial that we know that, because some people have legitimate doubts. In those circumstances, would the Ulster Unionist party announce an end to the stop-go politics that in effect reduced the operation of Executive decisions in the past five years to 18 months? There have been suspensions, refusals to work with the north-south bodies, postponements and excuses. It is fitting to remember that the first suspensions were determined by the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), and the reason he gave was that it was to save the agreement. That very same reason has now been given by the Government for the postponement of these elections.
I would like to be convinced that the Ulster Unionist party and those involved with it would proactively support the agreement, which they signed, in this House, in their central council and on the doorsteps in an election. That is crucial not just from a nationalist perspective, but from the perspective of Unionists who want leadership.
David Burnside: The Ulster Unionist Council will speak in its own time and in a clear voice on behalf of the Unionist people. Would the hon. Gentleman put a question to his own party and add to the knowledge of the House and the people of Northern Ireland? If the IRA does not disband, end all its activities and become a normal, democratic party, will the SDLP ever separate from Sinn Fein within the nationalist-republican community and co-operate with other democrats in Northern Ireland?
Mr. Mallon: The hon. Gentleman may be aware that there was a Good Friday agreement, that it was based on the d'Hondt system, that his party is part of that d'Hondt system, that his party helped to agree that d'Hondt system, and that the d'Hondt system is based on inclusion not exclusion. He has tried to make a point of this many times. He would be better employed supporting his own party and the efforts of those in his party who have shown great courage in trying to deal with this matter, rather than going round with a dagger behind their backs at every opportunity.
David Winnick: Should not those such as the hon. Member for South Antrim (David Burnside) show the

97
same courage as my hon. Friend and his colleagues, who over the years during the IRA terror stood up to the bullying, intimidation and threat to life and never once gave in to the terrorist elements who wanted to force Northern Ireland into the Republic without the agreement of the majority?
Mr. Mallon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point. I have referred to the political vacuum. I know what it is for 30 odd years to try to keep a political process going without a forum, without status, and without the means of the political process at our disposal. During those 30 years, we never bowed to the pressures from people in the republican movement who wanted and still want to do us the greatest damage that they possibly can.
We want an election. The pundits tell us that we would lose seats and that we would be overtaken. I can tell hon. Members and the pundits that that will change, whatever happens to the political process in an election. One of the groupings that this postponement suits best is not the Ulster Unionist party but Sinn Fein. It gives Sinn Fein breathing space and time between its own failures and an election to regroup so as to manipulate the situation. A section of Unionism—I am not sure which party those people belong to—is trying to create circumstances that are favourable to Sinn Fein.
Mr. Dodds: The hon. Gentleman said that the Belfast agreement was about inclusion, and he referred to the d'Hondt system. Coming from where he comes from in terms of support for the Belfast agreement, does he accept that it was always argued—indeed, it is explicit in the agreement—that parties should be excluded if they are not committed to exclusively peaceful and democratic means? Surely the question from the hon. Member for South Antrim (David Burnside) that he failed to answer deserves a response.
Mr. Mallon: The answer is clear. The Secretary of State, at any given moment in time, has the facility and the power to have a motion brought to the Assembly, just as the leader of the Ulster Unionist party has the facility to do that.
Mr. Peter Robinson: We exercised it.
Mr. Mallon: The hon. Gentleman exercised it for publicity reasons. For five years he has done nothing but give more publicity to the people whom he is trying to exclude. That is the reality that the hon. Gentleman should consider.
The third question that I believe should be asked is: will the two Governments jointly recognise that there are faults on more than one side? In the early part of the debate, specifically the Secretary of State's contribution, there was no recognition that there are faults on more than one side. Will the methodology for negotiations continue? Will the Governments continue to show the indulgence that has been shown not to those who properly honour their commitments and the agreement, but to those who break their commitments? There is a feeling in the political process that unless we transgress we will get nowhere. It is akin to the statement that was made to us as a political party when we were told, "You know your problem is that you don't have guns. If you
98
had guns, you would be in a better way politically." That was not said by someone from the heartland of south Armagh, but by the Prime Minister, who lives in Downing street and who has been dealing with this process. I am making a serious point. I saw this when I was in office, and I see it now. A political party such as ours, which plays by the rules and does not transgress, is disadvantaged. I put it to the two Governments that it is time they examined their own methodology, stopped coddling those who break all the rules and made them face up to a different approach as to how we go forward.
I hope that when it comes the autumn and when we get to the next election, as I hope we will, the two Governments will introduce a degree of collectivity into their approach—a collectivity that is not based on discussions with parties separately so that no one knows what has been discussed or agreed. In the past seven months, there was no collectivity in any of the decisions made. How can we have a strong political process when parties are encouraged to act individually, not collectively?
The fourth question is this. If all the things in paragraph 13 are done in October, so much the better—well and good. But if that does not happen, if the worst fears become a reality, if there are no elections in the autumn and if there is no sign of the kind of movement on all sides that is required, what will the Government do?
I suggest that the Government have agreed what they will do. It is called the joint declaration, and I suggest that they go and do it, because they have not just political authority but, in the event of the political parties' failure to secure the necessary type of agreement, moral authority. Moreover, institutional arrangements enable it to be done. It would be better if the political parties themselves made the advances, but if the choice is between parking the political process and allowing all the elements that are necessary in the joint declaration to remain, I believe that the Governments have only one option: to implement the joint declaration.
Finally, there is the fifth question. It is eminently possible that some par ties have decided not to negotiate before an election in September, October or whenever it takes place. Some may well be here. Some may well have decided not to negotiate until after the election. Where does that leave the postponement? The question must be considered carefully. At least two parties I can think of would find such a tactic very tempting. The Government must ensure that in no circumstances can negotiations be postponed until after an election in an attempt to garner the best result.
Let me say this to the DUP. I want it to be an active, organic party in the political process, rather than one that takes the goodies on offer while accepting no collective responsibility for the process. I say that genuinely, because I believe that the more inclusive its politics are, the stronger and better it will be. I say it because I want people to be involved, not excluded, as the hon. Member for South Antrim (David Burnside) suggested earlier.
Let me end with this appeal. The DUP is a strong political party, strong enough and courageous enough to abandon a position that is in fact apolitical, and will not deliver for the north of Ireland or its members'

99
constituents in the way that it would like. I ask it to join the other political parties in ensuring that this autumn sees a fully fledged working of the Anglo-Irish agreement, including it as well as the other parties.
8.4 pm
Mr. David Trimble: I apologise to those who speak after me. I fear that duties elsewhere in the House will take me away.
Reference has been made to the fact that this is the second time in a couple of months that the Government have come to the House to make changes to arrangements in Northern Ireland. Unfortunately I was not present when the first such change was debated, but I have looked at the reports of previous debates, and I rather regret that I was not here on that occasion. I want to say something about the Bill that postponed the election until the 29th, and what was said by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) at the time.
Referring to the discussions in Hillsborough at the beginning of March, the hon. Gentleman said:
"The UUP advanced the argument that there should be a delay in the poll, and that there should be a one-year postponement of the election. The morning of the first day, the UUP leader went in and argued for a one-year postponement of the elections. By the end of the day, he was falling back on an argument to put them off until October—he would have been satisfied with a delay over the summer. By the time the meeting finished, and he left early, he was satisfied with a delay of four weeks. Some people say that if he had stayed any longer we would be out campaigning now ."—[Official Report, 17 March 2003; Vol. 401, c. 672.]
That is good knockabout stuff, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Belfast, East enjoyed saying it. Let me say this to him with all seriousness, however, and I want him to listen carefully. There is not a single word of truth in any of it. The next time he feels like repeating those sentiments, he should bear in mind what I have said tonight. If, knowing the truth, he proceeds to say something that is not accurate, there is a term that will clearly apply.
Let me make another thing clear—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. These sedentary interventions must not continue.
Mr. Trimble: I want to make something else clear, which refers to comments from the same quarter. My colleagues and I have no fear of an election or of its result. [Laughter.] Indeed, I am confident that when the result emerged some of the laughter we are hearing would be wiped away. I am confident that we would make gains and take seats that some of the Members sitting on my left currently occupy.
Mr. Peter Robinson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Trimble: No. I will make my points.
Mr. Robinson rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is clearly not giving way. I remind the House that serious matters are being debated.
Mr. Trimble: I will make my points, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I hope to make them without interruption.
We were confident about our campaign. The start of the DUP's campaign featured plenty of signs of panic. I am sure that if it had continued in that vein, my predictions would have come true. I will not go into the mistakes that it made during its campaign, because I hope very much that it repeats them when the election comes, and there is no doubt that we will benefit from them.
The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) asked five questions. I repeated one of them again and again during the past couple of months, in the run-up to the Government's decision, and I will do so again. The important question, which had to be answered, was this: how would the Assembly discharge its functions? How would it work?
The Assembly was suspended on 15 October. Technically there is no Assembly. In the event of an election, that question would arise. How would the Assembly function? Given its suspension, in what circumstances, if any, could it resume?
The issue is there largely because the Northern Ireland Act 2000 was not clearly thought out, and, as I said in the timetable debate, there is an inconsistency between it and the Northern Ireland Act 1998. Had the 1998 Act not made express reference to an election on 1 May 2003, after suspension there would have been no question of an election taking place at all. That is the extent of the inconsistency. Logically, suspending the Assembly and the Executive should have carried through to the suspension of all aspects of it.
On that first postponement and the circumstances that gave rise to it—it may be of interest to the Members to my left to listen carefully again to this point—the reason for the four-week suspension and the four-week postponement in the earlier legislation was that a party at the discussions in Hillsborough said that it needed four weeks to consult its members in order to deliver the actions that would enable suspension to end. It was not my party that said that. We all know which party it was. The request in effect for the postponement of the election came from Sinn Fein, which said that it needed those weeks in which to consult its party, so that it could come forward with genuine acts of completion.
I remember pointing out to my colleagues that the postponement, which was to give Sinn Fein time to do what we all knew was necessary, would have certain implications if it failed to do that; that logic was there, too. Indeed, one thing that Members should bear in mind when they look at recent actions is that, in a sense, republicans, and others besides just republicans, were using the issue of elections to delegitimise suspension, to try to find a way around suspension and to force resumption in circumstances that would be advantageous to them. That explains why republicans ran down the clock, went past the last minute and then came forward with a statement that was clearly inadequate, bowling it short again in the hope that, by that time, the Governments would be so desperate that they would grab at an inadequate arrangement. The republicans' aim was to force resumption without their having to give up all forms of paramilitary activity.

101
That is the subtext of what has been happening over the past number of weeks and I am glad that the Government did not allow republicans to succeed in that manoeuvre. I regret the fact that the Department of Foreign Affairs in Dublin was taken in by it. I confine my criticism there to the DFA and I have good reason for confining it to that. As I say, I am glad that the Government stood firm on that and did not let republicans manoeuvre them out of suspension, because that essentially was the issue.
The question is: what do we do from here? It is very well to argue, as some of my colleagues have, for the option of looking at some form of exclusion. We argued against suspension in October. We argued that the Governments should do what the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh said—that the Secretary of State should send a motion to the Assembly. It was at that time that the argument that the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) advanced—of the Government taking on themselves powers to deal with the situation—was most apt, and perhaps that is where we look in terms of the future. It is perfectly right to argue for developing those new powers and for that form of exclusion if republicans will not do the necessary acts of completion. The reality is that to press for an election while the Assembly is suspended is to do the work of Sinn Fein-IRA. I am afraid that some Unionists are being blinded by their own personal ambition, their desire to get back into office and to continue to share power with Sinn Fein, not realising that they are doing the work of the republican movement.
Mr. Dodds: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Trimble: No.
My final query is to the Government: how do they plan to bring about an ending of suspension in circumstances that will enable the Assembly to function properly? It is all very well for Government to say and to give the hope that, somehow in a month or two or whatever it may be, we will be able to come back and to proceed in tshe way we all want to, but the Government must think seriously about how they are going to do it. There is something that they should consider and move forward. The Secretary of State has touched on it this evening. That is, to go to those measures for monitoring of paramilitary activity, for having appropriate remedies and sanctions for that and to bring those forward as rapidly as possible. Therein lies the lever that we need to move the republican movement that bit further.
My preference in these matters, as always, is to see the political process in Northern Ireland function, and to see the agreement fully implemented and operating on the basis of the principles that we agreed, the most important of which is, of course, that it operate by exclusively peaceful and democratic means. Exclusion is a second best but it is preferable to the situation that we are in now. I rather suspect that, were the Government to bring forward those provisions, including the new power for Her Majesty's Government to act, that would be the lever that made republicans face up to the reality that they have to move, and I hope the Government will do that before the autumn comes and before we have to come back to this issue again.
8.15 pm
David Winnick: No one is likely to be happy that the situation remains unsettled in Northern Ireland. Nevertheless, I believe that in the circumstances the Bill is right. I have been from the start an ardent supporter of the Good Friday agreement. It is, in my view, the fairest way for the Province to be governed on behalf of both communities. I have said before that if the people on the mainland had had the opportunity—I am not saying that they should have had it—to vote on the Good Friday agreement, the majority in favour would have been even greater than in the Irish Republic. That point should not be overlooked by Unionists, whether they are for or against the agreement.
We cannot compare the situation with which we are faced with the other devolved institutions that have been set up since 1997. No one would ever imagine a Minister proposing the postponement of elections for the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly or the London Assembly. It is as unlikely to happen as any attempt to extend in peacetime the powers of this Parliament. We know that to be the position. However, the situation in Northern Ireland is unique within the United Kingdom, although, sadly, not in the wider world, with two very divided communities with a long history, going back two or three centuries, of antagonism, suspicion, bloodshed and mutual distrust. That is why it is so important to have all-inclusive, power-sharing Government in Northern Ireland.
When I was out of the House in between seats, my view on the Sunningdale agreement, negotiated by the Conservative Government of Edward Heath, was that it was the right approach. Some who opposed such power sharing later came to the view that, in different circumstances, it was right to have such power sharing as in the Good Friday agreement, but the Sunningdale agreement was destroyed on the ground and we know what happened in the years that followed.
I hope that the leader of the DUP will recognise that what I am now going to say is nothing personal. He has been in the House long enough. I do not wish to make any personal remarks, but he has said repeatedly that he is totally opposed to the Good Friday agreement and that his party is so opposed that no matter what Sinn Fein does or does not do, it will never go into Government with Sin I Fein. That has been the position that he has adopted, although a representative of his party was in the Executive when it was functioning. In this unsettled situation, an election that produced complete deadlock would satisfy only those who are determined to destroy the agreement.
I do not know what the outcome of any election would be. We have been told by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), who leads for the main Unionist party, that he was confident that his party would do well. No one can predict election results, but if there were an election result that meant that the DUP was the largest party on one side and Sinn Fein on the other side, we know that there would be complete deadlock. That is precisely the position that those who are opposed to the agreement want to produce. I do not want that position to arise and, although I do not like elections being postponed and I accept that there is a good argument for saying that they should not be postponed, I would rather the measure went through so as to save the agreement. I hope that in so arguing I am

103
not being anti-democratic. [Laughter.] I would say that my track record demonstrates that I am certainly not anti-democratic.
The republican movement has gone a long way towards accepting that its perfectly legitimate overall objective of a united Ireland can come only through the use of constitutional and democratic means. One of course wishes that that had been the policy of the republican movement from the very beginning. A lot of bloodshed on both sides would have been prevented.
I repeat a point that has been made previously. Sinn Fein has accepted the legitimacy of Northern Ireland being part of the United Kingdom. As we know, over the years, it totally denied that. It said that Northern Ireland was a statelet and that Ireland had no right to be divided. Sinn Fein took no account of the majority view in Northern Ireland. That has changed and I welcome that, as I am sure everyone does. It is part of democracy to accept the wishes of the majority.Arising from the Good Friday agreement, articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution, which laid claim to Northern Ireland, have also gone following a referendum in the Republic.
Having rightly gone so far, the republican leadership is now required to declare that all forms of paramilitary activity and violence will cease. That is not asking too much. It should take the final step. Although Sinn Fein denies that it is directly involved, the activities that have been carried out by the IRA since the Good Friday agreement—the punishment beatings, the hooliganism and the other activities that in no way can be equated with the actions of a democratic party—are totally unacceptable. One can understand the feelings of those Unionists who are in favour of the Good Friday agreement, but who take the view that, in those circumstances, it is not possible for the agreement to be fully implemented. Although this possibility does not arise because of the arithmetic in the Irish Republic, the Taoiseach has said that he would not be willing to enter into an agreement with Sinn Fein as long as that party was associated with a republican organisation—the IRA—that carried out the activities that I have just mentioned.
I hope that we can get the agreement working once again and that elections can take place this year and will not be indefinitely postponed, although much of the responsibility for that lies with the IRA. We know that the majority of Unionist Members elected to the House are opposed to the agreement.
Mr. Donaldson indicated assent
David Winnick: I see the hon. Gentleman nodding. However, I hope that those Unionists who are in favour of the agreement have the necessary courage to argue for the agreement and to explain why it has been of the benefit that it undoubtedly has been. The Secretary of State has produced on several occasions figures for the number of people who are alive who would not have been if it had not been for the agreement and also for the upturn in the economy and the jobs that have been created. They are all substantial gains for the people of Northern Ireland. That is why I believe it necessary for those Unionists to have the courage to overcome the
104
hostility not only of the DUP—in no circumstances would it be in favour of the agreement—but inside the Ulster Unionist party. They should argue the point at branch level and at every level up to the executive to demonstrate that they believe in the agreement. They should not be on the defensive and, whatever the difficulties may be, they should explain that the agreement is good for the people of Northern Ireland as a whole.
Mr. Gregory Campbell: The hon. Gentleman has gone to considerable lengths to establish what the Unionist Members of the House who are in favour of the agreement should do. However, he also accepted that a majority of them are against the agreement. If he accepts that, why can he not accept that that is the will of the Unionist community and the way in which it sees the agreement?
David Winnick: The DUP takes a position and it will serve no purpose for me to repeat it. However, the Ulster Unionist party is in favour of the agreement. As I have said, the hostility within that party must be overcome. After all, other political parties—my party and the Conservative party—have all had internal battles in our day. If we believe in a certain view and think that it is in the best interests not only of our party but of the country as a whole, we have to argue our case.
It is not for me to say this, because I was on the other side of the argument when the Prime Minister took a view about clause IV and public ownership. He believed that it was necessary to change that clause and, at the time, I believed that he was wrong. However, he argued his point of view against a great deal of hostility inside the party and he won the day. That is my point to those who are in favour of the agreement.
David Burnside: I think that I am probably the best example on the Unionist Benches tonight. I voted for the agreement, but you are asking me to campaign as an Ulster Unionist Member of Parliament who voted for the agreement. How can you expect me, as someone who feels conned by the agreement—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should use the correct parliamentary language.
David Burnside: Thank you for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The hon. Gentleman asked Members like me to campaign for the agreement at branch level. Does he not understand that that is impossible when we feel that we were conned by the accompanying promises from the Prime Minister? The hon. Gentleman must know that, as we have repeated the point many times in the House. Sinn Fein has not gone down the democratic route and we will not sit in government with a terrorist, military and criminal organisation. It would be dishonest of us to look the electorate in the face and to campaign on behalf of the agreement as it now stands.
David Winnick: I do not believe that that is the view of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann. He speaks with greater authority on behalf of his party than the hon. Gentleman. There was no conning, and the very fact that the Bill is being introduced now demonstrates the commitment of the Government, together with the Irish

105
Government—they are both sovereign Governments—that all forms of paramilitary activity by the IRA must cease absolutely.
Mr. Roy Beggs: I put it to the hon. Gentleman that words from the IRA will be no more acceptable to the leader of my party than they would be to me and other Unionists in Northern Ireland. The hon. Gentleman must exhort Sinn Fein-IRA to demonstrate their commitment visibly as well as by declaring that the war is over. We must see the decommissioning and the destruction of the weapons and explosives that have been used against us for 30 years.
David Winnick: Of course no one argues with that, and the IRA must demonstrate such action on the ground along the lines that the hon. Gentleman pointed out. I want that to happen. If one drew up a list of hon. Members who have least defended the IRA's activities in any way, I would be very high on that list along with Northern Ireland Members. I doubt whether I would be challenged in any way for the years and years in which I have demonstrated my total opposition to all forms of terrorist activity. If I may reminisce, when I met the top leadership of Sinn Fein 20 years ago this September, I said that no British Government would ever give up Northern Ireland, irrespective of any terror applied, because Northern Ireland could not be given up against the wishes of the majority of the people.
If the IRA demonstrate what the hon. Gentleman and I want to see, I would expect him to argue for the agreement, to defend the agreement and to make the point with which I started and conclude my speech: the fairest way to govern Northern Ireland is through power sharing or inclusive government. That is the only way in which Northern Ireland can be governed in a democratically acceptable way.
8.30 pm
Mr. Andrew Mackay: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick). He speaks a lot of sense on Northern Ireland—if not necessarily, in my view, on everything else. I have considerable sympathy with his support of the Bill.
We should go back a little and remind ourselves of why the Executive ended: because Sinn Fein-IRA failed to fulfil their part of the Belfast agreement. The situation came to a head when it was discovered that members of Sinn Fein-IRA had infiltrated Stormont. The right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) rightly refused to continue to serve as First Minister, which is why the impasse occurred.
In parentheses, it is worth reminding ourselves that the new Chief Constable, Hugh Orde, apologised to Sinn Fein-IRA for the way in which their members were arrested in Stormont for what most of us would consider to be a serious offence. That situation is in marked contrast with what recently happened to Liam Clarke, the distinguished journalist of The Sunday Times who, with his wife and eight-year-old daughter, was woken up by armed police officers at 2 am. He had his study door smashed down although he could provide a key and was held in custody for 23 hours. I hope that the Secretary of
106
State will make a statement—although clearly not tonight—on that disgraceful episode, which has brought the police force in Northern Ireland, and the rule of law in our country, hugely into disrepute. However, I think that I am straying out of order because that is not directly relevant to the Bill.
The Secretary of State will recall from his time as Minister of State for Northern Ireland that, although I have always been passionately in favour of the Belfast agreement, I have been critical of the Government at times because they have not fully implemented it. In fact, he and the hon. Members for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon)—I much admired his brave speech—and for Walsall, North have accused me of not always adopting a bipartisan approach on Northern Ireland. When I was shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, I always said that if I did not think that the Government were right, I reserved the right not to support them and to criticise and disagree with them. I am sure that my successor also reserves that right.
My principal concern has always been that the men of violence, whether so-called loyalist or republican, have all too often got away with it. They have not ended their violence by any stretch of the imagination. As the hon. Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs) said in a pertinent intervention, words are not enough; there must be action. I was pleased that the hon. Member for Walsall, North confirmed that that is the case.
We need action: the end to punishment beatings, the end to intimidation and extortion, the end to the surveillance of possible targets and the decommissioning of all illegally held arms and explosives. Some, but not quite all, of the Secretary of State's predecessors, especially the first Secretary of State, Mo Mowlam, have come close to adopting a policy of appeasement. Had they stood up to the men of violence, we would not be having this debate and the Executive would not have been suspended.
As I said when I intervened on my successor as shadow Secretary of State, I believe that when sinners have repented, they must be much encouraged. The Secretary of State has made absolutely the right decision. He said that the decision was difficult. It must have been. No democrat or Parliament loosely and without careful consideration postpones or cancels an election, but the decision was right. Many Conservative Members strongly support the Secretary of State, contrary to the impression that may have been given by my Front-Bench spokesman. Many of those people have great experience of Northern Ireland and have held ministerial office there.
It is important to stand firm. The right hon. Member for Upper Bann was correct, as he so often is, when he said that IRA-Sinn Fein had played their normal clever game. They had given a little, which looked quite good, but it was nowhere near enough. To have succumbed to them by allowing the elections to go ahead and the Executive to be formed again would have been an absolute and complete disaster.
If I may say to the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies), it is a little naive to think that when IRA-Sinn Fein make tiny concessions after doing so little for so long that somehow they should be rewarded, which is what he suggested the Secretary of State should do. I think the opposite and am anxious for

107
the right hon. Gentleman to introduce legislation to allow him and his Government to exclude Sinn Fein from the Executive if the IRA fails to fulfil all its obligations under the agreement. If that were introduced in the summer, there would be a real possibility of elections taking place in the autumn. I think that Sinn Fein-IRA realise that the Government are serious, which is why I am anxious to back the Government tonight. Only by pursuing that route will we see a distinct change of attitude from Sinn Fein-IRA.
I wish the Government well and will support them in the Division Lobby. It is essential that the House send a clear message to the men of violence by voting by a large majority to suspend the elections for the reasons outlined by the Secretary of State.
8.37 pm
Andrew Mackinlay: It is right in such a Second Reading debate for members of the parties with a primary interest in Northern Ireland to paint the backdrop to how we got to this position, but I want to address the precise contents of the Bill and its glaring omissions.
The first omission is that there is no time limit. Various people, including members of the Democratic Unionist party and the Social Democratic and Labour party, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), have tabled amendments that would ensure that the elections take place within a certain period of time. The alternative was to include a clause to ensure that the Act expired if the problem was not resolved. If the Bill reaches the statute book, it is important that it is not open ended. It should not lay there in perpetuity. It needs an end.
If the Government think that the elections have failed or should not proceed, it is incumbent on them to come to the House of Commons to explain why and to propose how we move on. Everyone needs an opportunity to discuss how we should proceed—whether the d'Hondt system should continue for the Assembly and Executive, or whether one of the parties should be excluded, for example. The important thing is that the House is reported to and we make the decision in quality time, which we are being denied this evening.
I hope that consideration will be given, either in the winding-up speech or in another place, to including an element in the Bill to ensure that it expires if the objectives that the Secretary of State wants to achieve are not resolved in the autumn. The autumn can be compared to a long piece of elastic. It needs a definite end, and that end should be stated in the Bill.
Rev. Martin Smyth: So elastic is the provision that salaries will continue to be paid to current Members of the Legislative Assembly who plan to stand again. When will that cease if we go beyond the autumn?
Andrew Mackinlay: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because that brings me to other matters dealt with in clauses 3 and 4, wham bang in the middle of the Bill. The Secretary of State said that he wanted to facilitate the political parties' having some resources during the period of interregnum. I am happy about
108
that, provided that we know what the ground rules are. Apparently, the Electoral Commission is to be invited to make recommendations to the Secretary of State, who will make a scheme; but the scheme is then his property, and that seems wrong. As a matter of principle, the scheme should be brought to the House of Commons for approval. Why should it not be? Surely it is appropriate that we have the opportunity to discuss it in relation to the funding of political parties. I see that the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) wishes to intervene again. I will give way, but I wish to develop my point.
Rev. Martin Smyth: May I press the hon. Gentleman on that point? One reason for continuing to support the parties is that they will consider ways to bring the Assembly back into being—but will they be doing that all the time? Furthermore, will not candidates who have given notice that they wish to stand and who will have to carry on their own work without such remuneration be put at an unfair disadvantage?
Andrew Mackinlay: Indeed, and I intend to discuss the positions of candidates and existing Members—or perhaps I should say resurrected Members. Clause 4 is a resurrection clause: in resurrecting from death to life in excess of 100 people it achieves something that was not achieved even in the Bible. If we had more time, we could explore the fact that that resurrection clause brings back to life those who are politically dead.
I do not want to be deflected from the subject of the resources for political parties provided for under Clause 3. The House of Commons should approve the scheme because we are the custodians of the public purse. We have to ensure that the ground rules are applied equally to all political parties. We also have to ensure that there is no abuse and prevent abuse arising. To buttress my point, let me give one illustration. I have seen a letter not from a malevolent MLA but from someone who used the Stormont free post to encourage people to sign on to the electoral register. We all want people in Northern Ireland to sign on to the electoral register, but my impression is that using the free post to promote that was contrary to the rules. I do not use that example to complain about that person: I think that they were filled with the best possible motives—but I do not think that that is what the free post was for. Earlier, the Secretary of State said from a sedentary position that Stormont MLAs' free post would not continue, but he did not tell us precisely what other arrangements would be made. We should be told, and that is why the scheme should be examined by the House of Commons.
The hon. Member for Belfast, South mentioned those who seek election to the Assembly and existing Members of it. I am perturbed by the fact that all the political parties in the Assembly have MLAs who consciously want to give up—they do not want to go on. They include the Presiding Officer Lord Alderdice, Sir John Gorman, and Brid Rodgers, the Social Democratic and Labour party Minister for Agriculture and Rural Development. A number of people across the political spectrum want to finish, but under the Bill they have no alternative but to continue—they are to be resurrected from the dead whether they like it or not.

109
What is more, the Bill contains no provision for such people to resign. Under the 1998 legislation, MLAs wishing to resign have to submit their resignation to the Presiding Officer. The Bill, however, does not resurrect the Presiding Officer—the office does not exist. That shows why we wanted a Committee stage on the Bill. It is an important matter of principle that those who do not want to take the new, albeit reduced, salary and do not want to fulfil the functions of a resurrected MLA should be able to decline to do so. Presumably, although the Secretary of State has not declared on this point, allowing them to do so would give the political parties the opportunity to replace them. What is to happen to those filling casual vacancies during the interregnum? Unhappily, some could be deceased. Would they be succeeded under the existing system, or would their place expire? We have a right to be told, and that is not happening at present.
I am not unsympathetic towards the salaries of resurrected MLAs, but I was surprised that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State brushed aside my intervention earlier. Perhaps I did not make myself fully understood. It seems right, however, that whatever remuneration and resources are made available to them should be subject to parliamentary approval. What is wrong with that, especially given that the Bill might be passed open-ended without a conclusion clause?
It is worth considering that those people will be paid and will have their offices in the high street. I have told the House that I am not bursting into tears over that; I am not opposed to that approach in principle. Indeed, they should have something to do. There is a small provision in clause 5 whereby we in the House will be the only people who can refer matters to the Northern Ireland ombudsman. Why cannot the resurrected MLAs still have that function? People will enter their high street offices to complain. I have been into MLAs' offices to listen to people. They have come in and said, "I want you to tell that Tony Blair about this and that." They raise the war of Iraq with MLAs. Occasionally, however, they raise issues relating to maladministration or the Departments of the Northern Ireland Office. During the interregnum, surely MLAs who have no other function should be empowered, along with Members of this place, to refer matters of complaint to the Northern Ireland ombudsman.
Finally, I ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to reflect on clause 6. It is drawn extremely widely in a way that can be described only as potentially open to abuse. The Bill is hurried and I have to say that it is ill thought out. I have tried to demonstrate in the past few minutes that it is not comprehensive. Reluctantly, however, I would sign up to the fact that he needs a power, apparently, to alter anything in the Act of Parliament that he has forgotten about or has not anticipated. That is basically what clause 6 does. It says that that procedure will be subject to the affirmative resolutions of both Houses of Parliament. I accept that, albeit reluctantly.
Clause 6 also provides, however, that if that is not expedient the procedure does not have to have the affirmative resolutions of both Houses of Parliament. The Bill as drafted allows a Secretary of State to alter by statutory instrument, without reference to Parliament, any aspect of the Bill. He can add, retract or amend after Royal Assent. That makes a mockery of our law-
110
making process. [Interruption.] The Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne), tells that that is not the case. I would like him to justify that. Surely our purpose is to scrutinise legislation, which is precisely what we are not doing this evening. We are giving the Secretary of State a blank cheque to do anything within the long title, if the Bill becomes an Act, without further reference to Parliament. I find that repugnant.
We are told that the House of Lords may have longer than us to consider this matter. That is breathtakingly arrogant. I hope that the other place will consider some of these issues and improve the Bill. Better still, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, with some humility, or the junior Minister, will at least say that those of us who have raised points such as those that I have set out will consider them overnight and invite their supporters in the House of Lords to introduce amendments to what is a wholly inadequate and rather shabby Bill.
8.49 pm
Rev. Ian Paisley: I wish to put on record my utter condemnation of the behaviour of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) this evening. It flew in the face of all the laws and characteristics of this debating Chamber, and I have been here for more than 30 years. I refer to the way in which he attacked my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) and then told the House that he was leaving immediately. He refused to give way—he refused to accept interventions, then fled the House. The Holy Book saith:
"The wicked flee when no man pursueth".
That is how the right hon. Gentleman fled the House. Such conduct is a disgrace, and people in Northern Ireland will be saddened that a representative from Northern Ireland should act in that way. Strong attacks are made in this House, but if you are not prepared to take the heat, you should get out of the kitchen. I have taken a lot of heat in the House, with almost every Member yelling at me and getting to their feet to shut me up, but I will continue to make my points. I regret that the hon. Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick) is not in the Chamber, as I would like to tell him that no parliamentary Chamber will make me sit down with the representatives of a movement founded on murder, bloodshed and the most criminal of acts. No Parliament has the right to tell a man he must sit in government with such a person. I have the right to say who I will sit in government with.
I do not run from the people—I go and fight every election. My record stands above that of any other politician, whether in the United Kingdom or in Northern Ireland. I have the best voting record, and have had the best support throughout Northern Ireland. I fight my corner and make my speeches, but if I am attacked, I listen and reply. I trust that I give as good as I get, but that is for the people to decide. The behaviour of the leader of the Ulster Unionist party in telling the House that he was sorry that he was not here a fortnight ago, then taking the opportunity to attack the integrity and trustworthiness of a colleague of mine in the House without giving way or providing any opportunity for interventions is to be condemned. The House would say exactly the same if any other Member of Parliament behaved like that.

111
I do not want to be distracted, but it has been said that the right hon. Gentleman has a good record. Consider that when he was reselected for the seat that he is to fight, he did not win the first vole—another Unionist did. He nearly lost his seat in the last Westminster election, and may do so at the next one. No one should be deceived by his pretence that he is in control of the situation. I noticed that he did not say in the House what mistakes we made in the general erection—our best yet, as we returned more Members than ever to the House. Happy mistakes! I hope that we will make a few more in the next election and achieve similar results. Those matters should therefore be laid to rest.
Mr. Peter Robinson: Before the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) scurried out of the Chamber, he made a prophecy that the Ulster Unionist party would sweep all before it in the election. He was not worried about it, and was content that the UUP would win. Does my hon. Friend recall that the right hon. Gentleman said before the Westminster election of 2001 that his party would increase the number of its members returned to the House? Ere predicted that there would be 10 of them sitting on this Bench. Would my hon. Friend care to count them?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) responds, let me say that it might be as well if we moved on to the contents of the Bill. I understand the hon. Gentleman's concerns, but it would be a good idea if we moved on to the Bill.
Rev. Ian Paisley: All I can say is that the people of Northern Ireland will give their verdict, if they get a chance. It is clear from the discussions tonight that Government Members well know that the Government have acted in order to save the scalp of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann. The ordinary people of Northern Ireland have a deep hatred of, and are not prepared to sit down with, murderers—those who murdered their own co-religionists—but the ordinary people will have their say, and loudly.
Mike Gapes rose—
Rev. Ian Paisley: I am not giving way, as it is five minutes to 9. I am the leader of the second largest Northern Ireland party in the House and I have been called almost at the end of the debate.
Mike Gapes rose—
Rev. Ian Paisley: I am sorry, but I am not giving way. The hon. Gentleman will have to contain himself for once.
Let me tell the House that this matter is not about postponing the election. I noticed that many speakers used the word that I used in the first part of the debate—cancelling. This is a cancellation. If it were a postponement, we could have autumn defined. I ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who comes from Wales, a beautiful Principality that I dearly love, when autumn starts and ends in Wales. Perhaps at the
112
end of the debate he will do so through the mouth of the Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office, who comes from Scotland. Then, I, an ignorant man from Ulster, will know when autumn starts and ends. The Secretary of State need not smile; he should tell us. The one thing that worries me is the idea that the position has to be clear. Clear to whom?
The IRA has carried on its ravaging without apology. I read a statement the other day made by its deputy leader, Mr. McGuinness, who said that the IRA had no apology to make for the stand that it had taken historically in Northern Ireland and throughout Ireland. There was no sorrow in the hearts of IRA members for their own co-religionists who had suffered seriously at their hands.
I think of the broken-hearted mother in the city of Londonderry who asked Mr. McGuinness whether her boy could come home. That was Mr. Hegarty, and Mr. McGuinness told the mother, "Bring him home. Let him call on me, and all will be well". Mr. Hegarty came home, called on the gentleman concerned—I am sorry to use that term to describe such a brutal man—and in a few days, Hegarty's body was found. The man who told his mother to bring him home had killed him. He came home to die.
The House asks me to sit down with that man in government. We will not sit down with him. Let me tell the hon. Member for Walsall, North that members of the Democratic Unionist party never sat down at any time in the Northern Ireland Executive. We did not attend it.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) is not present. He has gone. I am sorry that he made an appeal for me to change. He was the very man in the Assembly who worked to put the Democratic Unionist Members out of Government. He joined the right hon. Member for Upper Bann to call them rogues, who should be thrown out. There he stands tonight, his hair as silvery and his tongue as golden as ever, pleading with me to join them. We will not be going that way. The House should realise that if we are to have democratic government, the Government must be chosen by the people. People cannot be nominated to such a Government; the voice of the people must be heard.
When the election was postponed from 1 May to 29 May, the Minister of State, who is in charge of security in Northern Ireland, said that the Government were allowing a short delay to give the parties the opportunity to reflect. What happened? They then decided that a further delay was needed, but that delay was no longer a short delay. Today's delay will be until the autumn, and now we have to find out when the autumn starts and when it finishes. What we are debating tonight is a cancellation.
I smiled when the hon. Member for Walsall, North—I am glad he is back in the Chamber—said that he was a good democrat, and 1 do not doubt that. But when General Pinochet cancelled the elections in Chile in 1973, he was not a good democrat. When General Abacha of Nigeria suspended elections in June 1993, fearing that his opponents would win, he was not a good democrat. The President of Sri Lanka postponed elections in August 1998. Perhaps Northern Ireland is

113
best likened to the Ivory Coast, where the general stepped in to stop the election campaign in October 2000 and took control of the main vote counting centre. The Secretary of State has taken over the electoral offices and has told everyone: no elections.
Ulster people should be allowed to exercise their franchise. The SDLP—with which I have had many differences—believes that there should be voting. Even the IRA-Sinn Fein—I give them no credit whatever—say that they are for elections. The only person who has set himself against the elections is the person who fled from the House in confusion tonight. He does not want the elections. He does not want them because he does not like what will happen at those elections. Everyone knows it. The dogs in the street know what has happened. It is the fundamental right of the people to pass judgment. One cannot force people to pass judgment against their will. The people will vote. They will want to vote.
It is a sad reflection that Members should appeal to Unionists to go out and sell something that the Unionist population abominate. They abominate it because they did not vote for a referendum on the agreement. Many of the people who voted in that election never read the agreement. They voted because of graffiti written on the wall by the Prime Minister—promises that there would be no gunmen in Government. "Guns or Government" was the slogan that the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) used. We were promised that there would be no amnesties and that things would be different, and our people went out and voted. They voted because they believed in what the Prime Minister said. But they do not believe him today.
David Winnick: Is the hon. Gentleman in effect saying that there have been no gains whatever since the Good Friday agreement of four years ago; it is purely negative, is it, in his view?
Rev. Ian Paisley: Absolutely. The hon. Gentleman should read the report submitted by the Chief Constable, a copy of which I gave to the Prime Minister. That document, which is in the Library, sets out the present records of killings, murders, break-ins and the activity of the IRA. It shows that such violence has increased not by 5 or 10 per cent., but by more than 100 per cent. in some cases. Every day when I turn on my wireless at 7 o'clock in the morning, all I hear is a record of the butchering, rioting, bombing and attacks on old people in their houses all around the city. That is what is happening.
Mr. Gregory Campbell: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. Pages 46 and 47 of the House of Commons research paper show the increase in violence that has occurred. Any hon. Member is free to look at the document and see that 5,200 people were injured in the five years before the agreement in connection with civil disturbances, while 6,400 have been injured in the five years since. The number of casualties resulting from paramilitary attacks has increased from 1,092 to 1,335.
Rev. Ian Paisley: I recommend the Library research paper to the hon. Member for Walsall, North. I trust that he will read it. The Prime Minister and Secretary of State tell us that things are better, but they are not.
114
Certainly, there has never been such ill feeling in areas where we see the ravages of the IRA even on its own co-religionists. Where the IRA rules, no one is allowed to dissent in any way, no matter who they are. If they dissent from it, beatings will take place. We see hideous photographs of people who have been beaten at night and had their eyes pulled and almost gouged out. These things are happening all the time and we need to face up to that.
We need to have the election because the people have to express their will. I do not agree that terrorists would fill any vacuum because of an election. I believe that an election would be the best thing, as people would say, "I will register in the ballot, quietly and in secret, what I think of what is happening in Northern Ireland." Surely, this House should be prepared to listen to that voice. It should not suspend the election and take away the people's right to express their will.
Unionists will not be pushed over and this House needs to learn that. We are asking for nothing but what applies in any other part of this United Kingdom—the freedom to elect our own representatives in a democratic way. I resent our being told that Northern Ireland is entirely different. If that is so, why is not the same thing said about the Irish Republic? Some 10 per cent of its population were Protestants when the border was drawn in the 1920s. How many Protestants are in the south of Ireland today? More than 70 per cent. of the Protestants have been eliminated. Only 2.5 to 3 per cent. of the population are Protestants in the whole of the Irish Republic.
What is happening around the borders? We are told that the agreement is a great thing—
Mark Tami: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Rev. Ian Paisley: No. I gave way to the hon. Member for Walsall, North because I had attacked what he said about me and I felt that that was my business. He attacked me in a nice, polite way.
David Winnick: We will both survive.
Rev. Ian Paisley: That is right.
What about the agreement? The document should be called "British Ulster Hanged, Drawn and Quartered". All the facts that it contains about life on the border should be studied. The other day, I was on the border, and I saw the turrets that people are busy dismantling. When I said to the police, "If the Army is withdrawn from this area, can you do the policing?", they said, "Certainly not. We will be on little islands and there will be no way out for any of us. We cannot police this area without the help of the Army." People complain about the noise of helicopters, so there is even talk about not using them. Those helicopters carry the midden rubbish to the dumps because it cannot be carried along the roads in those parts of the border. The situation will be opened up without any support or protection for the people of those areas.
David Burnside: The joint declaration specifies that not only will the towers go, but there will be no

115
helicopter surveillance, which is the only form of aerial surveillance of areas where terrorist activity remains intact.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Helicopters will only be allowed to fly for training purposes. That is in the Government's own document, and that is what we are being asked to sign up to. There should be no dismantling of security; people should be protected until the IRA and all those who carry arms and destroy, maim and kill are dealt with by the law. When the law rules, when all men are equal under the law and when all men are equally subject to the law, then one can talk about normalisation. There cannot be normalisation while such things are happening every day of every month of every year. That is what this House needs to face up to.
I regret that tonight we are putting our hands to the basic principle of democracy—that is, that people have a right to state the Government they want and who they want to represent them. Hon. Members should remember that this is a democratic House and that they would want their people to have the same right to send representatives to it. I say this to the Government: the sooner we have this election, the better; you will not change the feelings of the people; and if the situation goes on and on as it is, instead of betterment, a worse situation will arise. I pray Almighty God that that will not happen in a country that has taken such a whipping from terrorism and the IRA down these long years of weary murders and awful war.
9.13 pm
Helen Jackson: I am happy to follow the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley). I disagree with a substantial amount of his speech, but not with the importance that he places on elections. We are indeed being asked to take a serious step, because elections and the establishment of the devolved Assembly in Northern Ireland lie at the heart of the Good Friday agreement, which was supported by the majority of people in Northern Ireland and in Ireland as a whole. As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, elections give legitimacy to the representatives who sit in this House or in the Assembly. The whole of the Good Friday agreement is nothing unless elections to the devolved Assembly can be made to work. It is also part of democracy, if we agree with those elections, that those elected should treat each other in a normal way in the belief that legitimacy applies to each and every person, assuming that they are elected honestly without any kind of fraud.
I believe that the Good Friday agreement was a special document. Last week, I visited an exhibition at the Beaconsfield art gallery, where a sculpture of the Good Friday agreement reached all around the wall. I thought that that made the agreement significant in the same way, one could say, as the Bayeux tapestry made 1066 an important date in our history—I am a mediaeval historian. Another example is the way in which the freedom charter was displayed on posters during the South African elections.
Hon. Members must not underestimate the need for normality in Northern Ireland. It is not like Sheffield; it does not currently have a norrnal society. Let us
116
consider the Stevens inquiry and the revelations in today's papers. There is no such focus in Sheffield, which I represent. However, such events do happen in Northern Ireland, which is part of the United Kingdom. In Sheffield, elected members of a council do not refuse to shake hands. When I served on a council, I could not stand the sight of many of my elected colleagues, but I did not deny their right to be there. I shook hands with them and talked to them properly. In Belfast, the walls in working-class areas glorify armed conflict. Guns are not painted all over walls in working-class areas in Sheffield. Northern Ireland badly needs to restore normality to its society.
David Burnside: Sheffield is a wonderful city. Which elected representatives of political parties there are connected with terrorist or criminal organisations?
Helen Jackson: None to my knowledge, but that is the difference. The Good Friday agreement speaks of bringing normality to an area of the United Kingdom that was dogged by violence and community antagonism, governed by guns and private armies. The negotiations and the vote in the referendum were about that. The vote led the way forward to elections and democracy. We are therefore considering a serious step today. Nobody can totally avoid the blame for the current position.
I want to focus on two matters on which progress must be made in the summer. I agree with colleagues of all parties who believe that we should not contemplate cancellation or indefinite postponement of elections. There is therefore much to do. Two main issues have led to a breakdown of trust to the extent that the Assembly and the Executive cannot be made to work.
It is inexcusable for a political party to refuse to agree to a civil police force for its communities. Paramilitary activity and the rough justice meted out by people who claim to be community leaders in charge of their communities continue. A decision must be made about that. My hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) and the SDLP made such a decision when they supported the new Police Service of Northern Ireland. Would it be accepted if Sinn Fein TDs in the Dail said that they would not accept the authority of the Gardai because they had their own ways of managing in their constituencies? It would not. There also has to be recognition by every party on the Unionist side that when a democratic Assembly is elected again, an established Government will be formed. People will work together, sit down together, vote together and form a Government together. But unless those things happen, the summer will have been wasted.
My hon. Friend the Minister needs to take it on board that, in the discussions that take place, the demoralisation needs to be acknowledged of many Assembly Members who have thrown their time, their careers and their lives into making the Assembly work. They need to have that demoralisation lifted, and I appreciate the measures in the Bill that will do that. Furthermore, discussions should also be held with the smaller parties that have perhaps been left out of the proper working of the Assembly by the two—well, four,

117
really—major parties, which have taken the lion's share of the ministerial appointments. Those smaller parties must be allowed to have their voices heard, because in many cases they represent the voice of communities that also feel demoralised that they and their political parties are unable to establish a Government in Northern Ireland that works.
I am very reluctant to agree to the deferral of the elections. I think that it represents a serious step backwards, but I will go along with the Government tonight. They have held discussions with the parties in favour of the agreement and with the Government of the Republic of Ireland to ensure that the steps that need to be taken in the summer will be worked on in such a way that democracy can be restored. I reaffirm my concern, however, that if people say, "Oh well, we will wait until the autumn" and do not face up to the real difficulties that affect the normal political and social life in Northern Ireland, we will be in a difficult position—or an even more difficult position—in the autumn. If the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) is correct in saying that levels of violence were lower before the agreement, should we go back to direct rule and get rid of the Assembly altogether? That is not what was voted for in the referendums on one of the most important agreements on Northern Ireland ever to be negotiated in this Parliament by any Government.
9.23 pm
Mr. Jeffrey M. Donaldson: Just over a week ago, I handed in my nomination papers to be a candidate in the Assembly elections, as did other right hon. and hon. Members on this side of the House. I am opposed to what the Government are doing tonight. I believe that the decision to postpone, delay or cancel—however we wish to describe it—the elections is a blow to the democratic process in Northern Ireland. There is no way of glossing over that; it is the reality.
Mr. Peter Robinson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a number of members of his party have been pleading with the Government to call off the election? The adviser to the leader of the Ulster Unionist party, Steven King, has publicly done so. The former Minister in charge of the economy in Northern Ireland, Sir Reg Empey, has pleaded with the Government to call off the election, as has Paul Bew, another adviser to the Ulster Unionist party. One of the supporters of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), Billy Armstrong, who is the Assembly Member for Mid Ulster, has also pleaded with the Government to do so.
Mr. Donaldson: I say to the hon. Gentleman that the Ulster Unionist party took no decision on postponing the elections, and those individuals speak as individuals. They do not speak for the Ulster Unionist party on that issue. Whatever the views of individual members, whether it be the leader of the party or otherwise, let me say that the party collectively took no such decision and that many of us who were seeking to stand were happy and wanted the elections to go forward, because we believe in democracy.
There is an important issue here, which I know many Members of the House will share. We are told that the election has been postponed because the IRA failed to make the commitments necessary to have the political
118
institutions reinstated and the suspension of the Assembly lifted. Let us think about that for a moment. The Assembly was suspended because of the activities of the IR—the break-in at Castlereagh police station; Colombia, where some of its members were engaged in international terrorism; and Stormont-gate, which involved the IRA targeting Unionist representatives such as me, the leader of my party, the leader of the Democratic Unionist party and others in the House.
All those things, as well as the gun running from Florida, led to a collapse in confidence and a breach in trust, and the Government suspended the Assembly because of IRA activity. Therefore, we—the people in Northern Ireland and their political representatives—were denied our local devolved Assembly because of the IRA. All the political parties were punished, and the Democratic Unionists, the Ulster Unionists and the SDLP were removed from office because one party was in default, but now the Government have taken it a step further. They have decided to postpone the elections because the IRA has failed to come up with a form of words that would satisfy the Prime Minister.
I ask the question, who governs Northern Ireland—the IRA army council or the Prime Minister? It seems that the IRA army council determines whether we have an Assembly and the IRA army council determines whether we have elections. For 30 years, the same IRA bombed, shot, murdered and maimed, but the elections went ahead and the democratic process was protected.
Those of us who represent the democratic parties show much courage. Tonight, people have called for courage in the House. It takes courage to be an elected representative in Northern Ireland. We kept the political process alive and we kept the process of elections going year after year after year, but now we are told that there has been so much progress in Northern Ireland that, for the first time in the history of this conflict, the Government have postponed the elections because of an illegal terrorist organisation. This is progress. Well, I not sure that it is, and the Government should reflect on that.
I join other Members tonight who are arguing that the date for the election should be set in the legislation. Otherwise, the Government will be saying to the IRA army council, "You will decide when we go to the country and when we have elections to the Assembly."
David Burnside: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is even worse than that? With the messages coming from the British Government and the Irish Government that many aspects of the joint declaration will be implemented irrespective of the election, Sinn Fein-IRA will once again get their wish list from the Governments.
Mr. Donaldson: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Indeed" the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) went further. He recommended, as a recipe for political stability in Northern Ireland, that the Government should set a deadline by which the IRA would make a statement, which, presumably, would be sufficient to allow the elections to proceed; but what does the hon. Gentleman suggest we do if the IRA does not deliver and does not bring peace and an end to its violence? Does he suggest that we reward it for its intransigence by fully implementing this declaration? If

119
he has read the document he will understand that it gives Sinn Fein-IRA many things that are supposedly dependent on their making the statement that he suggests may not be made, and then elections would not proceed.
Mr. Mallon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for again drawing attention to his party's position on the joint declaration. Now that he has the Floor, will he state emphatically whether he, as a member of the Ulster Unionist party, supports the joint declaration? If the IRA were to come up to the mark on paragraph 13, would he fight an election on the basis of the declaration? It is for the hon. Gentleman now to answer that question once and for all.
Mr. Donaldson: That is not the most difficult question that I have ever been asked. I have made my position on the joint declaration absolutely clear. I will be straight with the hon. Gentleman, and I hope that he would expect me to do nothing else. I believe that the joint declaration does not provide a basis for the way forward in Northern Ireland. I do not believe that a form of words from the IRA is sufficient. I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs) said earlier in the debate. Words from the IRA will never be enough.
I remind the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh that on 6 May 2000 the IRA made a statement, which said that
"the IRA leadership will initiate a process that will completely and verifiably put IRA arms beyond use. We will do it in such a way as to avoid risk to the public and misappropriation by others and ensure maximum public confidence."
Those were the words of the IRA in. 2000, but since then it has been gunrunning from Florida, engaging in international terrorism in Colombia, breaking into police stations at Castlereagh, spying on the Government and targeting Unionist politicians. The hon. Gentleman asks me to accept the word of the IRA as the bona fide of the republican movement. I am afraid that he needs to understand that Unionists will not just accept the word of the IRA. We need to see that that organisation has come to an end, has disbanded and disarmed. When the Irish Prime Minister was asked during the general election last year whether he would have Sinn Fein in a coalition Government, he said, "No, not until the IRA has disbanded."
Mr. Mallon: I am not asking the hon. Gentleman to believe anything that the IRA says. I am asking him to believe what his leader said on the Floor of the House and to support his party's official position on the document known as the joint declaration. Does he believe what his leader says, or does he not?
Mr. Donaldson: The hon. Gentleman will probably not need reminding that the position of the Ulster Unionist party on the joint declaration will not be made by any individual. It will be for the Ulster Unionist Council alone to determine this party's attitude to the joint declaration. Whatever the Secretary of State may think about those involved in negotiations at Hillsborough, it will be the Ulster Unionist Council that
120
will determine whether the Ulster Unionist party supports the joint declaration. For my part—I can only speak for myself until such time as the council makes that decision— I will not be supporting the joint declaration as a basis for going forward in Northern Ireland. I believe that, as ever, it is unbalanced and offers the republican movement things that go against the judicial process. The provisions for on-the-runs, although not part of the joint declaration, are part of the package. We are told that it is a package. I believe that the proposals for on-the-runs will enable some of the most notorious IRA terrorists to return to Northern Ireland without having to serve a single day in prison for the crimes that they have committed. That is a corruption of justice.
We hear people talk about peace with justice. I do not see peace with justice in this document. I see other things in this document that are premature as regards security. They are included not out of security considerations, but for political expediency, just as the two watchtowers were removed earlier this week for political expediency. I believe, too, that the proposals for sanctions in the agreement between the British and Irish Governments are woefully inadequate. Writing in the newsletter at the weekend, the Unionist columnist Alex Kane described them as a waste of time, and so they are.
The four-person monitoring body proposed by the Government raises further serious issues relating to the agreement. During negotiation of the agreement, it was made absolutely clear in strand 1 that the Irish Government should have no role in the internal workings of the Assembly. I well remember one of my colleagues, Sir Reg Impey—until recently Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Investment—saying that strand 1 must be hermetically sealed. If this proposal proceeds, however, the seal will be broken. A representative of the Irish Government will sit on the monitoring body—a body that will have significant influence over the workings of the Assembly, will be able to investigate the actions of any member or party in the Assembly, and will be able to consider a wide range of issues including whether a party is fundamentally in breach of the requirement in the declaration of support for the agreement. That covers virtually every aspect of the agreement.
For the first time the Irish Government, through their representative, will have a real say in the internal workings, functions and operation of the Northern Ireland Assembly. In my opinion that constitutes a breach of the agreement, and I do not believe that any Unionist should support the Irish Government's having such a say in the Assembly.
For those reasons alone, I do not believe that the joint declaration provides a basis for an advance in the political process, and I am confident that the Ulster Unionist Council will make that clear when it makes a decision.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Did not the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) tell a Unionist meeting recently that he had not seen all of the joint declaration? How, then, can the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) say "You should do this because your leader supports it"?
Mr. Donaldson: That is true. The right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) made it clear to his party

121
that he had not endorsed the declaration. I am not sure where the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) got that idea.
Mr. Mallon: Is the hon. Gentleman telling me that the leader of his party sat through seven months of negotiations that produced a document called the joint declaration which he did not see?
Mr. Donaldson: I can only report that that is what we were told.
David Burnside: The Government should be clear about this. The Ulster Unionist party leadership and corporate body do not move from one council resolution to the next. We are linked to the Ramada hotel Ulster Unionist Council meeting that took place before Christmas. Before the party and its leadership can do anything, the Ulster Unionist Council will have to be called and to endorse the new policy position.
Mr. Donaldson: That is true. The policy of the Ulster Unionist party remains that adopted unanimously at the meeting of the Ulster Unionist Council on 21 September 2002. It would therefore not be possible for the party to endorse the joint declaration in any sense, as aspects of it contradict the policy adopted then. It is why I reiterate that it will be for the Ulster Unionist Council to make that determination and that decision.
Mr. Mallon: When I spoke earlier, I asked a question. I asked the same question last week. If the IRA had said that it would stop all the activities specified in paragraph 13, would the Ulster Unionist party have gone ahead with the election on that basis? I still do not have an answer to that. Would the hon. Member like to give an answer on behalf of himself, or perhaps on behalf of his party, the ruling council of his party or whoever it may be in the Stalinist way that it does business?
Mr. Donaldson: The Ulster Unionist party is most certainly not Stalinist. It is the most democratic party when it comes to our decision-making processes. We are open. Everyone can see how we do our business and the decisions that are taken, but let me answer the hon. Member's question. The answer is very simple. I believe that the elections should have gone ahead in any event. I was not waiting for the IRA to come up with some form of words. I was not waiting for the IRA to cease doing anything. The elections should have gone ahead in any event. They should go ahead at the earliest opportunity, regardless of what the IRA says or does, because it is fundamentally my view that the IRA should not be given a veto over the democratic process in Northern Ireland, which is precisely what the Government have given it.
The Secretary of State tells us that he cannot give the date for the next election precisely for the reason that he does not know when the IRA will come up with a form of words that will satisfy the Government. In other words, the IRA army council has a veto over the election in Northern Ireland. I cannot believe that that represents progress. However, I suspect that the Secretary of State will have some time to wait. I am not sure how relevant the answer is to the question from the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley)
122
about when autumn begins. I think that we are in for a long autumn before we get the clarity from the IRA that the Secretary of State hopes for.
When I read the statement that was drafted by the IRA on 13 April, I do not see a reasonable prospect of the IRA coming up even with a form of words, if that were enough in itself, to satisfy Ulster Unionists that it is committed to exclusively peaceful means. The IRA statement is couched in hypothetical terms. It talks about a situation that may evolve in the future, that sets a context for a decision by an organisation known as its general army convention, and that is contingent upon many things happening. Therefore, the Secretary of State should review the Government's position. He should consider the amendments that have been tabled to set a date for the election.
We probably cannot now proceed with the election on 29 May, because of the interruption in the electoral process. I regret that but I think that the Government should proceed, even at the earliest opportunity; 26 June has been one of the dates suggested. That would send a clear signal to the IRA that it is not going to impede political progress in Northern Ireland.
Some people say, "An election to what?" We had elections in 1998 10 a shadow Assembly. We had elections in 1996 to a forum. Nothing in the rulebook says that elections can take place only if they are to the kind of Assembly that operated post-devolution in Northern Ireland.
A review of the agreement is due. I would like it to go way beyond a review because I believe, as I did in 1998 when I voted against the agreement, that it is fundamentally flawed. Until those flaws are addressed, we will not see the kind of political progress, political stability and real and lasting peace in Northern Ireland that we all want to see.
Sometimes, those of us on this side of the House are accused by other hon. Members of not wanting to see political progress, of wanting to wreck everything, of not believing in peace. That could not be further from the truth. I have two young children and I grew up in what was known as the "troubles". My family were very much involved with the security forces and I have seen personally and in my community the grief that violence brings. Other right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House have seen that. I do not want my children to grow up in such a society. I want them to enjoy life just like children throughout the rest of the United Kingdom. I want the people whom I represent in the constituency of Lagan Valley to have the same future in the same kind of society and community as those in the constituency of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson).
To achieve that, we have to make the progress that we are not seeing at the moment. I do not believe that the Government's tactics and approach will bring that about. Unfortunately, the IRA responds to pressure; it does not respond to concessions in terms of bringing about the real changes that we want in Northern Ireland. We have had the concessions process and it has not worked. The Secretary of State needs to send out the clearest message that we will move on.
The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh failed to respond to the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim (David Burnside), and it is a

123
question to which Unionists want to know the answer. If Sinn Fein-IRA does not deliver on the actions and the words that will see a real end to violence in Northern Ireland, is his party saying that Northern Ireland will for ever be consigned to a process of direct rule and that there are no circumstances in which there can be a devolved Administration? His party needs to think about that, because I am not convinced that the IRA will deliver the progress that will see the reinstatement of the political institutions in the form that the Government expect.
Mr. Mallon: The position that the hon. Gentleman has presented to the House on behalf of himself and some of his party will not demand of the IRA that it meet the requirements of paragraph 13 of the joint declaration. In effect, he is saying that, even if those requirements are met, he and many of his colleagues will still oppose the agreement and its inclusive nature. Surely that will strangle the approach that he is talking about and do so in a way that is detrimental to the political process for everybody.
Mr. Donaldson: Let me make it absolutely clear to the hon. Gentleman that I am not against the principle of inclusivity. However, inclusivity must be based on something. When his party, my party and the Democratic Unionist party were involved in political negotiations, we signed up to the principles of democracy and non-violence. That was to be the basis for inclusivity. The republican party—Sinn Fein-IRA—has not lived up to those principles, and the hon. Gentleman accepts that. If it fails to live up to those principles, inclusivity and the involvement of Sinn Fein-IRA is not possible.
That then gives rise to the question that I posed earlier and to which the hon. Gentleman, once again, failed to respond. Is his party prepared to consider circumstances in which it will sit in government with Unionists and democratic parties and exclude those who have failed to make the commitment until such time as they do? Otherwise we simply suspend the democratic process in Northern Ireland, cancel the elections and we will not have an Assembly. We will then have what the hon. Gentleman mentioned earlier—an apolitical vacuum. My suggestion is not a recipe for a vacuum, but his way forward is. If he believes that imposing the joint declaration is the way towards political stability, he is sadly mistaken. In the same way that the imposition of the Anglo-Irish agreement did not achieve political stability in Northern Ireland, nor will the imposition of the joint declaration.
Mr. Mallon: The hon. Gentleman asks whether my party would effectively tear up the Good Friday agreement in certain circumstances. I suggest to him that the part of his party to which he belongs at any given moment in time should put it to the IRA in such a way that if there were an election somewhere down the line, the electorate could see clearly who reneged and who did not. That is why his position effectively lets the IRA off the hook in many ways.
Mr. Donaldson: The hon. Gentleman makes a point that he has made many times in the Chamber, and he has been wrong many times.
124
The Belfast agreement provides for exclusion. I do not ask the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh to tear up the agreement by asking him to accept the principle of exclusion because he signed up to that when he supported the agreement. There is a provision for exclusion in the Northern Ireland Act 1998. Indeed, I remember that he once made a promise that if the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) would go into government with Sinn Fein, he would personally guarantee that if the IRA had not decommissioned within a defined time, the Social Democratic and Labour party would vote to exclude it from government.
Exclusion is already provided for, but Unionist Members need to know whether the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh and his party will support that if the IRA fails to come up to the mark. We have not heard the answer to that question and I suspect that we will not receive it this evening.
Mr. Quentin Davies: The hon. Gentleman has alighted on an important issue but, as so often happens in Northern Ireland debates, his pertinent question will be responded to by another question. Does he agree that it is one thing to expect the SDLP to take explicit responsibility for excluding Sinn Fein or any other recalcitrant party from an Executive, but another thing altogether for the SDLP and other parties to accept that the Government should have the right to exclude such a recalcitrant party? That is the power that I have urged the Government to take and I offered our support for it last July. If we had that power and if the Government had used it, we would have been able to avoid the present crisis.
Mr. Donaldson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. He might be aware that the Government already have the power to refer any party to the Assembly that they believe to be in breach of its obligations. The Government have not used that power in Northern Ireland during the past five years. Despite all the activities, including IRA cease-fire breaches and even espionage against the Northern Ireland Office, the Government failed to make a move or to table an exclusion motion. What confidence can we have that even if the Government had the power that the hon. Gentleman proposes, they would ever utilise it? I would support them if they took that power, but I have little confidence that they would use it. In the end, the decision will come down to the parties in the Assembly and to whether the SDLP is prepared to work with Unionists in such a situation.
These are serious issues. I regret that the House does not have more time to consider the Bill in detail—we should have that time. We are being denied elections and the right to scrutinise the Bill much more effectively. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State is unhappy with the length of time for which I have spoken but I remind him that he spoke for an hour and that the Government have curtailed the debate. They set the guillotine and created the timetable, and they have denied elected representatives the proper opportunity to scrutinise the Bill, which is highly regrettable.
9.54 pm
Mr. John Taylor: Time is limited, and I shall not trespass too much on what is left of it.
I listened intently to the contributions, not least to the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson). Rather gloomily, I agree with him about a long autumn and direct rule. I am far from enthusiastic about continuing government by Order in Council. My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) rightly said that the logical conclusion of the Conservative party voting against Second Reading would be to wish an Assembly election on 29 May. That would be a recipe for chaos and incoherence.
Tonight's proceedings are a monumental indictment of the Government's attitude to the House of Commons. The absence of a Committee stage is a disgrace. It has been a bad day for the Government—a bad 10 days, in fact. In the interests of the people of Northern Ireland, we hope for better things, but it is not with overwhelming optimism.
9.55 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Desmond Browne): Like the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor), I, too, listened with care to the debate. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that he would reflect on the contributions, which we will, of course, do. I will include in that reflection the comments by the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), who described me as the wee Scottish man.
I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Walsall, North (David Winnick) and for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson) for their support. They are ever present in debates on Northern Ireland and speak with some knowledge and understanding of the situation there. I understand their reluctance, and the reluctance of other hon. Members, to support the Bill because of the difficulty that all democrats have with postponing elections. To the extent that my hon. Friends supported the Government, I thank them for that.
I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) on his analysis of what is needed to restore trust and confidence in the peace and political processes in Northern Ireland. I will read with care his comments in the Official Report tomorrow, but I clearly understood him to go well beyond a form of words in what he said at the beginning of his speech. To that extent, he hit the nail on the head.
I thank the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay) for his understanding and support of the strategy adopted by my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister. I also thank him for his pledge of support for the Government in the Lobby if it comes to that. To paraphrase him, he said that many of his Conservative colleagues support the view that my right hon. Friends have made the right decision. I know from my conversations that he is right about that, too.
I was disappointed by the contribution of the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies). Before the debate, I reminded myself of his contribution to the debate on 17 March, when I suggested in an intervention that his contribution was understated. That reminded me that he does not do irony. What he
126
does do, however, and he does it with aplomb, is pomposity. He is fond of suggesting to the Government that if only they had listened to him, things would have been significantly different and better in Northern Ireland. He is also fond of adopting everything that he thinks the Government have done right as being in response to his urgings. Those of us who have listened to him for some time on the issues and have seen his position change significantly on occasions will make our own minds up about that.
The hon. Gentleman was so caught up in his flawed analysis of the Government's strategy that he did not once mention the effect of continuing paramilitary activity on trust arid confidence in Northern Ireland. That was my most significant disappointment with his contribution. I was also slightly disappointed that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) did not mention it, although he was right to remind me of my contribution to the debate on 17 March.
I do not have time to do justice to the contributions, but I want to put it on the record for those who read the debate in future that life is better in Northern Ireland for the people of Northern Ireland because of the Belfast agreement. To take statistics of violence—
It being Ten o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Order [this day], put forthwith the Question, That the Bill be read a Second time:—
The House divided: Ayes 290, Noes 22.

Division No. 183]

[10:00 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Ainger, Nick

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

Caplin, Ivor

Alexander, Douglas

Casale, Roger

Allen, Graham

Caton, Martin

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

Challen, Colin

Clapham, Michael

Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

Atkins, Charlotte

Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

Austin, John

Bailey, Adrian

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Baird, Vera

Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

Banks, Tony

Barnes, Harry

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Barron, rh Kevin

Clelland, David

Battle, John

Coaker, Vernon

Bayley, Hugh

Coffey, Ms Ann

Beard, Nigel

Cohen, Harry

Benn, Hilary

Coleman, lain

Benton, Joe (Bootle)

Colman, Tony

Berry, Roger

Connarty, Michael

Blackman, Liz

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Blears, Ms Hazel

Corston, Jean

Blizzard, Bob

Cousins, Jim

Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

Crausby, David

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Cruddas, Jon

Bradshaw, Ben

Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

Brennan, Kevin

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

Brown, Russell(Dumfries)

Dalyell, Tam

Browne, Desmond

Darling, rh Alistair

Bryant, Chris

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Burden, Richard

David, Wayne

Burnham, Andy

Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

Cairns, David

Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

127

Dawson, Hilton

Kilfoyle, Peter

Dean, Mrs Janet

King, Andy (Rugby)

Denham, rh John

King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

Dhanda, Parmjit

Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Dobson, rh Frank

Kumar, Dr. Ashok

Donohoe, Brian H.

Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

Doran, Frank

Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

Lazarowicz, Mark

Drew, David (Stroud)

Lepper, David

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Leslie, Christopher

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

Edwards, Huw

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Efford, Clive

Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

Linton, Martin

Farrelly, Paul

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Fisher, Mark

Love, Andrew

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

Foster, rh Derek

Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

Foster, Michael (Worcester)

McAvoy, Thomas

Foulkes, rh George

McCabe, Stephen

Francis, Dr. Hywel

McDonagh, Siobhain

Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

MacDonald, Calum

Gardiner, Barry

MacDougall, John

George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Gerrard, Neil

Mclsaac, Shona

Gibson, Dr. Ian

Mackay, rh Andrew

Gilroy, Linda

McKechin, Ann

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

McKenna, Rosemary

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Mackinlay, Andrew

Grogan, John

McNulty, Tony

Hain, rh Peter

Mactaggart, Fiona

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

McWalter, Tony

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

McWilliam, John

Hanson, David

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

Mallaber, Judy

Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

Mandelson, rh Peter

Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

Healey, John

Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Marshall-Andrews, Robert

Hendrick, Mark

Martlew, Eric

Hepburn, Stephen

Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

Heppell, John

Merron, Gillian

Heyes, David

Miliband, David

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

Hinchliffe, David

Moffatt, Laura

Hope, Phil (Corby)

Moonie, Dr. Lewis

Hopkins, Kelvin

Morley, Elliot

Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

Mountford, Kali

Mudie, George

Howells, Dr. Kim

Mullin, Chris

Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

Munn, Ms Meg

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

Hutton, rh John

Naysmith, Dr. Doug

Iddon, Dr. Brian

Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

Illsley, Eric

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

Irranca-Davies, Huw

Olner, Bill

Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

O'Neill, Martin

Organ, Diana

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Owen, Albert

Jamieson, David

Palmer, Dr. Nick

Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

Perham, Linda

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Picking, Anne

Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

Pickthall, Colin

Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

Pike, Peter (Burnley)

Jowell, rh Tessa

Plaskitt, James

Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

Pollard, Kerry

Kaufman, rh Gerald

Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

Keen, Alan (Feltham)

Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

Keen, Ann (Brentford)

Pound, Stephen

Khabra, Piara S.

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Kidney, David

128

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Tami, Mark (Alyn)

Prescott, rh John

Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

Prosser, Gwyn

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Purchase, Ken

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

Purnell, James

Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

Quinn, Lawrie

Tipping, Paddy

Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

Raynsford, rh Nick

Trickett, Jon

Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

Truswell, Paul

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

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

Rooney, Terry

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Ruane, Chris

TVnan' Bill (Hamilton S)

Ruddock, Joan

Walley Ms Joan

Salter, Martin

Ward, claire

Savidge, Malcolm

Wareing, Robert N.

Shaw, Jonathan

Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

Sheerman, Barry

Watts, David

Sheridan, Jim

White, Brian

Shipley, Ms Debra

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

Singh, Marsha

Williams, Betty (Conwy)

Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

Wills, Michael

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

Winnick David

Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Smith, Geraldme (Morecambe & Lunesdale

Wood, Mike (Batley)

Woodward, Shaun

Woolas phil

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

Worthington, Tony

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Wray, James (Glasgow Baillieston)

Soley, Clive

Southworth, Helen

Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth

Spellar, rh John

Squire, Rachel

Wright, David (Telford)

Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

Wright, Tony (Cannock)

Steinberg, Gerry

Wyatt, Derek

Stevenson, George

Stoate, Dr. Howard

Tellers for the Ayes:

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Joan Ryan and

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Mr. Fraser Kemp

NOES

Burnside, David

Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

Corbyn, Jeremy

Rosindell, Andrew

Dodds, Nigel

Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

Hunter, Andrew

Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

Llwyd, Elfyn

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

McGrady, Eddie

Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

McNamara, Kevin

Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

Mallon, Seamus

Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

Mercer, Patrick

Paisley, Rev. Ian

Wishart, Pete

Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

Tellers for the Noes:

Robertson, Angus (Moray)

Mr. Gregory Campbell and

Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

Mr. Jeffrey M. Donaldson

Question accordingly agreed to.
Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Committee of the whole House, pursuant to Order [this day].

NORTHERN IRELAND ASSEMBLY (ELECTIONS AND PERIODS OF SUSPENSION) BILL [MONEY]
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)(Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with Bills),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Northern Ireland Assembly (Elections and Periods of Suspension) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—
(a) any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State under the Act,
(b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other enactment.—[Mr. Caplin.]
Question agreed to.
Bill immediately considered in Committee, pursuant to Order [this day].
[SIR ALAN HASLEHURST in the Chair]

Clause 1

  ELECTION OF NEXT ASSEMBLY
  Motion made, and Question put, That the clause stand net part of the Bill.
  The Committee divided: Ayes 289, Noes 21.

  Division No. 184]

  [10:13 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Coaker, Vernon

  Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Ainger, Nick

  Cohen, Harry

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Coleman, Iain

  Alexander, Douglas

  Colman, Tony

  Allen, Graham

  Connarty, Michael

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Corston, Jean

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Cousins, Jim

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Crausby, David

  Austin, John

  Cruddas, Jon

  Bailey, Adrian

  Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

  Baird, Vera

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Banks, Tony

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Barnes, Harry

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Barron, rh Kevin

  Dalyell, Tam

  Battle, John

  Darling, rh Alistair

  Bayley, Hugh

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Beard, Nigel

  David, Wayne

  Benn, Hilary

  Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Berry, Roger

  Dawson, Hilton

  Blackman, Liz

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Denham, rh John

  Blizzard, Bob

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Brennan, Kevin

  Doran, Frank

  Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Drew, David (Stroud)

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Browne, Desmond

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Bryant, Chris

  Edwards, Huw

  Burden, Richard

  Efford, Clive

  Burnham, Andy

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Cairns, David

  Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Farrelly, Paul

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Foster, rh Derek

  Caplin, Ivor

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Casale, Roger

  Foulkes, rh George

  Caton, Martin

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  Challen, Colin

  Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

  Chaytor, David

  Gardiner, Barry

  Clapham, Michael

  George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  Gilroy, Linda

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Grogan, John

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Hain, rh Peter

  Clelland, David

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  130

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Hanson, David

  Mallaber, Judy

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Mandelson, rh Peter

  Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Healey, John

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Martlew, Eric

  Hendrick, Mark

  Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Merron, Gillian

  Heppell, John

  Miliband, David

  Heyes, David

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hinchliffe, David

  Moonie, Dr. Lewis

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  Morley, Elliot

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Mountford, Kali

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

  Mudie, George

  Mullin, Chris

  Howells, Dr. Kim

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

  Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  Hutton, rh John

  Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Illsley, Eric

  Olner, Bill

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  O'Neill, Martin

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

  Organ, Diana

  Owen, Albert

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Jamieson, David

  Perham, Linda

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

  Picking, Anne

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Plaskitt, James

  Jowell, rh Tessa

  Pollard, Kerry

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

  Kaufman, rh Gerald

  Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  Pound, Stephen

  Keen, Ann (Brentford)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Kidney, David

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Prescott, rh John

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

  Purchase, Ken

  Purnell, James

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Raynsford, rh Nick

  Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Lazarowicz, Mark

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

  Lepper, David

  Leslie, Christopher

  Rooney, Terry

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Ruane, Chris

  Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

  Ruddock, Joan

  Linton, Martin

  Salter, Martin

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Love, Andrew

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

  Sheridan, Jim

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  McCabe, Stephen

  Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Singh, Marsha

  MacDonald, Calum

  Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

  MacDougall, John

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Mackay, rh Andrew

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  McKechin, Ann

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  McNulty, Tony

  Soley, Clive

  McWalter, Tony

  Southworth, Helen

  McWilliam, John

  Spellar, rh John

  131

  Squire, Rachel

  Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  Watts, David

  Steinberg, Gerry

  White, Brian

  Stevenson, George

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Williams, Betty (Conwy)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Wills, Michael

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  Winnick, David

  Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Wood, Mike (Batley)

  Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

  Woodward, Shaun

  Tipping, Paddy

  Woolas, Phil

  Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

  Worthington, Tony

  Trickett, Jon

  Wray, James (Glasgow Baillieston)

  Truswell, Paul

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Ward, Claire

  Joan Ryan and

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Mr. Fraser Kemp

  NOES

  Burnside, David

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

  Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

  Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

  spink, Bob (Castle Point)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

  Llwyd Elfyn

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  McGrady,Eddie

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Mallon, Seamus

  Williams, Hywel(Caernarfon)

  Mallon, Seamus

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Mercer, Patrick

  (Macclesfield)

  Paisley, Rev. Ian

  Wishart, Pete

  Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  Mr. Nigel Dodds and

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Mrs. Iris Robinson

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill
  Clauses 2 and 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4

  REMUNERATION OF MEMBERS OF THE ASSEMBLY
  Motion made, and Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 291, Noes 13.

  Division No. 185]

  [10:26pm

  AYES

  Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

  Beard, Nigel

  Ainger, Nick

  Benn, Hilary

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Alexander, Douglas

  Berry, Roger

  Allen, Graham

  Blackman, Liz

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Blizzard, Bob

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Austin, John

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Bailey, Adrian

  Brennan, Kevin

  Baird, Vera

  Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

  Barnes, Harry

  Barren, rh Kevin

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Battle, John

  Browne, Desmond

  Bayley, Hugh

  Bryant, Chris

  132

  Burden, Richard

  Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

  Burnham, Andy

  Cairns, David

  Healey, John

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Hendrick, Mark

  Caplin, Ivor

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Casale, Roger

  Heppell, John

  Caton, Martin

  Heyes, David

  Challen, Colin

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Clapham, Michael

  Hinchliffe, David

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

  Howells, Dr. Kim

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Clelland, David

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hutton, rh John

  Cohen, Harry

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Coleman, lain

  Illsley, Eric

  Colman, Tony

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Connarty, Michael

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Corston, Jean

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Cousins, Jim

  Jamieson, David

  Crausby, David

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

  Cruddas, Jon

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Jowell, rh Tessa

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Kaufman, rh Gerald

  Darling, rh Alistair

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Keen, Ann (Brentford)

  David, Wayne

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

  Kidney, David

  Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Dawson, Hilton

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Denham, rh John

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Doran, Frank

  Lepper, David

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Drew, David (Stroud)

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Edwards, Huw

  Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

  Efford, Clive

  Linton, Martin

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Farrelly, Paul

  Love, Andrew

  Fishier, Mark

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Luke, lain (Dundee E)

  Foster, rh Derek

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  McCabe, Stephen

  Foulkes, rh George

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  MacDonald, Calum

  Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

  MacDougall, John

  Gardiner, Barry

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Gerrard, Neil

  Mackay, rh Andrew

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  McKechin, Ann

  Gilroy, Linda

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  McNulty, Tony

  Grogan, John

  McWalter, Tony

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  McWilliam, John

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Hanson, David

  Mallaber, Judy

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Mandelson, rh Peter

  133

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Singh, Marsha

  Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

  Martlew, Eric

  Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Merron, Gillian

  Lunesdale)

  Miliband, David

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Soley, Clive

  Moonie, Dr. Lewis

  Southworth, Helen

  Morley, Elliot

  Spellar, rh John

  Mountford, Kali

  Squire, Rachel

  Mudie, George

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  Mullin, Chris

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Stevenson, George

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

  Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Olner, Bill

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

  Organ, Diana

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Owen, Albert

  Tipping, Paddy

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

  Perham, Linda

  Trickett, Jon

  Picking, Anne

  Truswell, Paul

  Pickthall, Colin

  Turner, Dennls (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

  Plaskitt, James

  Pollard, Kerry

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

  Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

  Pound, Stephen

  Ward, Claire

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Watts, David

  Prescott, rh John

  White Brian

  Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

  whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

  Purchase, Ken

  Williams, Betty (Conwy)

  Purchase, Ken

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Purnell, James

  Wills, Michael

  Quinn, Lawne

  Winnick, David

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Raynsford, rh Nick

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Wishart, Pete

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

  Wood, Mike (Batley)

  Woodward, Shaun

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  Woolas, Phil

  Rooney, Terry

  Worthington, Tony

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Wray, James (Glasgow Baillieston)

  Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

  Ruane, Chris

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Salter, Martin

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Wyatt, Derek

  Sheerman, Barry

  Sheridan, Jim

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Joan Ryan and

  Simo, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

  Mr. Fraser Kemp

  NOES

  Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

  Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

  Dodds, Nigel

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

  Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

  Paisley, Rev. Ian

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

  David Burnside and

  Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

  Mr. Andrew Hunter

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6

  MODIFICATION OF ENACTMENTS
  Motion made, and Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 285, Noes 12.

  Division No. 186]

  [10:37 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

  Cousins, Jim

  Ainger, Nick

  Crausby, David

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Cruddas, Jon

  Alexander, Douglas

  Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

  Allen, Graham

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Dalyell, Tarn

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Austin, John

  David, Wayne

  Bailey, Adrian

  Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

  Baird, Vera

  Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Banks, Tony

  Dawson, Hilton

  Barnes, Harry

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Barren, rh Kevin

  Denham, rh John

  Battle, John

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Bayley, Hugh

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Beard, Nigel

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Benn, Hilary

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Doran, Frank

  Berry, Roger

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Blackman, Liz

  Drew, David (Stroud)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

  Edwards, Huw

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Efford, Clive

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Brennan, Kevin

  Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

  Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

  Farrelly, Paul

  Fisher, Mark

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Browne, Desmond

  Foster, rh Derek

  Bryant, Chris

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Burden, Richard

  Foulkes, rh George

  Burnham, Andy

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  Cairns, David

  Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Gardiner, Barry

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Caplin, Ivor

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  Casale, Roger

  Gilroy, Linda

  Caton, Martin

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Challen, Colin

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Chaytor, David

  Grogan, John

  Clapham, Michael

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Hanson, David

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

  Healey, John

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Clelland, David

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hendrick, Mark

  Cohen, Harry

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Colman, Tony

  Heppell, John

  Connarty, Michael

  Heyes, David

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Corston, Jean

  Hinchliffe, David

  135

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  Mudie, George

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Mullin, Chris

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Howells, Dr. Kim

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

  Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

  Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Olner, Bill

  Illsley, Eric

  O'Neill, Martin

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Organ, Diana

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

  Owen, Albert

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Jackson, Helen (Hilesborough)

  Perham, Linda

  Jamieson, David

  Picking, Anne

  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

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

  Kaufman, rh Gerald

  Pope, Greg (Hyndbum)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  Pound, Stephen

  Keen, Ann (Brentford)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Kidney, David

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Prescott, rh John

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

  Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Purchase, Ken

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Purnell, James

  Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Lepper, David

  Raynsford, rh Nick

  Leslie, Christopher

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

  Linton, Martin

  Ruane, Chris

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Love, Andrew

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Luke, lain (Dundee E)

  Sheridan, Jim

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  McCabe, Stephen

  Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Singh, Marsha

  MacDonald, Calum

  Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

  MacDougall, John

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  McGrady, Eddie

  Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  McIsaac, Shona

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Mackay, rh Andrew

  McKechin, Ann

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  McNulty, Tony

  Soley, Clive

  McWalter, Tony

  Southworth, Helen

  McWilliam, John

  Spellar, rh John

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Squire, Rachel

  Mallaber, Judy

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  Mallon, Seamus

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Mandelson, rh Peter

  Stevenson, George

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  Martlew, Eric

  Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

  Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Merron, Gillian

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Miliband, David

  Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Tipping, Paddy

  Moonie, Dr. Lewis

  Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

  Morley, Elliot

  Trickett, Jon

  Mountford, Kali

  Truswell, Paul

  136

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

  Wishart, Pete

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Wood, Mike (Batley)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Woodward, Shaun

  Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

  Woolas, Phil

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Worthington, Tony

  Ward, Claire

  Wray, James (Glasgow Baillieston)

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

  Watts, David

  White, Brian

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Williams, Betty (Conwy)

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Wills, Michael

  Mr. Fraser Kemp and

  Winnick, David

  Joan Ryan

  NOES

  Burnside, David

  Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

  Dodds, Nigel

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

  Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Paisley, Rev. Ian

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Mr. Gregory Campbell and

  Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

  Mrs. Iris Robinson

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Bill reported, without amendment.
  Order for Third Reading read, pursuant to Order [this day].
  Motion made, and Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. Caplin.]
  The House divided: Ayes 256, Noes 17.

  Division No. 187]

  [10:47 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

  Cairns, David

  Ainger, Nick

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Alexander, Douglas

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Allen, Graham

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Casale, Roger

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Caton, Martin

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Challen, Colin

  Austin, John

  Chaytor, David

  Bailey Adrian

  Clapham, Michael

  Baird, Vera

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Banks, Tony

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Barnes, Harry

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

  Barron, rh Kevin

  Battle, John

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Clelland, David

  Beard, Nigel

  Coaker, Vernon

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Cohen, Harry

  Berry, Roger

  Coleman, lain

  Blackman, Liz

  Colman, Tony

  Blizzard, Bob

  Connarty, Michael

  Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Corston, Jean

  Brennan, Kevin

  Cousins, Jim

  Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

  Crausby, David

  Wallsend)

  Cruddas, Jon

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

  Browne, Desmond

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Bryant, Chris

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Burden, Richard

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Burnham, Andy

  Dalyell, Tam

  137

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

  David, Wayne

  Davidson, Ian

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Dawson, Hilton

  Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Denham, rh John

  Lepper, David

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Leslie, Christopher

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Doran, Frank

  Linton, Martin

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Drew, David (Stroud)

  Love, Andrew

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Luke, lain (Dundee E)

  Efford, Clive

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  McCabe, Stephen

  Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

  MacDougall, John

  Farrelly, Paul

  McIsaac, Shona

  Fisher, Mark

  Mackay, rh Andrew

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  McKechin, Ann

  Foster, rh Derek

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Foulkes, rh George

  McNulty, Tony

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  McWalter, Tony

  Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

  McWilliam, John

  Gardiner, Barry

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Gerrard, Neil

  Mandelson, rh Peter

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Gilroy, Linda

  Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Grogan, John

  Martlew, Eric

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Merron, Gillian

  Hanson, David

  Moonie, Dr. Lewis

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Morley, Elliot

  Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

  Mountford, Kali

  Mullin, Chris

  Healey, John

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

  Hendrick, Mark

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

  Heppell, John

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Heyes, David

  Olner, Bill

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Hinchliffe, David

  Organ, Diana

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  Owen, Albert

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

  Perham, Linda

  Picking, Anne

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Plaskitt, James

  Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

  Illsley, Eric

  Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Pound, Stephen

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Jamieson, David

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Purchase, Ken

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Purnell, James

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Kaufman, rh Gerald

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Keen, Ann (Brentford)

  Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Ruane, Chris

  Kidney, David

  Ruddock, Joan

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Savidge, Malcolm

  138

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

  Sheridan, Jim

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Simon, Siôn(B'ham Erdington)

  Twigg, Derek (Hailton)

  Singh, Marsha

  Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

  Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Ward, Claire

  Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Watts, David

  White, Brian

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Soley, Clive

  Williams, Betty (Conwy)

  Southworth, Helen

  Winnick, David

  Squire, Rachel

  Wood, Mike (Batley)

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  Woodward, Shaun

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Woolas, Phil

  Stevenson, George

  Worthington, Tony

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  Wray, James (Glasgow Baillieston)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Trickett, Jon

  Mr. Fraser Kemp and

  Truswell, Paul

  Joan Ryan

  NOES

  Burnside, David

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

  Paisley, Rev. Ian

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

  Wishart, Pete

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

  Mr. Nigel Dodds and

  Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

  Mr. Jeffrey M. Donaldson

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

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
  VALUE ADDED TAX
  That the Value Added Tax (Supply of Services)(Amendment) Order 2003 (S.I., 2003, No. 1055), dated 9th April 2003, a copy of which was laid before this House on 9th April, be approved.
  GOVERNMENT RESOURCES AND ACCOUNTS
  That the draft Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000 (Audit of Public Bodies) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 3rd April, be approved.
  GOVERNMENT RESOURCES AND ACCOUNTS
  That the draft Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000 (Rights of Access of Comptroller and Auditor General) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 3rd April, be approved.
  GOVERNMENT RESOURCES AND ACCOUNTS
  That the draft Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000 (Audit of Health Service Bodies) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 2nd April, be approved.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE
  That the Local Government Finance (England) Special Grant Report (No. 120) (HC 578) on Grants for local authorities classed as 'excellent' under the comprehensive performance assessment framework, a copy of which was laid before this House on 3rd April, be approved.—[Mr. Caplin.]
  Question agreed to.

  MINUTES OF EVIDENCE OF SELECT COMMITTEES
  Ordered,
  That Standing Order No. 131 (Entry of questions asked) be amended by leaving out the words ", and at the beginning of each page of the minutes of evidence,".—[Mr. Caplin.]

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That, at the sitting on Thursday 15th May, notwithstanding paragraph (2)(c)(i) of Standing Order No. 14 (Arrangement of public business), the Motion in the name of the Leader of the Opposition may be proceeded with, though opposed, until Four o'clock or for three hours, whichever is the longer period, and shall then lapse if not previously disposed of and the Orders of the House of 28th June 2001 and 29th October 2002 relating to deferred Divisions shall not apply.—[Mr. Caplin.]

Thelwall Viaduct (M6)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Caplin]
10.58 pm
Helen Southworth: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise a serious problem that faces my constituents.
Many Members, and indeed millions of people across the country, will have heard of the Thelwall viaduct on the M6. In fact it is becoming almost as famous as the M25 in the traffic reports—although I must say that it is in a far more attractive part of the country, in my Cheshire constituency.
Normally, the M6 is a tremendous local asset for Warrington. It connects us directly with the national transport infrastructure and brings a lot of business and jobs. Unfortunately, however, it is currently rather a neighbourhood nuisance as well, directing much unnecessary additional traffic on to our roads.
Warrington is a prosperous town surrounded by villages. It has always been a business town. It was established by the Romans at the first crossing point on the Mersey. The Thelwall viaduct provides passage for the M6 motorway over the River Mersey and the Manchester ship canal, once two strategic arteries in their own right. Warrington is still at the centre of the north-west traffic network, with the M62 crossing to the north and the M56 to the south. The west coast main line goes through the town and there are two international airports.
The Thelwall viaduct was constructed in 1963. I understand that the Minister was very familiar with the traffic routes at that point in his youth. Some six years ago, a new viaduct was constructed alongside the existing one to double the capacity of the crossing. The old structure was subjected to extensive maintenance and improvement works in 1995 before reopening to traffic. It is used by nearly 200,000 vehicles a day.
In June 2002, a formal but routine inspection was in progress when the bridge inspector fortunately decided to look closely at one of the main bridge bearings. In essence, those are high-tensile steel rollers that are designed to cope with the natural movements of the road deck. The inspection found that one of the main roller bearings carrying the largest span of the viaduct across the ship canal had sheared. Detailed investigations were urgently carried out. They revealed other failures in the bridge bearings and the decision was correctly taken, for health and safety reasons, to close the old viaduct to all but northbound traffic running in one lane in order to carry out urgent remedial works.
Following the closure, extensive surveys were undertaken of all roller bearings, including visual and ultrasonic testing. Those confirmed that seven bearings were failing in the same way. Work was programmed to replace the bearings urgently and a date of April 2003 was given for the remedial work to be completed. My constituents were unhappy about the delay but understood the reason for it. However, continuing intensive testing found that bearings all over the bridge were failing even while the work was being carried out. While their predecessors had lasted over 35 years, those bearings were failing after only six years.

141
Rightly, the Highways Agency decided to delay the proposed Easter opening of the viaduct and to replace all the roller bearings in the structure. The latest estimate for reopening is now March 2005, some two years beyond the expected opening this Easter. The estimated cost of replacing the bearings is £30 million but that is not the only cost to be considered. Those extensive repairs and the consequent transport delays are causing real problems in my constituency and across the north-west for the traffic infrastructure.
There are significant delays most days at that point in the motorway network. Those are widely publicised on local and national media. Instead of enduring those delays, some drivers are diverting through the town and surrounding villages, causing traffic jams for road users, a profound nuisance and hazard to residents. The roads in the town and our many villages are simply not designed for the traffic load that they currently have to bear. I hope that the Minister recognises the serious problem that my constituents face and will continue to face until spring 2005.
Why is the disruption so significant? Apart from the obvious impact on our local environment and the road safety issues of extensive additional through traffic, an effective transport infrastructure is vital to the success of our local and regional economy. Warrington has a vibrant local economy, bringing good jobs for local people. The unemployment rate is an impressively low 1.8 per cent. We are at the centre of the north-west, with good motorway and rail networks, and we play a key part in the business and academic communities of Manchester and Liverpool. Key regional and national companies and services are based in Warrington: British Nuclear Fuels Ltd., United Utilities, the regional development agency, and the strategic health authority, among many others.
In Warrington, we intend to do everything that we can to keep that edge. Growth in the Warrington economy will outstrip national growth by more than three times by 2015. Employment has grown by 29 per cent. over the past 10 years, the second highest growth rate in the country. It is set to increase by almost four times the national rate over the next 10 years. We are working very hard and effectively to make that happen. Sites such as Omega and Birchwood Park are being developed to provide areas for further economic development that have a strategic significance right across the north-west. Warrington is a true economic success story and we are working tremendously hard in the community to make sure that that continues. We want the Minister's support to help us.
In particular, we want to ensure that the town's success is not endangered by the traffic disruption caused by work on the Thelwall viaduct. Warrington and the north-west have traded very successfully on location and easy access when attracting new investors. This approach is obviously at risk when potential investors see trouble on this crucial part of the transport network.
Warrington and the surrounding area is the distribution base for many regional companies. Thousands of workers are employed in this sector in Warrington and very many thousands in the north-west as a whole. There is a vital freight route from Eire to Europe via the M62 upon which the vitality of the Liverpool port depends. We cannot afford that to be
142
undermined by continued delays at the junction of the M6 and M62 that are caused by the tailback at the viaduct.
Warrington's economy is forecast to grow by nearly 4 per cent. between 2000 and 2005, compared with the UK predicted level of 2.5 per cent. We need a speedy resolution to the issue. We do not want our local economy to lose, an outcome that I am sure the Minister will agree is not acceptable.
Public safety is absolutely paramount, and I understand and welcome the preventive action taken to protect the travelling public. I have had a number of discussions with Cheshire police about the road works and the resources that it has allocated to improve road safety. The motorway police have coped well with 10 months of road works so far, but a further two years work will place a considerable strain on them. I hope that that point is understood and acknowledged by my hon. Friend.
I should also point out that the safety of roads in the centre of Warrington and the villages around it is being compromised by the extra traffic that is trying to avoid the motorway. Substantial amounts of time, effort and money are being spent on coping with that at the expense of planned improvements in safety elsewhere in my constituency.
I would like the Minister to answer some specific questions. Will he assure me that the work on the viaduct will be completed as swiftly as is compatible with public safety? The work must take place as speedily as possible with whatever resources are needed to make sure that that can happen. Can he confirm that all necessary financial and professional resources are being deployed to resolve the present engineering problems in the shortest possible time? Will he confirm that the full inspection of the whole structure has now been carried out and that no further works with a similar need for traffic restrictions will extend our current deadline for completion and the reopening of the viaduct to traffic?
The bridge bearings that failed were only six years old with a life expectancy of substantially more than that. Can the Minister confirm what action is being taken to determine the reasons for the failure? How will he ensure that the current renovations will have a respectable life expectancy?
Warrington was designated as a centre of excellence following the submission and acceptance of its local transport plan in August 2000. The problems resulting from restrictions on the viaduct now make the delivery of the plan extremely difficult at a critical period. Can the Minister assure me that the effect of the repairs to the Thelwall viaduct will be taken into consideration when Warrington's performance against the plan is reviewed by his Department? Will he make additional resources available to allow Warrington to continue to make essential progress on transport improvements for the people of Warrington?
I know that the officers of the Highways Agency have worked effectively with Warrington borough council to look for ways to reduce traffic congestion in our local community. What will the Minister do to develop and extend the support that they provide for the duration of the traffic disturbances? Will he further confirm his support for the closest possible liaison between the council and the Highways Agency to ensure that traffic

143
disruption is kept to a minimum, that additional traffic on our roads is minimised and that Warrington's economy is protected?
We want to keep long-distance drivers travelling on the M6 motorway, not on our town centre and village roads. Of course, if they would like to savour the delights of my constituency, to call into one of the many top-class shopping outlets, to have a meal at one of our excellent restaurants or to stay in one of our friendly hotels, they will be extremely welcome to break their journey with us. However, we must discourage people from rat running through our roads just to avoid the inconvenience and minor delay of motorway repairs. That does not make motorists' journeys any quicker and causes great inconvenience for local people.
I ask the Minister to do two key things. First, will he focus the attention of the specialists carrying out the remedial works—the metallurgists, engineers and structural people—on resolving the issues as safely and efficiently as possible in the shortest possible time? Will he take a personal interest in ensuring that that actually happens? Secondly, will he make additional resources available to help Warrington to tackle the problems caused by two and a half years of disruptions, diversions and delays? May we have resources to bring forward a local package of safety and transport improvements to run in parallel with the work on the viaduct? Many improvements are already planned and would help to compensate for the impact of the displaced traffic.
The north-west is an important part of the national economy and Warrington is right at the heart of the north-west. My constituents hope that the Minister will give them the comfort that they need and the action that they are looking for.
11.12 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Helen Southworth) on securing the debate and on the way in which she prosecuted her case with brevity and precision. As always, she speaks up for her constituents. She even took us back to Roman times, and I always enjoy the little history lessons that we get on these occasions. She referred to a time about a year or so after the viaduct opened. I recall travelling across it in the heady days of my youth in my old pre-war Austin 10. Sadly, in those days the motorway finished just north of the viaduct and my journey to Aberdeen continued on somewhat narrower roads—although given that my car would barely do more than 40 mph, that did not matter a great deal.
I know that this matter is of great importance to my hon. Friend and those who live and work in her constituency. Her constituents are understandably concerned about the impact of prolonged work on the Thelwall viaduct and the associated traffic restrictions on business and travel in the area. Of course, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are worried not only about the possible impact on the region and the north-west economy, but about the impact on the major north-south transport corridor in the west of the country.
144
The Thelwall viaduct is in fact made up of two viaducts. One takes northbound traffic and the other takes southbound traffic. It is 1.5 km long and carries the M6 Motorway over the Manchester ship canal, the River Mersey and Warrington road. It is one of the busiest sections of the motorway in the north-west of England and typically carries between 150,000 and 160,000 vehicles a day.
Good motorway connections are of major importance to business, and the proximity of the M6 to my hon. Friend's constituency is a major benefit to its local business. My hon. Friend will be aware that it was announced recently that a route management strategy for the M6, from junction 20 at Warrington to the Scottish border, is being drawn up to cover the next 10 years. That includes the section of motorway carried by the Thelwall viaduct. The study is aimed at identifying the best means of managing the motorway to relieve congestion, improve safety, protect the environment, provide better travel information and make the best use of the road network.
As my hon. Friend acknowledged, Warrington is well served by the motorway network. As the network stops 40 miles from my constituency, I would be happy to have the coverage that she enjoys. I am aware that the network has contributed to the town's attractiveness to developers. In addition to the M6, the M56 to the south of town and the M62 to the north also serve Warrington. The town has direct access to the motorway network at six junctions. Although benefiting the town, that also contributes to localised difficulties on the strategic motorway corridor because traffic makes short distance local journeys between junctions.
My hon. Friend is aware that a new junction 8 has recently been provided on the M62 at Warrington, with associated widening of the motorway, funded by English Partnerships. That gives much improved access to the nearby Gemini retail and business park, and will provide direct access to the forthcoming Omega business retail and leisure project, which over its life is estimated to bring 12,000 jobs to the region. I am sure that my hon. Friend welcomes those developments in the north, which I believe will have widespread benefits. Indeed, in addition to those opportunities in the north, I understand that a number of further major proposals are being promoted in the wider Warrington area.
I need to provide some background to the present situation at the Thelwall viaduct. The original crossing of the ship canal was opened as two viaducts in 1963. In the mid-1990s, in response to very significant increases in traffic, a new viaduct was constructed alongside the original structures. The original viaducts were then refurbished to form one, which carried four lanes of northbound traffic while the new viaduct carried four lanes of southbound traffic.
In July last year, the refurbished viaduct was partially closed to traffic after a routine inspection on behalf of the Highways Agency, which is responsible for the management, maintenance, operation and improvement of the trunk road and motorway network, that revealed a problem with one of the viaduct's large roller bearings. Those are substantial beasts and are nearly the size of the Dispatch Box. They are also expensive and have to be replaced. The agency has a

145
thorough maintenance regime by which it monitors the condition of all its bridges and the discovery of the Thelwall problem resulted from that process.
Bridge bearings are designed to cater for the bridge deck movement caused by traffic loads and changes in temperature. On the Thelwall viaduct, that movement is allowed for in part by the use of 136 steel cylindrical roller bearings. It was one of the largest of those that was found to have failed. Temporary supports were immediately installed and traffic restrictions were put in place. Those restrictions have remained while investigations and remedial work, which will not have been apparent to drivers, have continued beneath the viaduct.
Originally, the Highways Agency announced its intention to reopen the viaduct by Christmas. At that time, it was thought that only four of the largest bearings needed to be replaced. However, a comprehensive inspection revealed that 10 other bearings had failed. The agency revised its reopening date to Easter 2003 to enable the additional 10 bearings to be replaced. I know that it will be of little consolation to my hon. Friend, but all those repairs were completed by the advertised date.
The Highways Agency has enlisted the help of leading experts who have worked with it to find a solution that would allow traffic to return to normal as quickly as possible. Laboratory testing and investigations into the failed bearings is now substantially complete. Those findings have confirmed that there is a very high probability that all remaining roller bearings are deteriorating and likely to suffer similar failure. In the interests of public safety and to maintain the integrity of the structure, the Highways Agency concluded that it could not fully reopen the viaduct as intended.
The agency is moving ahead as quickly as is feasible while ensuring that all the problems are identified and properly addressed. I assure my hon. Friend that a full inspection of the whole structure has been carried out and that ongoing monitoring of the structure is in place. I am confident that all the necessary works are now being identified. As I said, expert assistance has been enlisted in the interests of finding the long-term solution as quickly as possible. My hon. Friend is of course right to point out that the life expectancy of the roller bearings in the refurbished structure should substantially exceed six years. Detailed technical investigations are under way to determine the reasons for the failures. At this point, I should acknowledge that the cost of the remedial work is likely to be substantial. I do not wish to put a figure on that at this stage or to say anything further on that aspect, given that the question of liability for the failures that have occurred is likely to be decided through litigation and the courts. Nevertheless, funds will be available to the Highways Agency to carry out the necessary remedial work.
Let me deal with the expected duration of the remedial work and the duration and extent of traffic management measures. Last July, when the problem was first identified, as a safety measure traffic was restricted to a single lane on the northbound viaduct. That allowed traffic to leave the motorway for
146
Warrington at junction 21, with three narrow lanes for traffic in each direction on the new viaduct using a contraflow system with a 40 mph speed restriction. It has been necessary to retain those traffic management arrangements, for safety reasons. The Highways Agency is doing all it can to limit delays on the motorway by means of advance warning signs on all the approaches. Unfortunately, however, there is no convenient diversion using the motorway network. Diverting traffic along the M62, M60, M56 and A556 would add some 15 miles to the journey, and parts of that route are already at full capacity during peak periods. The agency is continuing to monitor traffic patterns closely and will keep all possible diversion routes under review.
The agency is aware of the concerns about the effects that restrictions on the viaduct are having on the community of Warrington and on local businesses, and is working closely with those affected and those with an interest, in particular Warrington borough council, to identify the scale of the impact. I believe that one of the council's main concerns is that visitors to Warrington are being deterred, believing that there is continual queuing on the M6 when in fact, for some periods outside peak hours, that is not so. To address that, the Highways Agency is considering the possibility of using variable message signs on the motorway in a more flexible manner, to respond more quickly to changing circumstances.
I fully understand the concerns raised by my hon. Friend about the level of traffic that is currently diverting on to the local road network to the west of the M6. It is recognised that the current restrictions are leading to additional traffic in Warrington and therefore to increased congestion in the town. The Highways Agency is collecting traffic count information and working closely with the council to quantify the problems and identify possible mitigation measures on the network. I understand that a useful and productive meeting recently took place between the agency and the council at which these issues were explored. I welcome my hon. Friend's acknowledgement of the support given locally by the Highways Agency, and I have asked the agency to continue that approach in working with the council to assist the local community.
My hon. Friend raised the important issue of the impact of the continuing effects of the traffic restrictions on the council's delivery of its local transport plan, I would expect the council to explain any difficulties when submitting its third annual progress report in July. I will consider any request that it makes for additional resources at that time. I hope that my hon. Friend finds that assurance helpful.
The duration of the works required to repair the viaduct will become clearer over the next few months. I understand that estimates of up to two years have appeared in the local press, and it is true that at this stage the Highways Agency considers that it might take until March 2005 to complete all the work. I have therefore asked the agency to investigate the possibility of phasing the work to secure early release of additional traffic lanes on the viaduct carrying the

147
northbound traffic. It is not yet clear whether that can be achieved, but I will write to my hon. Friend when those investigations are complete.
Since the problem arose last summer, the Highways Agency has been providing regular progress reports to Ministers. My right hon. Friends the Minister of State and the Secretary of State have both taken a personal interest in the case, as have I, so my hon. Friend can be assured that 100 per cent. of the transport team are on her case. I think that she can be assured that everything possible is being done to bring this matter to a conclusion in as short a time as possible and with the minimum amount of disruption.
148
In addition to writing to my hon. Friend, I have asked the Highways Agency to ensure that it keeps her informed of any further significant developments so that she may continue to represent and inform her constituents.
This has been a useful debate on an extremely important strategic part of our motorway network. I congratulate my hon. Friend on the way in which she has represented her constituents and wider regional interests and probably some wider national interests.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock.

CABINET OFFICE

  Consultation Documents
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will list Government written consultation documents published since 1 January 2000 which had consultation periods of(a) less than three weeks, (b) between three and six weeks, (c) between 12 weeks and (d) 12 weeks or more. [111724]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Cabinet Office does not hold information for the time period specified. However, in a survey of Government written consultations carried out in 2001, 80 per cent. lasted at least 12 weeks.

  Counselling Services
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what arrangements are made in his Department to allow staff to access counselling services. [111942]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Cabinet Office is committed to supporting its staff and provides an in-house staff counselling and support service which offers short-term counselling, information and advice on work and non-work related issues for all employees.

  A contract has also been put in place to provide access to external counselling in individual cases where in house provision would not be possible or appropriate.

  Criminal Offences
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will list, broken down by Act, the criminal offences created in legislation sponsored by his office since 1997. [112112]

  Mr. Alexander
  None.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what the estimated level of saving to the Department is from the use of market testing in 2002–03. [107767]

  Mr. Alexander
  My Department undertook no market testing exercises during 2002–03. However, in the performance of its business activities, the Cabinet Office seeks to ensure that value for money is always obtained, whether the work is carried out by in-house or external providers.

  Next Steps Agencies
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office whether there are centralised records kept of(a) all Government Next Steps agencies and (b) their current chief executives. [110766]
  2W
  Mr. Alexander
  The Cabinet Office keeps a record of executive agencies and their chief executives. It is published on its website at http://www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/agencies-public bodies/

  This information also appears as hard copy in the Civil Service Yearbook, published by HMSO.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will list the Government Next Steps agencies, with their respective chief executives. [110767]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Cabinet Office list of executive agencies and their chief executives is published on its website at http://www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/agencies-publicbodies/

  This information also appears as hard copy in the Civil Service Yearbook, published by HMSO.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Accountancy Services
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the total cost to her Department was for accountancy services in 2002–03. [109483]

  Alun Michael
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 1 April 2003,Official Report, column 634W.

  Angling
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many angling development officer posts the Environment Agency are funding over the next three years; and if she will make a statement. [111927]

  Mr. Meacher
  There are currently six fisheries development officers in England and Wales who are tasked with developing and supporting projects to develop fisheries, including angling. Another post is being considered for 2004–05, but no further posts are anticipated.

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much money was allocated by the Environment Agency to encourage participation in angling in each of the last five years; how much the Agency has allocated for each of the next three years; and if she will make a statement. [111928]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Agency does not specifically allocate funds for the promotion of angling, although the Agencys work to improve fisheries will encourage further participation. The Agencys fisheries expenditure from 1998–99 to 2005–06 is as follows:

  Expenditure (£ million)

  1998–99

  21.0

  1999–2000

  22.2

  2000–01

  22.4

  2001–02

  21.4

  2002–03

  26.5

  2003–041

  27.2

  2004–051

  27.8

  2005–061

  28.4

  1 Estimated expenditure.

  Animal By-products
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the number of abattoirs that will be unable to comply with the blood tank requirements of the Animal By-Products Regulation. [110893]

  Margaret Beckett
  The Department has issued guidance on simple, low-cost ways in which abattoirs can adapt to the new requirements, and believe that most abattoirs should be able to comply with the Regulation. However, we recognise there will be some cases where there may be genuine difficulties with compliance in the required timescale. We have asked the Meat Hygiene Service, who are the enforcement authority, to look at each such case on its merits provided there is a clear plan of work in place for complying with the new requirements.

  Plastic Bottles
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions she has held with her ministerial colleagues on promoting the use of plastic alcohol bottles in bars and clubs; and if she will make a statement. [108014]

  Mr. Meacher
  Officials of Government Departments are working closely with the Prime Ministers Strategy Unit on their study to produce a national strategy for reducing the harm associated with alcohol misuse. The study is paying particular attention to the issue of alcohol-related violence, and views have been sought and obtained from a wide variety of organisations and individuals.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations she has received to encourage increased use of plastic bottles in bars and clubs from(a) the police, (b) environmental agencies and (c) other interested parties; and if she will make a statement. [108015]

  Mr. Meacher
  This Department has not received any representations regarding the use of plastic bottles in bars and clubs from environmental agencies or other interested parties.

  With regard to the public order aspect of the question, Home Office Officials have not held any recent discussions with representatives of the British Beer and Pub Association or other organisations on what can be done to promote the use of plastic bottles. Representations have been received from one individual, advocating a switch from glass to plastic bottles in the UK licensed trade to minimise the risk of glass-related injuries taking place.

  As indicated in the reply given on 29 March 2003, Official Report, column 457W, we remain concerned about the high level of injuries that occur when glasses and bottles are used as weapons in drink-related situations in and outside licensed premises and other drinking establishments, and we intend to see that this problem is effectively tackled. The Licensing Bill Guidance that has been published in draft by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport will include a range of conditions that a licensing authority could impose on a premises to address violence of this form.
  4W
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many(a) glass alcohol bottles and (b) plastic alcohol bottles were recycled in the latest 12 months for which figures are available; and if she will make a statement. [108016]

  Mr. Meacher
  We have no specific information on the proportion of the glass and plastic that is recycled from alcohol bottles.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what evidence she has collated on the practicality of recycling(a) plastic and (b) glass alcohol bottles; and if she will make a statement. [108017]

  Mr. Meacher
  The recycled amount of glass packaging going into the waste stream has increased since 1998. The figures are as follows:

  1998–23 per cent.

  1999–27 per cent.

  2000–33 per cent.

  2001–33 per cent.

  The recycle-more-glass scheme collects mixed glass for recycling free of charge from pubs, clubs, restaurants and bars. After 18 months it has signed up over 16,000 premises nationwide. The scheme collects 60,000 tonnes of glass a year, the equivalent to nearly 200 million bottles and jars.

  We are not aware of similar schemes for collection and recycling of plastic bottles from pubs and clubs.

  Canoeing
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many development officer posts the Environment Agency is funding to encourage canoeing over the next three years; and if she will make a statement. [111929]

  Mr. Meacher
  There are 20 staff employed in England and Wales with responsibility for developing waterways and associated recreational activities, including canoeing. This is not expected to change over the next three years.

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much money was allocated by the Environment Agency to encourage participation in canoeing in each of the last five years; how much the Agency has allocated for each of the next three years; and if she will make a statement. [111930]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Environment Agency does not specifically allocate funds for the promotion of canoeing. Around £6 million grant-in-aid is spent per annum in the development of the Agencys waterways projects and includes the promotion of canoeing.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will place in the Library copies of responses made to her Departments consultation on the Mid-Term Review of the Common Agricultural Policy. [110896]
  5W
  Margaret Beckett
  In line with standard practice, responses to the consultation exercise are available to the public through the main Defra library and copies of the list of respondents has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Counselling Services
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what arrangements are made in her Department to allow staff to access counselling services. [111936]

  Alun Michael
  This Department has its own in-house Staff Welfare Service, which provides a service to staff and managers in the core Department and to all of its agencies. The 9 Welfare Officers, who are based in various locations throughout the country, have all received training in counselling and are available to staff on a 24 hour basis, 365 days a year.

  The Welfare Officers are able to deal with any problem brought to them by staff, whether they originate from inside or outside the workplace and by doing so they help them to resolve or come to terms with those problems, thus helping to keep staff effective at work.

  Document Classification
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many documents are held by her Department that are subject to security classification, broken down by category of classification. [107356]

  Alun Michael
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to him by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr. Alexander) on 7 May 2003,Official Report, column 696W.

  Farmers Grants
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the schemes making grants to farmers that have met the targets in the Citizens Charter for(a) notification and (b) payment. [111860]

  Alun Michael
  The Rural Payments Agency (RPA) is responsible for administering CAP payments to farmers in England.

  Citizens Charter targets do not apply to the RPA, as its targets are set annually by its Ownership Board and are approved by Ministers.

  Performance against target for the RPA in respect of subsidy payments to farmers and replies to correspondence for the financial year 2002–03 is as shown in the table. These figures are provisional pending validation by Audit.

  Target

  Performance

  To process and pay at least 96.14 per cent. of valid IACS claims by value within the EU deadline.

  96.42%

  To ensure that 92 per cent. of correspondence is answered within 15 working days

  92.29%

  GM Field Trials
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what weight she will attach to public opinion expressed through the intended consultation exercise in formulating her response to the results of the GM field trials. [110376]

  Mr. Meacher
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already made clear that the public debate will help to inform the Governments policy-making on GM, including its policy on the cultivation of GM crops, and that we will indicate what we have learned from the debate when making future policy announcements.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make it her policy to allow a minimum of three months public consultation on GM crops following the publication of the results of the GM field trials before deciding her response to these trials. [110377]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government do not intend to issue a formal response to the results of the GM field trials. The public will have an opportunity to debate the issues surrounding GM crops during the forthcoming public debate. Once the scientific papers reporting the results of the GM field trials are published and in the public domain, there will be further opportunity to comment on the implications.

  Household Waste
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether she has carried out a cost-benefit analysis on changes in the collection of bulky items of waste from individual households; how much she has spent on addressing fly tipping in local authorities that have introduced charges for the collection of household waste; and what the likely administrative costs are estimated to be of introducing a charge for the collection of waste items from individual households. [111041]

  Mr. Meacher
  We have not carried out a cost-benefit analysis on changes in the collection of bulky items of waste from individual households.

  Local authorities receive funding through the Environmental, Protective and Cultural Services block and it is not therefore possible to estimate how much local authorities have spent on tackling fly tipping.

  Information on the administrative costs of local authorities introducing charges for the collection of bulky items of waste from individual households is not held centrally.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the environmental benefits of a free service for the collection of bulky items of waste from individual households; and what guidance she gives to local authorities on the advisability of introducing charges for the collection of bulky items of waste. [111057]

  Mr. Meacher
  No assessment has been made of the environmental benefits of a free service for the collection of bulky items of waste from individual householders. The Government intends to conduct research into fly
  7W
  tipping that will look at schemes that have been instigated by local authorities to combat fly tipping. One of the areas to be covered is the free collection of bulky items.

  Guidance to local authorities on the advisability of introducing charges for the collection of bulky items of waste was published in the joint Circular from the Department of the Environment (Circular 13/88) and the Welsh Office (Circular 19/88) and this advice was reinforced in the joint Circular from the Department of the Environment (Circular 14/92), the Welsh Office (Circular 30/92) and the Scottish Office Environment Department (Circular 24/92).

  Illegal Timber Imports
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what action is being taken at EU level to tackle the trade in illegal timber imports; whether the UK will support new EU legislation to ban the trade in illegally acquired timber and timber products; and if she will make a statement. [111034]

  Mr. Meacher
  Under EU law, import controls on illegally logged timber can only be imposed at EU level. We are therefore working actively within the EU, where this is now being considered. The Government are strongly encouraging the European Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (FLEGT) process. The European Commission will shortly publish a proposed FLEGT action plan. The plan will include consideration of new EU legislative regulations to address imports of illegally logged timber in a way that is consistent with EU obligations to the World Trade Organisation.

  Land Use Policy Group
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent discussions she has had with the Land Use Policy Group. [111271]

  Alun Michael
  Ministers and officials meet regularly with the England bodies that make up the Land Use Policy Group which are the Environment Agency, the Countryside Agency and English Nature, all of which are sponsored by the Department. Recently, officials have taken part in meetings of the group and presentations on their recent report Europes Rural Futures. We look forward to a continuing close relationship with the LUPG, and to a continuing valuable contribution by the Group to policy development.

  Landfill
  Mr. Robert Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many landfill sites are no longer allowed to accept waste for disposal as a result of their failure to submit a conditioning plan; and what estimate she has made of the volume of waste that has thereby been diverted to(a) other landfill sites and (b) other means of disposal. [111794]
  8W
  Mr. Meacher
  Under the Landfill (England and Wales) Regulations 2002, operators of landfills that wished to continue to accept waste after 16 July 2002 had to submit a conditioning plan to the Environment Agency. Those that did not wish to continue to accept waste had no need to submit a plan, so it is not possible to know exactly how many fell into this latter category. However, the Agency had expected around 1,100 plans to be submitted, and in the event just under 1,000 actually were. What this constitutes in terms of diversion of waste is impossible to say, but all waste generated has to be either re-used, recycled, recovered or disposed of regardless of the number of landfill sites available.

  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much was spent under the landfill tax credit scheme in(a) 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03 (i) on Object C and CC projects, (ii) on community environmental projects and (iii) in total on all eligible schemes. [111550]

  Mr. Meacher
  Figures provided by Entrust, which regulates the Landfill Tax Credit Scheme on behalf of HM Customs and Excise, are set out in the table (figures are collected on a calendar year basis):

  £million

  Project spend (UK)

  Year

  Object C/CC

  Community Environment Projects (object D/E)

  1Total project spend

  2001

  34.28

  56.73

  82.05

  2002

  35.14

  56.73

  82.05

  20032

  6.23

  7.16

  13.51

  1 Some projects are counted in both object columns but the spend is only included once in the total

  2To date

  National Minimum Wage
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the estimated cost is in 2003–04 to her Department, agencies and the non-departmental public bodies for which she is responsible of the increase in the national minimum wage from £4.20 per hour to £4.50 per hour. [110430]

  Alun Michael
  None. The minimum salary from 1 April 2003 is already above the rate quoted in respect of Defra employees as well as in respect of Defra agencies, Food for Britain and non-departmental public bodies for which Defra Ministers have responsibility.

  Organic Food
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will publish her Departments life cycle environmental analysis of the production and consumption of organic foodstuffs by type. [111570]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 7 May 2003]: No such analysis has been carried out. However the Department is preparing a fully referenced study analysing the environmental impacts of organic farming. And we have commissioned studies on particular aspects of the impacts of organic farming, for example the impact on the rural economy, on biodiversitty and on energy use.

  Power Stations
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether the objective of the review by the Environment Agency of regulations governing emissions from power stations is to ensure that the most efficient power stations and those fitted with flue gas desulphurisation plant are used to the maximum. [107983]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Environment Agency has carried out a review of Integrated Pollution Control authorisations for power stations not fitted with flue gas desulphurisation plant. If such installations were unable to present a good Best Available Techniques Not Entailing Excessive Cost justification for not using the abatement plant then they were authorised to operate at no more than a 40 per cent. load factor in 2001 and 2002. The next principal review of these authorisations is likely to be carried out in 2003–04. The objective of this review will be to secure a further reduction in the emissions of sulphur dioxide from coal fired power stations in 2004–05. One way to achieve this is to ensure the fullest use of Flue Gas Desulphurisation-equipped power stations. In addition, the review will consider how to avoid commercially disadvantaging power stations that are fitted with flue gas desulphurisation plant, and benefiting those without.

  Statistics for UK Coal Fired Generation Plant 1998 to 2000 for Installations Operating with and without Flue Gas Desulphurisation Equipment (FGD)

  Year

  Measure

  Unit

  19981

  1999

  2000

  Total amount of coal burnt with FGD

  000s of tonnes

  12,838

  11,396

  11,540

  Total amount of coal burnt without FGD

  000s of tonnes

  33,789

  28,187

  38,565

  Total amount of SO2 emitted with FGD

  000s of tonnes

  135

  54

  45

  Total amount of SO2 emitted without FGD

  000s of tonnes

  922

  704

  756

  Average amount of SO2 emitted per gigawatt generated with FGD

  000s of tonnes per GWh

  4.09

  1.79

  1.48

  Average amount of SO2 emitted per gigawatt generated without FGD

  000s of tonnes per GWh

  10.77

  9.79

  8.74

  Average amount of SO2 per tonne of coal without FGD

  0.011

  0.005

  0.004

  Average amount of SO2 Per tonne of coal without FGD

  0.027

  0.025

  0.020

  1 The FGD plant at AES Drax was out of commission for much of the year

  Right to Roam
  Tony Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the appeals procedure is for a landowner whose property has been entered in error as common land on the draft Right to Roam map. [111089]

  Alun Michael
  It is necessary to separate out two issues in responding to this question. The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (the CROW Act) sets out how maps of open country and registered common land are to be prepared for the purposes of the statutory right of access. This work is being carried out in England by the Countryside Agency. The law dealing with the registration and other aspects of common land predates the CROW Act and is generally very complex.

  As far as the CROW Act is concerned, there is a statutory right of appeal against the showing of common land on the Countryside Agencys maps of open country and registered common land on the ground that the land is not registered common land.
  10W
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the amount by which sulphur dioxide emissions could be reduced if coal fired power stations fitted with flue gas desulphurisation plant were used to the maximum load factor with consequential lower load factors at unabated plant. [107984]

  Mr. Meacher
  As part of the Governments plans to implement the revised Large Combustion Plant Directive, assessments are being carried out of a range of pollution control measures (including flue gas desulphurisation plant) and their impacts upon the environment and will be consulted upon in the near future.

  The actual emissions of sulphur dioxide are varied between power stations because of the different sulphur contents in the fuels burnt and the different load factors at which individual power stations operate. No estimate has therefore been made of the amount by which sulphur dioxide emissions could be reduced if coal fired power stations fitted with flue gas desulphurisation plant were used to the maximum load factor with consequential lower load factors at unabated plant. The following table compares recent figures for the amount of sulphur dioxide that is discharged from power stations in the UK, with and without flue gas desulphurisation equipment.

  However, there is no appeal against the showing of such land on the ground that it has been wrongly registered as common land.

  As far as the law on common land more generally is concerned, I announced proposals for future legislation on common land last July that would include provision for wrongly registered land to be removed from local authority registers. Although we hope to bring forward measures as soon as parliamentary time permits, I can give no guarantee at this stage, either about the timing of legislation, or its scope.

  Rural Diversification
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the constraints on rural diversification imposed by planning requirements; and what recent discussions she has had with the Deputy Prime Minister on a more permissive planning environment for farmers seeking to diversify. [11270]

  Alun Michael
  An assesment of the approach taken by the local planning authorities in England to diversification of farm businesses was published by the
  11W
  Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions in October 2001 [1]. The report found that overall 83 per cent. of the planning applications considered had been approved; nonetheless, all planning authorities in rural areas are being encouraged to follow best practice and reach the standard of the best.

  The Governments proposals [2] for reform of the planning system reflect the need for the system to be faster, simpler and more predictable, and to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. As part of a review of all existing planning policy guidance signalled in the proposals, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is currently reviewing Planning Policy Guidance note 7 [3] which sets out policies specifically for rural areas. Within the Governments objectives for sustainable development, the overall aim is to make the planning system more responsive to the needs of all rural businesses, taking account of all relevant economic, social and environmental issues. The Government has provided a significant injection of extra resources into local authority planning services to help with delivering the step change represented by the overall package of reforms.

  The Department continues to work closely with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister on ensuring that the effectiveness and relevance of Government planning policies and other planning issues is kept under review.
  [1] The Implementation of National Planning Policy Guidance (PPG7) in Relation to the Diversification of Farm Businesses, October 2001, ODPM
  [2] Sustainable Communities—Delivering Through Planning, July 2002, ODPM
  [3] The Countryside— Environmental Quality and Economic and Social Development (PPG7), February 1997, part updated March 2001, ODPM

  Solvents Emissions Directive
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what date she has set for the full implementation of the EU Solvents Emissions Directive; and if she will make a statement. [112391]

  Alun Michael
  We expect to consult this summer on draft regulations to complete transposition of the Solvent Emissions Directive (1999/13/EC). In the light of the responses to the consultation, we expect the regulations to enter into force probably by the end of the year subject to parliamentary procedures. Implementation will follow; the Directive does not require existing installations to comply with the emission limit values in the Directive until 31 October 2007.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Barmouth Road Post Office
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the effects on(a) pensioners, (b) the disabled and (c) the local community of the closure of the Barmouth Road PostOffice, Wandsworth, SW 18. [112054]
  12W
  Mr. Timms
  Assessment of the effects on customers of proposals for closure of each specific post office under their urban reinvention programme, including comments received during the public consultation period, is an operational matter for Post Office Limited and I have asked the Chief Executive to reply direct to my hon. Friend.

  Biofuels
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions have been held between her Department and its counterparts in the US Administration regarding(a) the future development of biofuels and (b) a reduction in the use of petrol. [110869]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 6 May 2003]: Officials in this Department hold regular discussions with their US counterparts on a wide range of energy issues. In the course of this dialogue, there has been no specific discussion of either the development of biofuels or reduction in the use of petrol. However, the US sees potential for hydrogen as a transport fuel that would displace petrol and thereby reduce consumption. The hydrogen economy and fuel cells are the subject of ongoing discussions between both sides. There have also been detailed bilateral discussions on biomass technologies, including a joint workshop on advanced conversion technologies for biomass which was held in London in 2002.

  Builders (Doorstep Inquiries)
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action she is taking to alert householders to the risks of dealing with doorstep callers from the building industry seeking work; and if she will introduce a requirement that all such callers should carry a valid insurance certificate for Employers Liability and Public Liability, giving the(a) name, (b) company name and (c) registered address of the insurers. [111908]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Office of Fair Trading is currently investigating the doorstep selling sector as a super complaint within the terms of the Enterprise Act 2002. Its report is expected later this year. Any recommendations will be carefully considered.

  Counselling Services
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what arrangements are made in her Department to allow staff to access counselling services. [111949]

  Ms Hewitt
  All DTI staff have access to in house counsellors. They can also be referred on by the in house team to external counselling if needed. DTI aims to be a first rate employer. It recognises that by helping staff and managers tackle personal and work problems, counselling makes a valuable contribution to its peoples morale and effectiveness.

  Employment Tribunals
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry who the chief executive officer of Employment Tribunals is. [112708]
  13W
  Alan Johnson
  Responsibility for the operation of the Employment Tribunals rests with the President of the Employment Tribunals in England and Wales, His Honour Judge Meeran and the President of the Employment Tribunals in Scotland, Mr. Colin Milne.

  The Chief Executive of the Employment Tribunals Service which provides administrative support for the Employment Tribunals is Dr. Roger Heathcote.

  EU Committees
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list(a) the names, titles and grades of the officials who sit on the EU Technical Adaptation Committee on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work, (b) the number of times, and the dates, on which it has met since January 2002, (c) the agenda items it has considered since January 2002, (d) the decisions it has made since January 2002 and (e) the means used to communicate the decisions to the House. [10303]

  Malcolm Wicks
  I have been asked to reply.

  European Council Directive 89/391/EEC on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work, makes provisions for committees to work on

  Allications (£s Million)

  Region

  Objective

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  GO North West

  1

  108

  117

  113

  116

  118

  2

  100

  103

  83

  80

  77

  GO South West

  1

  —

  —

  42

  43

  44

  2

  8

  9

  18

  23

  17

  5b1

  28

  29

  —

  —

  —

  GO Yorkshire and Humberside

  1

  —

  —

  100

  102

  104

  2

  85

  87

  49

  48

  48

  GO East Midlands

  2

  23

  24

  36

  35

  35

  5b1

  9

  9

  —

  —

  —

  GO West Midlands

  2

  102

  106

  84

  82

  80

  5b1

  5

  5

  —

  —

  —

  GO East of England

  2

  —

  —

  15

  15

  15

  5b1

  8

  8

  —

  —

  —

  GO North East

  2

  82

  85

  64

  65

  65

  GO London

  2

  23

  24

  23

  23

  23

  GO South East

  2

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  Northern Uplands

  5b1

  14

  14

  —

  —

  —

  Highlands and Islands

  1

  41

  44

  —

  —

  —

  1(Trans)

  —

  —

  54

  46

  38

  Eastern Scotland

  2

  31

  32

  29

  27

  25

  Western Scotland

  2

  71

  73

  52

  49

  47

  South Scotland

  2

  —

  —

  6

  7

  7

  Borders of Scotland

  5b1

  4

  4

  —

  —

  —

  Dumfries and Galloway

  5b1

  6

  6

  —

  —

  —

  Central Scotland/Tayside

  5b1

  3

  3

  —

  —

  —

  Grampian

  5b1

  5

  5

  —

  —

  —

  Northern Ireland

  1

  163

  176

  —

  —

  —

  1(Trans)

  —

  —

  156

  132

  108

  West Wales and the Valleys

  1

  —

  —

  157

  161

  164

  East Wales

  2

  —

  —

  14

  13

  12

  Industrial South Wales

  2

  49

  51

  —

  —

  —

  Rural Wales

  5b1

  24

  24

  —

  —

  —

  Gibraltar

  2

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  GB

  3

  315

  517

  See below

  See below

  See below

  14W
  the purely technical adjustments to the individual Directives provided for in Article 16 (1) to take account of: the adoption of Directives in the field of technical harmonization and standardization; and/or technical progress, changes in international regulations or specifications, and new findings …

  The UK representatives at such meetings would be drawn from staff with relevant technical and policy responsibilities within the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). Since January 2002 HSE have received no invitations to such technical meetings; nor are HSE aware of any currently scheduled.

  EU Funding
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much funding has been allocated to the UK through(a) Objective One and (b) Objective Two programmes in each of the last five years, broken down by (i) region and (ii) scheme. [111804]

  Alan Johnson
  Structural funds comprise the European regional development Fund (ERDF), the European social fund (ESF), and two smaller funds for agriculture (EAGGF) and fisheries (FIFO).

  The programmes are all multi-annual and some are multi-fund. The table sets out allocations by region and objective for the last two years of the 1994–99 programming period and the first three years of the 2000–06 period.

  There are many thousands of individual projects supported by the funds, and details of expenditure on individual schemes could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  15W

  Allocations (£s Million)

  Region

  Objective

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  42

  28

  137

  —

  —

  —

  England and Gibraltar

  3

  —

  —

  349

  357

  364

  Scotland

  3

  —

  —

  43

  43

  44

  Wales

  3

  —

  —

  10

  11

  11

  1 Objective 5b was subsumed into Objective 2 for the 2000–06 programme period.

  2 Objective 4 was subsumed into Objective 3.

  Allocations of structural funds by region and objective in UK.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much has been distributed by(a) Government offices and (b) regional development agencies in EU Structural Funds to UK organisations in each of the last five years, broken down by region. [111805]

  Alan Johnson
  The Structural Funds are multi-annual and often multi-regional programmes. In England, the Regional Government Offices are responsible for the implementation of the funds. They provide the secretariats, which distribute the funds to all final beneficiaries, which include the Regional Development Agencies.

  Responsibility for the Structural Funds lies with the Welsh European Funding Office (WEFO) in Wales, the Scottish Executive in Scotland and the Department for Finance and Personnel in Northern Ireland.

  The relevant Structural Funds programmes cover the periods 1994–99 and 2000–06. The annual allocations were provided in my answer to the hon. Members question no. 111804, which I have answered today.

  The distribution of funds allocated in the 1994–99 period continued in 2000 and 2001. The distribution of funds allocated for the 2000–06 period is still at an early stage. For these current programmes there is a requirement that each annual allocation is spent by the end of the second year following the year of allocation (the N + 2 rule). This rule was tested for the first time for Objective 1 regions at the end of 2002, when all but a very small part of the 2000 allocations was fully spent. For the Objective 2 regions, 2003 will be the first year in which the rule applies and it is too early to say what levels of expenditure will be achieved.

  More detailed information about the distribution of funds in individual years could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Export Credits Guarantee Department
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many times a case has(a) been progressed and (b) approved under the ECGDs sensitive cases mechanism. [111418]

  Ms Hewitt
  The information is as follows:

  (a) Of the high potential impact cases considered so far, six have been, or are being, progressed under the sensitive case mechanism

  (b) Two of these cases have so far been approved.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in how many high potential impact cases the Export Credits Guarantee Department has 16W
  required (a) an environmental impact assessment, (b) a social impact assessment, (c) a resettlement action plan and (d) independent external advice or report. [111419]

  Ms Hewitt
  (a) Environmental Impact Assessments have been required and received for nine high potential impact projects.

  (b) Social Impact Assessments have been required and received for three high potential impact projects.

  (c) Resettlement Action Plans have been required and received for three high potential impact projects.

  (d) Independent external advice has been engaged for four high potential impact projects.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in how many cases covenants and other conditions relating to post issue implementation have been included in an ECGD contract, project or investment; how many times relevant monitoring reports have indicated that remedial action is required; and if she will make a statement. [111420]

  Ms Hewitt
  Covenants and conditions are regularly included in ECGD loan agreements and usually relate to financial or legal undertakings. Since the introduction of ECGD business principles in December 2000 covenants and conditions related to environmental or social impacts have been included in three issued guarantees. These guarantees have only been recently issued and no monitoring reports are due yet.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many applications identified as having high potential impact have been(a) submitted to the ECGDs Underwriting Committee and (b) approved by the ECGD. [111421]

  Ms Hewitt
  Since the introduction of ECGDs Business Principles in December 2000, Underwriting Committee has considered nine high potential impact cases. For most of these cases either ECGDs assessment is still on-going or the case did not proceed (e.g. because the UK company did not win the contract).

  Two high potential impact cases have received final approval from the Underwriting Committee.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much of the renewable energy initiative of the ECGD has been allocated to projects and if she will make a statement. [111422]

  Ms Hewitt
  None of the support available under the renewable energy initiative has so far been allocated but three applications are currently outstanding.
  17W
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to her answer of 27 February 2003,Official Report, column 654W, on the renewable energy initiative of the ECGD, if she will make a statement on the initiatives minimum risk standards. [111556]

  Ms Hewitt
  ECGDs minimum financial risk standards for renewable energy cases are the same as for the rest of the energy sector.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to her answer of 27 February 2003,Official Report, column 654W, on the renewable energy initiative of the ECGD, which of the listed renewable energy technologies had applications which were considered to have (a) low potential impact, (b) medium potential impact and (c) high potential impact; and which applications were successful. [111557]

  Ms Hewitt
  All of the cases referred to in the answer of 27 February have been classified as medium potential impact and all three are still outstanding.

  In addition to the technology being proposed, the potential impact classification depends on the projects location, scale and social and other impacts.

  Export Licences
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what licences were granted for equipment on the military and dual lists to(a) Congo, (b) Benin, (c) Burkina Faso, (d) Burundi, (e) Cameroon, (f) Chad, (g) Comoros, (h) Central African Republic, (i) Cote dIvoire, (j) Ethiopia, (k) Gambia, (l) Ghana, (m) Guinea, (n) Kenya, (o) Madagascar, (p) Malawi, (q) Mali, (r) Mauritania, (s) Mozambique, (t) Niger, (u) Rwanda, (v) Senegal, (w) Tanzania, (x) Uganda, (y) Zambia, (z) Bolivia, (aa) Honduras, (bb) Nicaragua, (cc) Yemen, (dd) Laos, (ee) Myanmar and (ff) Vietnam, in each month since January 2002; what the military and dual use ratings were; and if she will make a statement. [112296]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The details of all export licences granted are published by destination in the Governments Annual Reports on Strategic Export Controls, copies of which are available from the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what mechanisms are in place for independent assessment of the Governments exemptions to its export control policy. [112326]

  Nigel Griffiths
  I refer the right hon. and learned Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) on 1 May 2003,Official Report, column 455W.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to her evidence before the Quadripartite Committee on 3 April, what assessment she has made of the problems with the end-use monitoring of arms licences in the United States of America, other than with enforcement; and if she will make a statement on the reasons underlying her assessment that the end-use monitoring of arms licences in the US is less effective than that proposed for the UK. [112380]
  18W
  Nigel Griffiths
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry gave no assessment of the effectiveness of end-use monitoring of arms licences in the US in her evidence before the Quadripartite Committee on 3 April 2003.

  Funeral Industry
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will refer the funeral director industry to the Office of Fair Trading to investigate charging policy. [109737]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Under UK competition law, it is the responsibility of the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) to investigate allegations of anti-competitive behaviour or possible abuses of a dominant position. The OFT published its latest report on the funeral industry on 27 July 2001 and recommended that consumers be given better information about prices and choices. The OFT has also named the industry as one of its priority sectors under its Consumer Codes Approval Scheme. The OFT is currently holding discussions regarding this scheme with a number of industry bodies. Under the Competition Act 1998, the OFT can act if pricing levels appear to be the result of anti-competitive practices. Anyone with evidence of such behaviour should forward that information to the OFT.

  The funeral services industry has a system of self regulation. The National Association of Funeral Directors, the Funeral Standards Council and the National Society of Allied and Independent Funeral Directors all have codes of practice that require funeral directors to provide a professional service and not to exploit consumers. The codes require members to make a basic funeral available with its price clearly indicated. Funeral directors have a duty to treat consumers fairly at what is a time of considerable emotional stress. Adherence to the Code is monitored by each of the respective trade associations.

  Iraq (Reconstruction Contracts)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps she is taking to ensure that British companies have an equal opportunity to bid for contracts in the reconstruction of post-war Iraq. [110331]

  Ms Hewitt
  We expect UK companies to make a significant contribution to the redevelopment of Iraqs essential infrastructure. At my request British Trade International have set up a working group of companies representing the main industrial sectors, chaired by a senior businessman, to advise on this. It is clearly important that there is a level playing field for all companies who are interested in contracts in Iraq. I have discussed this with the US authorities and have received positive feedback. When conditions allow, the working group will hope to visit Iraq.

  Live Music Industry (Work Permits)
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what response she gave to the consultation on the proposal to charge for work permits, with particular reference to the impact on the live music industry in the UK. [106457]
  19W
  Alan Johnson
  The DTI, along with other Government Departments was sent details of the charging proposals as part of the formal consultation Work Permits United Kingdom (WPUK) conducted last year.

  The Department was in general supportive of the proposals. As far as I am aware no comments were made on the impacts these proposals might have on the live music industry.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will estimate the cost in the(a) next 12 months and (b) last 12 months of employers national insurance contributions to (i) her Department, (ii) Agencies of her Department, (iii) local government carrying out work within the remit of her Department, (iv) industry, (v) small business and (vi) self-employed people. [111659]

  Ms Hewitt
  The estimated cost of employers national insurance contributions in the next 12 months is £10,342,057 in my Department and £9,693,811 in my Agencies. For the last 12 months, the cost was £9,683,570 for my Department and £7,969,476 for my Agencies.

  My Department does not record employers national insurance data in respect of local government, industry, small business and self-employed people.

  National Minimum Wage
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the estimated total cost will be to businesses in the United Kingdom in 2003–04 of the increase in the national minimum wage. [110449]

  Alan Johnson
  The increase in the national minimum wage in October 2003 is estimated to cost businesses in the United Kingdom a total of between £180 and £400 million in 2003–04, assuming that the wages of the low paid would have increased in line with RPI inflation or earnings growth in the absence of an increase in the minimum wage.

  North Sea Oil and Gas
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to the answer of 29 April,Official Report, column 340W, on North Sea Oil and Gas, what constitutes the significant level of work which the Government has invested in reaching the targets listed; and what progress has been made towards each target. [112376]

  Mr. Wilson
  PILOT—the joint industry/Government forum which seeks to increase the competitiveness of the UKCS, is due to publish its 2002 annual report at the end of May. This will describe PILOTs work in detail and will outline progress towards the 2010 targets for production, expenditure and employment. A copy will be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Pharmacies
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to what extent the findings 20W
  of her Departments review of the OFT Report recommendations on pharmacies will apply in Scotland. [112783]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The regulations determining control of entry restrictions are devolved in Scotland and a matter for their Ministers. The Scottish Executive announced their response on 26 March to the OFT report regarding the current control arrangements for NHS pharmacy contracts.

  In relation to England, the Government will come forward with a balanced package of proposals for consultation before the summer recess.

  Post Office Pin Pads
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what efforts are being made to ensure the Post Office pin pads to access benefit entitlement are user friendly for blind and partially sighted people; and if she will make a statement. [111714]

  Mr. Timms
  The Post Office is working to ensure their services are as accessible to as many customers as possible. In the short term, the Post Office intends to improve current PIN pads by fitting a guard over the buttons to help guide customers. I understand this will be done as soon as possible. In the longer term, they intend to look at technological options to provide a secure alternative to PIN pads for people with disabilities. As this is a matter which falls within the day to day responsibility of Post Office Limited, I have asked the Chief Executive to reply direct to my hon. Friend.

  Renewable Energy
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to the answer of 29 April,Official Report, column 314W, on renewable energy, when the Transmission Issues Working Group report on the cost of connecting new renewable energy in Scotland will be published. [112197]

  Mr. Wilson
  I plan to publish this report within the next week.

  Staff Numbers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many staff are employed by her Department. [106278]

  Ms Hewitt
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 24 April 2003,Official Report, column 110W.

  Statutory Performance Benchmarks
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the impact of statutory performance benchmarks on the relative pay of women. [111655]

  Ms Hewitt
  The gender pay gap is derived from mean hourly earnings (excluding overtime) for men and women. Womens hourly pay expressed as a percentage of mens hourly pay is what is generally referred to as the pay gap. ONS publish earnings figures from the New Earnings Survey (NES) annually which are the basis of governments gender pay gap figures.
  21W
  The following table gives figures for the mean full-time and part-time pay gap, and the median full-time pay gap for April 2002.

  Mens hourly earnings (£)

  Womens hourly earnings (£)

  Womens earnings as a percentage of mens full-time earnings

  Full-time earnings (mean)

  12.59

  10.22

  81.1

  Part-time (mean)

  (11.98)

  7.42

  58.9

  Full-time (median)

  10.08

  8.60

  85.3

  When median earnings are used to construct the gender pay gap, instead of the mean, it shows that in fact the full-time pay gap has narrowed over the last year, from 15.4 per cent. in April 2001 to 14.7 per cent. in April 2002—a fall of 0.7 percentage points.

  More information can be found in the WEU publication The Gender Pay Gap published in December 2001.

  University Students
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many university students her Department and associated agencies have supported or sponsored with a work placement in the last year; what her policy is on work placements; what plans she has to develop such schemes; and what her policy is on paying their university fees. [98534]

  Ms Hewitt
  My Department, excluding the agencies who are replying separately, has sponsored or supported 19 university students in the last year. A limited number of work placements are provided where suitable work and the necessary support by management are available. Local arrangements for placements are encouraged and the need for a centrally administered scheme is under review. At present, we do not pay university fees.

  Letter from Alison Brimelow to Mr. Allen, dated 12 May 2003:
  The Patent Office has a bursary scheme that supports female students who want to make the transition from arts to science studies: it awarded four such bursaries to university students last year. Each bursary is worth £500 a year for the duration of the university course. A limited number of work placements are provided where suitable work and necessary support by management are available. The Patent Office currently has one university student on an unpaid work placement. At present, we do not pay any student university fees.

  Letter from lain MacGregor to Mr. Allen, dated 12 May 2003:
  The Secretary for Trade and Industry has asked me to reply on behalf of the National Weights and Measures Laboratory (NWML) to your question on how many university students her Department and associated agencies have supported or sponsored with a work placement in the last year; what her policy is on work placements; what plans she has to develop such schemes; and what her policy is on paying their university fees.
  In the past year, NWML has had two (2) work experience placements for students. We normally offer two per year. One person during summer vacation, which is a regular arrangement and for which we often advertise if we have not had any expressions of interest. The summer vacation placement receives a small salary. Plus another one at some other time of the year—this year it was January 2003—for a short 2-week unpaid (except
  22W
  for expenses) placement. These may not necessarily be university students as we sometimes take school students or those about to start university or college.
  This is currently the only sponsorship we offer at present, as we are a small Agency of only 57 staff and we do not have the capacity to support many work placements. For the same reasons, we do not currently offer to pay any university fees.

  Letter from Ms. R. J. R. Anderson to Mr. Allen, dated 12 May 2003,
  On 13 February 2003 you asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, how many university students her Department and associated agencies have supported or sponsored with a work placement in the last year; what her policy is on work placements; what plans she has to develop such schemes; and what her policy is on paying their university fees.
  In the academic year August 2001 to July 2002 the Radiocommunications Agency provided 7 university students with 50-week contracts to work in the Agency as part of their degree course. This is through an Agency managed scheme. The Radiocommunications Agency did not sponsor any students in the last year:- the Agency does not pay university fees.

  Letter from Roger Heathcote to Mr. Allen, dated 12 May 2003:
  You tabled a question on 13 February to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry asking her how many university students her Department and associated agencies have supported or sponsored with a work placement in the last year; what her policy is on work placements; what plans she has to develop such schemes; and what her policy is on paying their university fees. I have been asked to reply on behalf of the Employment Tribunals Service, which is an agency of the DTI. I apologise for the delay in replying.
  The Employment Tribunals Service does have a policy to support its staff in undertaking further or higher education and is prepared to contribute to university fees where such study would both benefit the individual and the agency. In the last year one member of staff has been supported in undertaking a part-time university course. As far as work placements for university students are concerned, the agency has no specific policy.

  Letter from Claire Clancy to Mr. Allen, dated 12 May 2003:
  I am responding to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on behalf of Companies House, which is an Executive Agency of the DTI.
  Companies House has not had any work placements of students within the last twelve months. We have however provided advice and information to students during the course of their studies, typically when completing dissertations or course work. These are not centrally administered, but the need to do so is under review. At present we do not pay university fees.

  Letter from Desmond Flynn to Mr. Allen, dated 12 May 1003:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply in relation to The Insolvency Service Executive Agency to your question (2002/1344) on university students who were supported or sponsored with a work placement during the year to 31 March.
  The Insolvency Service sponsored or supported no university students last year nor did it provide work placements. However for the current year The Insolvency Service is currently undertaking a recruitment campaign to fill three placements via the Civil Service Sandwich Placements scheme.

TREASURY

  Family Tax Credits
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many family tax credit claims were outstanding in each of the last 12 months. [110557]

  Dawn Primarolo
  For the cumulative number of claims for the child and working tax credits received in each month from August 2002 until February 2003, I refer the hon. Member to my answer to the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) on 14 April 2003,Official Report, columns 546–47W. 3.9 million claims were received by 9 April and over 4 million have been received to date.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to pay interest on late payments of child tax credit in cases where the delay was the responsibility of his Department. [109854]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 28 April 2003]: Where the Inland Revenue were unable to deliver to tax credits claimants the level of service which might have been expected, I will consider what, if any, further action may be appropriate.

  Debt Relief
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to pursue reform of the heavily indebted poor countries—HIPC—initiative; with particular reference to the use of the debt to export ratio as a measure of debt sustainability; and if he will make a statement. [111567]

  John Healey
  Within the enhanced HIPC initiative it is essential to have clear and transparent rules for the provision of debt relief, and the debt to export ratio is a useful indicator of debt sustainability. However, looking forward, after the provision of debt relief, such a broad measure may not always be appropriate in assessing country plans to finance their Poverty Reduction Strategies, and the associated level of borrowing. In particular the UK is concerned that enforcing the debt to export ratio could constrain the ability of some developing countries to access their allocation of concessional finance. The UK is working closely with the IMF and the World Bank to develop a more integrated approach to debt sustainability for financing poverty reduction. The Government acknowledges that debt relief is not a panacea for broader economic development challenges problems; even the provision of 100 per cent. debt relief to all low-income countries would still fall short of the resources needed to meet the Millennium Development Goals. That is why the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for International Development have proposed an International Finance Facility (IFF) that would seek to double the amount of development aid from just over $50 billion a year today to $100 billion per year in the years to 2015.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the UK Government will support measures to tackle the shortfall in the HIPC Trust Fund at the forthcoming G8 summit; and if he will make a statement. [111574]
  24W
  John Healey
  At the 2002 summit in Kananaskis the UK helped secure agreement from the G7 to fund the shortfall in the enhanced HIPC initiative, recognising that it could be up to US $1 billion. Ahead of the Annual Meetings of the IMF and World Bank in September 2002, the UK pledged its share of the $1 billion shortfall, $120million, to encourage other donors to make firm pledges. Donors have now made pledges totalling some $850m, and the 2003 Spring Meetings urged donors to translate these into concrete contributions in the coming months.

  At the forthcoming G8 summit the UK will push for a change in the rules of the enhanced HIPC initiative to exclude additional voluntary bilateral debt relief from the calculation of any additional debt relief or topping up at Completion Point. This measure could provide an estimated $1 billion extra debt relief to HIPCs.

  The Government acknowledges that debt relief is not a panacea for broader economic development challenges problems; even the provision of 100 per cent. debt relief to all low-income countries would still fall short of the resources needed to meet the Millennium Development Goals. That is why the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for International Development have proposed an International Finance Facility (IFF) that would seek to double the amount of development aid from just over $50 billion a year today to $100 billion per year in the years to 2015.

  Euro
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent estimate he has made of the likely cost(a) for public funds and (b) to the public sector of changeover from the pound to the euro. [112288]

  Ruth Kelly
  Should the UK decide to join the euro, the cost to the public sector of conversion to the euro would depend on the detailed approach that the UK took to the changeover and the extent to which organisations are able to build in euro compatibility where IT systems are being upgraded or purchased for other reasons. The outline National Changeover Plans provide a planning framework. All stakeholders acknowledge that costs can be minimised through careful and early planning.

  Income Tax (Overpayment)
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the average time taken by the Inland Revenue for repayment of income tax to taxpayers who have overpaid was in the last year for which figures are available. [112928]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue do not keep this information in respect of all cases where an overpayment might arise.

  In the year to April 2002, the Inland Revenue offices which specifically deal with claims for repayment of income tax made by individuals (that is, not claims contained within self-assessment tax returns or arising from overpayments of income tax under the PAYE scheme) dealt with 98.8 per cent. of claims within 20 working days. In the same year, other Inland Revenue tax offices also dealt with 82.98 per cent. of all post (which would have included repayment claims) within 15 working days.

  Self-assessment
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the unit costs of(a) self-assessed taxpayers and (b) non self-assessed taxpayers were in the latest year for which data is available on a comparable basis to table 2 of Inland Revenue: The Governments expenditure plans 2000–01–2001–02, Cm 4617. [110814]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The information is as follows:

  Inland Revenue

  The data requested cannot be supplied on a comparable basis to table 2 referred to without incurring a disproportionate cost to the Department. That table reflected the direct costs associated with delivering SA and Non-SA work. There has subsequently been a change to a more comprehensive basis of costing this work—to include all associated costs of delivery. This gives a more accurate unit costing but one that cannot be compared on a like with like basis with the unit costs in table 2. Additionally, there have been changes to the Departments IT systems and the office structure within which this work is administered.

  Set out as follows are the unit costs of SA and Non SA work for 1999–2000 to 2001–02 on the all up cost basis that is now used.

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Non SA taxpayers (thousand)

  26,675

  26,010

  26,600

  Costs (£ million)

  485.6

  694.3

  741.6

  Cost per taxpayer (£)

  18.20

  26.69

  27.88

  SA taxpayers (thousand)

  9,346

  9,324

  9,246

  Costs (£ million)

  1,011.3

  747.4

  756.3

  Cost per taxpayer (£)

  108.21

  80.16

  81.80

  Tax Credit Helpline
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much was spent on(a) setting up and (b) running the working tax credit and child tax credit helpline in each month since April 2002. [111382]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The full costs incurred on the provision of helplines for new tax credits in the year up to 31 March 2003 are estimated at £53 million. Of that figure, £29 million relates to setting up costs and £24 million to running costs, including salaries.

  Tax Credits
  Mr. Michael Foster
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many advertisements the Inland Revenue have placed on(a) advertising poster sites in Worcestershire and (b) advertising poster sites on buses operating in Worcestershire to promote the take up of child tax credit and working tax credit. [110156]

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many advertisements the Inland Revenue have placed on(a) advertising poster sites in Buckinghamshire and (b) advertising poster sites on buses operating in Buckinghamshire to promote the take-up of (i) child tax credit and (ii) working tax credit. [110473]
  26W
  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenues national campaign to encourage take-up of child tax credit and working tax credit has used a variety of media, including television, radio, national press, magazines and the internet.

  The campaign has involved very limited advertising on outdoor poster sites and no advertising on buses, but posters have been displayed inside post offices and at other indoor locations.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many successful child tax credit applications were received(a) before and (b) after 31 January; and how many of those who opted for (i) weekly payment and (ii) monthly payment are receiving their entitlement. [112340]

  Dawn Primarolo
  There is a single claim form for child tax credit and working tax credit. About 2.7 million claims were received by the end of January 2003, and over 4 million by 28 April.

  Around 3.2 million awards were in payment, or were set up for payment, by 28 April. About a third of all child tax credit claims processed so far have opted for weekly payment.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps his Department is taking(a) to inform families of the introduction of the working families tax credit and how this benefit can be claimed and (b) to ensure that families entitled to claim the benefit do so; and what assessment he has made of the ease of completion of the application form. [111191]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The working tax credit and child tax credit were introduced on 6 April 2003. They replaced the working families tax credit (WFTC), disabled persons tax credit and the childrens tax credit.

  Over four million claims have already been received—half a million of them over the internet without the need for a paper claim. Around 3.2 million awards are already in payment or are set up for payment.

  To ensure awareness, the Inland Revenue has undertaken a high profile advertising campaign—which is continuing. The campaign has made clear that people can choose to claim either over the internet or on paper. For those claimants who do not claim on line, the single claim form for both credits is, at 12 pages, half the length of the WFTC form that it replaced.

  Taxation
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what research he has commissioned into the relationship between taxation and(a) business competitiveness and (b) business productivity; and if he will publish the results. [108460]

  John Healey
  The Government is committed to developing the evidence base to help evaluate the effect of measures and inform future policies. Policy advice and development on tax measures are informed by in-house research and analysis, and in some cases, research commissioned externally. In addition to this, international comparisons allow the Government to identify areas where UK businesses lag behind their
  27W
  main competitors. This has prompted the development of targeted policies, often based on economic and statistical analysis of reforms in other countries.

  The most recent research published is into the Enterprise Investment Scheme and Venture Capital Trusts, which was published on 9 April 2003 on the Inland Revenue website. This research is wide ranging, looking at all aspects of the schemes, including their effects on the productivity and competitiveness of the relevant businesses.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Commemorative Plaques
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the average cost was of erecting a blue commemorative plaque in the last 12 months. [111631]

  Dr. Howells
  The average cost to English Heritage of erecting a commemorative plaque in England under its Blue Plaque Scheme in the last 12 months was £1,107 (excluding the cost of research and administration by English Heritage staff).

  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many blue commemorative plaques were erected in each of the last five years; and, for each year, what the cost was to public funds. [111632]

  Dr. Howells
  The number and cost of the commemorative plaques erected in England by English Heritage under its Blue Plaque Scheme in the last five years is as follows:

  Year

  Number of plaques

  Cost (£)

  1998–9

  17

  61,000

  1999–2000

  18

  74,000

  2000–1

  27

  84,000

  2001–2

  18

  86,000

  2002–3

  22

  92,000

  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport who(a) sets the criteria of selection and (b) is responsible for the erection of blue commemorative plaques. [111633]

  Dr. Howells
  English Heritage sets the selection criteria and is responsible for the erection of blue commemorative plaques in England under its National Blue Plaque Scheme, which so far has operated in Greater London, Merseyside, Birmingham, Portsmouth and Southampton, and is to be extended further. A number of local authorities and civic societies around the country operate separate schemes of their own.

  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the policy and criteria are for the erection of blue plaques to commemorate distinguished citizens in their native localities. [111637]

  Dr. Howells
  English Heritage inherited the Blue Plaque Scheme in Greater London from the former Greater London Council in 1986, and made it a28W
  National Blue Plaque Scheme for England in 1998. English Heritage has so far worked in partnership with local authorities in Merseyside, Birmingham, Portsmouth and Southampton, where it complements existing local initiatives. The selection criteria are published on English Heritages website www.english-heritage.org.uk and I am arranging for copies to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Counselling Services
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what arrangements are made in her Department to allow staff to access counselling services. [111941]

  Dr. Howells
  All staff in DCMS have direct access to counselling services provided by the ODPM Counselling and Support Service. It is an occupational service paid for by the Department. The counsellors are civil servants who are professionally trained in counselling skills and who have a knowledge and understanding of procedures and practice in DCMS. DCMS is committed to helping employees deal with concerns both inside and outside the workplace.

  Criminal Offences
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list, broken down by Act, the criminal offences created in legislation sponsored by her Department since 1997. [111788]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 8 May 2003]: The Department for Culture, Media and Sport has enacted two measures since 1997 which create new criminal offences. These are the Royal Parks (Trading) Act 2000 which created one offence and the Television Licences (Disclosure of Information) Act 2000 which created one offence.

  EU Committees
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list(a) the names, titles and grades of the officials who sit on the EU committee on general authorisations and individual licences in the field of telecommunications services, (b) the number of times, and the dates, on which it has met since January 2002, (c) the agenda items it has considered since January 2002, (d) the decisions it has made since January 2002 and (e) the means used to communicate the decisions to the House. [110292]

  Dr. Howells
  No officials from DCMS sit on this committee.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list the names, titles and grades of the officials who sit on the EU committee on the implementation of the multiannual community programme to stimulate the development and use of European digital content on the global networks and to promote linguistic diversity in the information society, the number of times and the dates on which it has met since January 2002, the agenda items it has considered since January 2002, the decisions it has made since January 2002 and the means used to communicate these decisions to the House. [110492]
  29W
  Dr. Howells
  No officials from my Department sit on the eContent programme committee.

  Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property
  Joyce Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on her policy with regard to UK participation in the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict. [111459]

  Tessa Jowell
  We remain fully committed to the protection of cultural property in time of armed conflict in accordance with international law and, with other interested departments, are giving active consideration to the ratification of the 1954 Hague Convention.

  For information, I am arranging to place a statement in the Libraries of both Houses outlining what we are doing to protect Iraqs cultural heritage.

  Honours
  Mr. Pope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many officials in her Department have received honours; and how many honours are held by her officials, broken down by category of honour. [111495]

  Dr. Howells
  According to our records twelve members of staff currently working within DCMS and its agencies have received honours: one at CB, one at CBE, four at OBE, three at MBE, and three at MVO.

  We do not keep records of awards that are unrelated to official duties, nor those already held by staff before joining the Department, including those transferred under machinery of government moves. Consequently, data are not available on the number of awards held by individuals.

  Iraq
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations she has received from the All-Party Parliamentary Archaeological Group on the protection of archaeological artefacts in Iraq; and what steps she has taken to establish protection measures for Iraqs historical artefacts. [111358]

  Tessa Jowell
  The All-Party Parliamentary Archaeological Group have made representations to the Prime Minister and to Baroness Symons in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The Government is working with UNESCO, the US Office for Reconstruction and Humanitarian Affairs, the British Museum and other organisations and we have issued a statement on the steps that are being taken to establish protection measures for Iraqs cultural heritage. I am arranging for copies of this document to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Libraries
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many loans have been made from libraries in each year from 1996; and if she will make a statement. [111816]
  30W
  Mr. Caborn
  The numbers of issues per year (in thousands) for the period 1995–96 to 2000–01 by UK libraries are contained in Table 4, Stocks and Issues, within the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancys (CI PFAs) Public Library Statistics 2000–01 Actuals volume.

  The number of issues by English library authorities solely may be deduced by looking at the Annual Issues tables in the CIPFA editions for those years.

  The House of Commons Library has copies of all of the volumes in question.

  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many visits have been made to libraries in each year since 1996; and if she will make a statement. [111817]

  Mr. Caborn
  The number of visits to library premises for 1995–96 and 1996–97 are contained in the Miscellaneous Tables within the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancys (CIPFAs) Public Library Statistics Actuals volume for those years and, subsequently, in that publications Library Users tables for the period 1997–98 to 2000–01.

  The House of Commons Library has copies of all the editions in question.

  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many qualified librarians have been employed in libraries in each year since 1996; and if she will make a statement. [111818]

  Mr. Caborn
  The numbers of full time equivalent professional staff employed by UK library authorities for the period 1995–96 to 2000–01 may be found in Table 2, Staff Establishment, within the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancys (CIPFAs) Public Library Statistics 2000–01 Actuals volume.

  The number of professional posts within English library authorities solely may be deduced by looking at the Staff in Post and Establishment tables in the CIPFA editions for those years.

  The House of Commons Library has copies of all of the volumes in question.

  Mental Health
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many of her staff retired on medical grounds due to mental health problems in the last year. [111969]

  Dr. Howells
  No staff in DCMS retired on medical grounds due to mental health problems in the last year.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) how many sick days were lost over the last year by her Department through staff mental health problems; [112004]

  (2) how many of her staff have taken sick leave due to mental health problems in the last year. [111990]

  Dr. Howells
  Cabinet Office publishes an annual report Analysis of Sickness Absence in the Civil Service. The statistics show reasons for absence including mental disorders. The most recently published
  31W
  figures for the calendar year 2001 were announced by Ministerial Statement on 19 December 2002, and copies placed in the Libraries of the House. The sickness absence figures for 2002 will be announced in due course.

  DCMS is committed to managing sickness absence effectively, and in meeting the 2003 target for reduced sickness absence as set out in the Service Delivery Agreements (SDA).

  Millennium Commission
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) how much the Millennium Commission has spent on consultancy fees, broken down by areas of expertise that consultants provided; [112122]

  (2) if she will list the Millennium Landmark projects which have received revenue support from the Millennium Commission, showing the cost and time commitment involved; [112115]

  (3) if she will list the variations in the Millennium Landmark projects from their original agreements with the Millennium Commission; [112116]

  (4) if she will list the Millennium Landmark projects indicating the estimate of the (a) costs of completion and (b) initial forecasted costs; [112117]

  (5) if she will make a statement on the cost of the administration of the Millennium Commission since its establishment; and which budgets have provided the money; [112128]

  (6) if she will list the Millennium Landmark projects indicating the expected completion dates and the initial forecasted completion dates; [112118]

  (7) if she will list the Millennium Landmark projects which have received public money other than from the Millennium Commission, broken clown by (a) amount and (b) funding organisation. [112119]

  Tessa Jowell
  I will write to the hon. Member in my capacity as Chair of the Millennium Commission, and place copies of my reply in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Running
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what guidance is given to communities to encourage children to take up running competitively. [111921]

  Mr. Caborn
  One of this Departments key objectives is to increase participation in all sports, including running, and through Sport England and UK Sport, the national governing bodies of sport are funded directly to help achieve this objective. UK Athletics in conjunction with its home country partners has developed a number of grass roots initiatives that support and encourage individuals to become involved in athletics. The schemes take place within schools, communities, and athletics club environments. Such schemes include the Norwich Union star:track, sports:hall, and shine:awards, which are designed for young people aged three upwards. UK Athletics also supports athletics clubs through its clubs:future programme.
  32W
  In addition Lottery funding worth over £1.39 billion has been provided since 1995 for community sports projects across England, many of which have facilities for athletics.

  Sports Participation
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many people her Department estimates participate in(a) angling and (b) canoeing on average each year. [111926]

  Mr. Caborn
  Sport England estimate that three million people participate in angling, and that two million people participate in canoeing in the United Kingdom on average each year.

DEFENCE

  Defence Equipment
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what conclusions he has drawn from the Gulf conflict in respect of equipment supply. [112232]

  Mr. Ingram
  The deployment of 45,000 personnel and their equipment over such a long distance and in such a short time represents a remarkable achievement and one of which all those in the logistic chain can be proud.

  As with all exercises and operations, we are in the process of identifying lessons from operations in Iraq. This work will be published in due course, subject to the usual constraints on force protection and security. It would therefore be inappropriate for me to draw any conclusions at this stage in the process.

  Service Personnel (Gulf)
  Mr. Ivan Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment his Department has made of the effectiveness of logistic support to sustain British forces in the Gulf region. [112234]

  Mr. Ingram
  The logistic support to our forces in the Gulf has been a remarkable achievement. An assessment of the effectiveness of support to Operation TELIC will be made as part of the normal process of identifying lessons from our deployments. We do, of course, keep the sustainment of on-going operations under constant review and I am confident that this will ensure that forces still in the Gulf will continue to receive an appropriate level of support.

  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he plans to investigate complaints about the quality of clothing and other equipment supplied to members of HM armed forces serving in the Gulf. [112236]

  Mr. Ingram
  As recent operations in Iraq have demonstrated our armed forces are among the best equipped in the world. I can tell the House the reports from theatre indicate that equipment performance overall has been generally impressive. However, we do take any reported defects very seriously. An assessment of the performance of equipment deployed on
  33W
  operations in the Gulf, including clothing and personal equipment, will be undertaken as part of the usual process of identifying lessons from our deployments.

  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures he is taking in support of widows and partners of Service personnel who died in the Gulf conflict. [112238]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave earlier today to the hon. Members for Newark (Patrick Mercer) and for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker).

  Iraq
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to replace assets used or lost in the Iraq conflict. [112235]

  Mr. Ingram
  We are gathering evidence and assessing the lessons emerging from the Iraq conflict so that realistic decisions can be made on whether the equipment and logistical stocks lost or used will, or will not, be replaced.

  Mr. Mackay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. [112239]

  Mr. Hoon
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) and the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell).

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library a copy of the contract journalists embedded with British forces involved in the invasion of Iraq were required to sign in advance of their placements. [111363]

  Dr. Moonie
  Journalists embedded with British forces serving in Iraq were not required to sign a contract as such. They were, however, required to sign a copy of Annexes B to E of the Green Book—Working Arrangements with the Media during times of Emergency, Tension, Conflict or War. A copy of this book, with the relevant Annexes, is accessible on the MOD website, at www.mod.uk/news/green_book/ foreword.htm

  Dr. Richard Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what services are available for the support of members of the armed forces as they return home from Iraq. [111778]

  Dr. Moonie
  All personnel returning from Operation TELIC, whether Regulars or Reservists, will be provided with appropriate support measures acknowledging that each individuals experience of the conflict will be different. The procedures will vary slightly between each Service according to need, but are essentially similar and delivered in three stages: recovery, normalisation and after care. Each stage has support services ranging from medical screening and debriefings to post-operational tour leave. For example, building on lessons from earlier conflicts, personnel from 3 Commando Brigade will have a period of two weeks in their barracks, with night leave, to allow additional time to decompress and normalise while fulfilling equipment maintenance tasks. At all stages of 34W
  the process, personnel have access to Sendee welfare specialists when required including medical officers, chaplains and also representatives from external bodies such as SSAFA-Forces Help.

  Procedures are in place to ensure that personnel do not miss end-of-deployment medical briefings given in theatre enabling data to be extracted for clinical audit and post-deployment health surveillance purposes. Measures are also in place to raise awareness of PTSD and other stress-related disorders which may occur among Service personnel.

  Commanders have been made aware of such vital issues as combat stress indicators, the difficulties surrounding the return of personnel and re-union with their loved ones, and the effect that the deployment may have had on their children. Two Leaflets—Coming Home and Dealing with Traumatic Experiences—are handed to all personnel leaving the operational area. In addition, leaflets are sent to families to alert them to the possible after-effects of the operational deployment including special booklets and advice for children.

  Each person will have the opportunity to be properly de-briefed by personnel within the command chain. This commitment to after care is enduring, recognising that the needs of individuals change in the longer term.

  I also refer the hon. Member to my written ministerial statement on 7 May 2003, Official Report, column 34WS on the decision to conduct research into the physical and psychological health of those involved in the conflict.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the planned work of the War Graves Commission in Iraq. [112081]

  Dr. Moonie
  Subject to the continuing improvement in the overall security environment, Commonwealth War Graves Commission staff are scheduled to arrive in Iraq on 23 June 2003, when they will begin their work to restore the cemeteries and memorials to the 54,000 Commonwealth Servicemen who are buried in the 13 cemeteries throughout Iraq.

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the military situation in Afghanistan. [112237]

  Mr. Ingram
  The military situation in Afghanistan continues to evolve. The effectiveness of the International Security Assistance Force in Kabul is well established and there are encouraging signs of greater stability in many of the Afghan regions. The three Provincial Reconstruction Teams already in place are building on that stability, as will the Team the United Kingdom will lead in Mazar-e Sharif. Even so, terrorist remnants still pose a danger in some areas. Afghan and coalition forces are cooperating to end that threat.

  Accommodation
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) of the total available stock of MOD accommodation units in each of the six districts of Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly,(a) how many and what proportion are within a restricted military base, and

  35W
  how many of those are empty, and (b) how many are situated within the civilian community and how many of those are empty; [111431]

  (2) how many (a) MOD-owned and (b) long-term leased accommodation units there are in each of the six districts of Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly; [111432]

  (3) how many and what proportion of his Departments accommodation units situated within civilian areas in Kerrier district have been empty in each of the last five years for which records are available; and of these, how many were in the St. Ives constituency. [111424]

  Dr. Moonie
  All Service family housing in Cornwall is owned by Annington Homes Ltd. and managed and maintained, under a lease-back agreement, by the Ministry of Defences Defence Housing Executive (DHE) Agency.

  The number of Service family housing units in Cornwall and the number empty, by constituency, is shown in the table. Only seven properties in Cornwall are located within a military base (RAF St. Mawgan), and they are all occupied.

  Constituency

  Locations

  Total properties

  Vacant properties

  St. Ives

  Helston (Culdrose)

  293

  41

  Falmouth and Cambourne

  Falmouth/Redruth

  52

  2

  Truro and St. Austell

  0

  —

  Cornwall North

  Newquay/St. Mawgan/

  368

  46

  St. Eval

  Cornwall South East

  Saltash

  102

  14

  Scilly Isles

  0

  —

  Totals in Cornwall

  815

  1103

  1 Of the vacant properties:

  some 50 are either under offer or allocated and awaiting incoming families;

  29 are identified for disposal during this financial year; and 20 are held against known future deployments.

  The remainder are available for occupation.

  There are 333 properties within the Kerrier district council boundaries, of which 293 are located in the St. Ives constituency. 43 properties are currently vacant, of which 41 are in the St. Ives constituency, including those held against future deployment. Historic data for district council areas is not held, but our available records for Cornwall as a whole over the last three years show that the number of vacancies has not changed substantially.

  Aircraft Carriers
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his latest estimate is for the in-service dates for each of the proposed new aircraft carriers. [111334]

  Mr. Ingram
  Our target in-service dates for the two new aircraft carriers are 2012 and 2015. Estimates for their delivery are being developed progressively this year during the remainder of the assessment phase by the CVF Alliance of BAE Systems, Thales UK and the Ministry of Defence, taking account of the maturing carrier design. The expected in service dates will be confirmed next spring when we place the contract for the demonstration and manufacture of the carriers.

  Army Exercises
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what mechanisms are in place to monitor the process of applying lessons learned from past army exercises to future activities; and who is responsible for ensuring such processes take place; [110553]

  (2) who is responsible within his Department for the planning and execution of army exercises; and what procedures are in place to assess their performance and that of their subordinates. [110552]

  Mr. Ingram
  There is a robust system in place to ensure that appropriate training is undertaken by the Army, and that relevant lessons are learned from exercises. Ultimately the responsibility for the planning and execution of Army exercises lies with Headquarters Land Command. The exercise programme is disseminated through the Land Command Collective Training Programme, which is designed to ensure that the right number of troops achieve the right level of readiness, in line with the Formation Readiness Cycle.

  Individual exercises are planned against the Mission Essential Tasks List (METL) that each unit is asked to undertake. The specific manner in which these METLs are met is a decision for the Chain of Command to take, at the appropriate level dependent on the size of the exercise. Headquarters Land Command undertakes the formulation of the METL, through a consultation process with the relevant Chain of Command. The procedure for assessing the individual performances of the personnel involved in the planning and execution of exercises, and that of their subordinates, is through the annual appraisal system, which is informed by an After Action Review conducted immediately at the end of each exercise.

  Following soon after the completion of each exercise a Post Exercise Report is produced examining the success of the exercise against its aims. This not only enables the Chain of Command to assess the Collective Performance of the units/formations involved, but also provides an avenue for feedback, which allows the Army to learn appropriate lessons. The Land Warfare Centres Mission Support Group, which is part of Land Command, is responsible for the effective collation and dissemination of lessons learned from past Army exercises.

  Throughout the year, all collective training establishments systematically analyse the performance of all unit, battlegroup and brigade level exercises. These observations are then used to inform Land Commands lines of development, such as concepts and doctrine, sustainability, structures, training development, equipment and technology and people.

  In addition, the Mission Support Group issues Observations from Training (OFT), a collation of the lessons learnt from the exercises undertaken in the preceding year. The OFT seek to identify trends and general observations from training. It is the responsibility of the Chain of Command to ensure that the OFT receives widespread distribution, and that the lessons learned inform future training and operations.

  Challenger Tank
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the performance of Challenger 2 tanks in the desert conditions of southern Iraq in 2003. [110759]

  Mr. Ingram
  Post operational reporting will provide analysis and an assessment of the performance of equipment deployed on operations in Iraq. It would, therefore, be premature for me to provide a detailed assessment. Early indications are, however, that the Challenger 2 tanks performed very well.

  Chinook Helicopters
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the position regarding the possible sale to the US of the Chinook HC3 helicopters originally ordered for the RAF. [108846]

  Mr. Ingram
  An approach was received from the United States last year about the possible purchase of the Chinook Mk3, with the United Kingdom in turn purchasing the MH47G. While informal discussions took place with the DoD, no formal approach has been received.

  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many of the Chinook HC3 helicopters ordered for the RAF(a) were delivered to the UK and (b) are flying in the UK. [108847]

  Mr. Ingram
  Of the eight Chinook Mk3 aircraft ordered for the RAF, seven were delivered to the United Kingdom during the period of July 2001 to May 2002. The remaining aircraft has been retained at Boeing Helicopters in Philadelphia, USA in support of a UK Chinook capability enhancement programme.

  Two of the Chinook Mk3s are flying in the UK as part of the Military Aircraft Release (MAR) Trials, another is currently being utilised at RAF Odiham for ground training.

  The remaining four in-country aircraft are awaiting the issue of MAR recommendations and a Release to Service.

  Depleted Uranium
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what response his Department will be making to the recent recommendations by the United Nations Environment Programme that guidelines be distributed immediately to military and civilian personnel, and to the general public, on how to minimize the risk of accidental exposure to depleted uranium. [111451]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence welcomes the Desk Study on Iraq from the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). In support of the UNEP work, MOD agrees that information should be released on how much depleted uranium (DU) has been used in the Iraq conflict and where. NATO provided information following use of DU in the Balkans conflict and the United Kingdom will do so for DU it has fired in its area of operations in Iraq.
  38W
  The MOD has already issued appropriate safety instructions to those UK troops who have been deployed to the Gulf. These safety instructions make clear that the risks from DU are far lower than those from other hazards arising from military operations and that combat and life-saving activities should never be delayed on account of concern over DU. The emphasis is on avoiding situations where DU dust may be encountered and on wearing appropriate respiratory protective equipment and protective clothing when it is necessary to enter potentially contaminated areas.

  DU particulate remains highly localised to the points of impact where DU munitions have struck hard targets: only in these small areas would DU levels be significant enough to necessitate precautions to prevent or reduce possible intakes. Increasing amounts of independent research by eminent scientists within groups such as the Royal Society DU Working Group and the United Nations Environment Programme support this view. As many defeated tanks as possible within the British area of operations are being cordoned off and kept undisturbed, until it is possible to send scientists to examine them.

  Firefighters Dispute
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many naval personnel man-hours have been expended as a result of the firefighters dispute; and what the estimated cost has been to the Royal Navy. [111308]

  Mr. Ingram
  A complete answer will not be available until the military commitment to the firefighters dispute has ceased. To date, we estimate that more than 6.4 million hours have been spent in directly providing and training for life-saving cover, with estimated materiel costs approaching £5 million.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which Royal Navy vessels are unavailable for deployment as a result of the firefighters dispute; and what plans there are to relieve their crews. [111309]

  Mr. Ingram
  The following vessels have the majority of their crews currently allocated to provide cover in the event of a firefighter; strike. This will prevent the vessels from deploying to previously programmed tasks until their crews are relieved or their employment on emergency fire cover is no longer required.

  HMS Cambeltown

  HMS Norfolk

  HMS St. Albans

  HMS Lancaster

  HMS Portland

  HMS Monmouth

  HMS Newcastle

  HMS Exeter (in dry dock for maintenance)

  HMS Glasgow

  HMS Middleton

  HMS Bridport

  HMS Dulverton

  We are exploring options to relieve some crews in the event that the firefighters dispute continues.
  39W
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent assessment he has made of the impact of the firefighters dispute upon(a) the operational capability and (b) the morale of the Royal Navy. [111335]

  Mr. Ingram
  Operational Capability of individual ships, air squadrons and Commando Force Elements is assessed monthly. Currently, a number of ships are undermanned because of the Royal Navys commitments to fire-fighting duties, although operational capability is being substantially maintained. The operational capability of air squadrons and Commando forces is not significantly affected.

  Firefighting commitments have affected the employment stability and personal plans of many of those involved, with inevitable consequences for morale in the short term. The effect in the longer term will depend upon the success of measures we have in place, for example, to restore the balance of separated service and recover missed training courses affecting career progression.

  Mount Pleasant Military Base
  Mr. Kevan Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the security vetting procedures are for non-UK and overseas territories citizens working at the Mount Pleasant military base in the Falkland Islands; and what the policy is on employing non-UK and overseas territories citizens on MoD contracts in the Falklands Islands. [93595]

  Mr. Ingram
  The security procedures for employing non-United Kingdom and overseas territories citizens at the Mount Pleasant military base in the Falkland Islands are the same as those that apply to Ministry of Defence posts elsewhere in the world. These involve a check of personal details, including any criminal convictions, and a counter-terrorist check. Subject to these procedures being completed satisfactorily, responsibility for the employment of non-UK and overseas territories citizens in the Falkland Islands is a matter for the employing contractor.

  Official History (Second Gulf War)
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to publish an official account of the role of(a) the Royal Navy, (b) the Royal Marines and (c) the Royal Fleet Auxiliary in the second Gulf war. [111339]

  Mr. Ingram
  As with previous major operations, the Ministry of Defence will in due course publish an official account of the United Kingdom involvement in current operations in the Gulf, including the roles played by the Royal Navy, Royal Marines and Royal Fleet Auxiliary. Final details have yet to be decided.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Kevan Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will reply to question number 93595, Session 2002–03, tabled for answer on 27 January. [112210]

  Mr. Ingram
  I have replied to my hon. Friend today.

  Procurement
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the progress of the procurement of the(a) aircraft carriers, (b) type 45 destroyer, (c) amphibious assault vessels and (d) heavy sealift ships; whether they are on schedule; and whether changes have been made to their capabilities. [110023]

  Mr. Ingram
  The information requested is as follows:

  Future Aircraft Carrier CVF

  Design activity on the Future Aircraft Carrier programme is continuing in parallel with our discussions with BAE Systems and Thales to determine the structure of the alliance for the programme. We expect to be in a position to formally commence the next phase of the assessment work shortly. Subject to the normal internal approvals we remain on course to award the main design and build contract for the carriers in spring 2004.

  The capability required for the carriers will not be formally approved until the award of the design and build contract. Up to that point the CVF user requirements are performance targets to focus the assessment phase work of the contractors.

  Type 45

  The Type 45 Destroyer programme remains on track to meet the approved in service date of November 2007.

  The baseline capability of the Type 45 has not changed since the main investment decision was made in July 2000. However, work continues on an Incremental Acquisition Plan (IAP) which will increase class capability as funding becomes available, technology develops and the requirement emerges. The first example of the successful implementation of the IAP is the inclusion of the Ultra MFS 7000 Sonar in the First of Class onward. At the time of the original approval it was envisaged that sonar would be fitted at build to Batch 2 (Hull 04 onwards) and that this capability would be retrofitted in the earlier vessels.

  Amphibious assault vessels

  Landing Ships Dock (Auxiliary)—construction of the first of the Bay Class Landing Ships Dock (Auxiliary), RFA Largs Bay is progressing satisfactorily, with the vessel programmed to complete in March 2004 although the shipyard have expectations to deliver earlier. She will then undergo a series of sea trials prior to acceptance into service in autumn 2004. Construction of the remaining three vessels is planned to complete during 2004 and 2005, followed by sea trials and acceptance into service. All four vessels are expected to meet their planned in service dates and there have been no changes to their planned capabilities.

  Landing Platform Dock (Replacement) programme—the Landing Platform Dock (Replacement) programme will provide two vessels for the Royal Navy, HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark. HMS Albion is nearing completion and is expected to achieve her currently planned in service date (ISD) of My 2003. Discussions continue with the prime contractor, BAE Systems, on agreeing a revised programme for HMS Bulwark. The ISDs originally planned were March 2002 for HMS Albion and March 2003 for HMS Bulwark. There have been no changes to their capability.
  41W
  Heavy Sealift ships

  With the delivery of the sixth ship to AWSR Shipping Ltd. on 17 April 2003, the full Roll-On Roll-Off Strategic Sealift Service, being provided under Private Finance Initiative arrangements, became available. This is 20 months earlier than the target date set by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Moonie) at the start of the competition and meets the date given by my on 6 March 2002, Official Report, column 326W. There has been no change to the capability.

  Meteorological Office
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what progress the Meteorological Office has made with its programme of upgrades to radar sites. [110386]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Met Office has carried out all the upgrades that were announced in its Scientific and Technical review 2001–02. These have been implemented throughout the United Kingdom radar network sites and are already delivering the expected benefits in terms of operational reliability and efficiency.

  In addition, the Met Office now has plans for some further improvements to follow on from the upgrades mentioned above. These include improving the data retrieval techniques and improved data handling. This will result in increased accuracy and reduction in false alarms. Multiple beam operations will be introduced, which will allow the Met Office to more reliably detect weather systems, despite the interruption caused by, for example, mountains blocking the path of the radar beam.

  The Met Office are also working closely with the Environment Agency to determine the technology that might be employed for the next generation of weather

  Outward secondments financial year 1997–98

  Band/Grade

  Parent company or organisation

  Secondment location (where known)

  Start date

  End date

  B2

  Babtie Group

  Scotland

  April 1997

  October 1998

  SCS

  GEC Marine

  North West

  June 1997

  June 1998

  B1

  AWE plc

  South

  November 1997

  November 1999

  C1

  Centre for Defence Studies

  London

  May 1997

  November 1999

  B2

  Northern Development Company

  North East

  July 1997

  July 2000

  C2 (IT)

  Bull Information Systems

  West

  September 1997

  September 2000

  CO2

  Bull Information Systems

  West

  September 1997

  September 2000

  CO2

  Bull Information Systems

  West

  September 1997

  September 2000

  C2(IT)

  Bull information Systems

  West

  September 1997

  —

  CO3

  Bull Information Systems

  West

  September 1997

  —

  B2

  Horizon IJVC Ltd./VSEL

  London

  September 1997

  September 1999

  SCS

  Thompson Marconi Sonar

  West

  November 1997

  November 1999

  B2

  Northern Development Company

  North East

  September 1997

  On-going

  D (Temp)

  Opps. for People with Disabilities

  West

  October 1997

  April 1999

  COS

  Bull Information Systems

  West

  October 1997

  October 2000

  D(IT)

  PSYBT

  Scotland

  October 1997

  October 1999

  B (Temp)

  Business in the Community (Opps2000)

  London

  October 1997

  February 2000

  C1 (IT)

  British Airways

  London

  December 1997

  March 2000

  C1

  Thompson Marconi Sonar

  South

  December 1997

  December 1999

  B2

  BAES

  South

  March 1998

  May 2000

  B1

  Rolls Royce & Assoc

  West

  March 1998

  March 2000

  B2

  Princes Youth Business Trust

  South

  November 1997

  November 2000

  C2

  PSYBT

  Scotland

  November 1997

  November 1997

  42W
  radars. There are opportunities to employ new techniques that can potentially identify both the quantity and the type of precipitation, which will lead to further improvements in accuracy in forecasting potential floods and other consequences of severe weather.

  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, whether the Meteorological Office intends to establish a new weather radar station to serve the south-east of Scotland and north-west of Scotland areas. [110385]

  Dr. Moonie
  Current weather radar coverage in Scotland is provided by three radars, one situated just south of Glasgow, one near Aberdeen and one on the Isle of Lewis.

  The Met Office is in discussion with the Scottish Executive and a windfarm developer over plans to site a windfarm around the Glasgow radar. Were the windfarm to go ahead it would unacceptably compromise the performance of the radar and negate its contribution to the severe weather service for Scotland. A potential solution being considered includes removal of the current Glasgow radar installation and the construction of two new radar sites to maintain coverage of the south-east of Scotland area.

  Secondments
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many civil servants have been seconded from his Department to(a) the private sector, (b) NGOs and (c) other, broken down by (i) grade of civil servants seconded, (ii) location and (iii) dates of secondments, in each year since 1997–98. [108078]

  Dr. Moonie
  Information available on personnel seconded from my Department is as follows:
  43W

  1998–99

  Band/Grade

  Parent company or organisation

  Secondment location (where known)

  Start date

  End date

  B1

  Rolls Royce & Assoc

  West

  April 1998

  April 2000

  C1

  Bristol & Avon Enterprise Agency

  West

  April 1998

  April 2001

  C2 (P/T)

  PYBT

  South

  January 1999

  October 1999

  B2

  Close Brothers

  London

  January 1999

  March 2001

  C1

  QinetiQ

  South

  May 1998

  June 2002

  SCS(Temp)

  Vauxhall Motors

  —

  June 1998

  March 2000

  SCS (Temp)

  GEC Marconi

  —

  June 1998

  May 2000

  C1

  GEC Marconi

  —

  August 1998

  July 2000

  C2

  EMS

  —

  August 1998

  December 2001

  D

  BAES

  South

  September 1998

  September 2000

  SCS (Temp)

  Barr and Stroud

  —

  October 1998

  October 2000

  C1

  Lockheed March tin

  —

  October 1998

  February 2002

  D

  Royal Liverpool University Hospitals

  North West

  November 1998

  August 1999

  C2

  DIC

  London

  December 1998

  December 1999

  C2

  DML Royal Dockyard

  —

  January 1999

  May 2000

  SCS

  Marconi Electronic Systems

  South East

  March 1999

  June 2000

  C1

  Employment Opportunities

  —

  August 1998

  August 2001

  SCS

  Business in the Community

  —

  September 1998

  March 2002

  CMP

  Warwick Health Authority

  Midlands

  February 1999

  August 1999

  Outward secondments financial year 1999–2000

  Band/Grade

  Parent company or organisation

  Secondment location (where known)

  Start date

  End date

  SCS

  Thomson CSF

  South East

  April 1999

  April 2002

  B1

  BAE Systems

  South East

  May 1999

  June 2003

  C2

  Business Enterprise Scotland

  —

  June 1999

  On-going

  D

  BAE Systems

  South

  July 1999

  December 2002

  SCS

  GEC Marconi

  —

  July 1999

  July 2001

  SCS

  Northrop Gruman

  USA

  October 1999

  March 2001

  SCS

  Raytheon Systems Co

  USA

  October 1999

  October 2002

  C1

  Renishaws

  —

  November 1999

  February 2003

  C2

  BAE

  —

  January 2000

  January 2002

  C2

  BAE

  —

  January 2000

  January 2001

  B1

  Price Waterhouse Coopers

  London

  February 2000

  April 2001

  C2 (Temp)

  Bromley by Bow Centre

  London

  May 1999

  May 2002

  C2

  Employment Opportunities

  London

  May 1999

  August 2001

  C2

  Business Enterprise Scotland

  Scotland

  June 1999

  May 2001

  C2

  Business in the Community

  East

  July 1999

  June 2001

  D

  Employment Opportunities for People with Disabilities

  West

  August 1999

  March 2001

  D

  Employment Opportunities for People with Disabilities

  —

  August 1999

  June 2002

  SCS

  Worldaware

  London

  December 1999

  December 2001

  C1 (Temp)

  The Princes Trust

  London

  February 2000

  February 2002

  B2

  Employment Opportunities

  Bath

  March 2000

  March 2002

  B2

  Bromley by Bow

  London

  May 1999

  May 2003

  E1

  TUC

  NW England

  June 1999

  June 2000

  2000–01

  Band/Grade

  Parent company or organisation

  Secondment location (where known)

  Start date

  End date

  C2

  Crime Concern

  London

  April 2000

  April 2002

  SCS

  Thompson-CSF Plc

  London

  May 2000

  May 2002

  D

  GSE Improvement Engineer

  Bristol

  June 2000

  August 2001

  C2

  The Princes Trust

  West

  July 2000

  March 2003

  B1

  Wiltshire CC

  —

  July 2000

  May 2001

  COS

  Defence Industry Council

  London

  September 2000

  December 2000

  B2

  Matra BAE Dynamics

  —

  October 2000

  October 2002

  E1

  TUC

  North West

  October 2000

  October 2001

  B2

  WS Atkins PLC

  —

  January 2001

  January 2004

  D

  PSYBT

  Scotland

  December 2000

  December 2002

  FSO

  SERCO

  North East

  October 2000

  April 2001

  C2

  Business in the Community

  London

  November 2000

  July 2001

  C2/Lecturer

  Employment Opportunities

  South

  January 2001

  March 2003

  C1

  GEC Marconi

  —

  February 2001

  January 2002

  E1

  EMS

  —

  February 2001

  February 2004

  44W

  45W

  2000–01

  Band/Grade

  Parent company or organisation

  Secondment location (where known)

  Start date

  End date

  B1

  BAE Systems

  —

  March 2001

  March 2002

  C1

  Renishaws

  —

  March 2001

  February 2002

  C1

  Renishaws

  —

  March 2001

  February 2002

  C1

  ACIS

  —

  March 2001

  March 2004

  C2

  Haslar QinetiQ

  —

  March 2001

  March 2003

  D

  EMS

  —

  March 2001

  March 2004

  B2/7

  Crime Concern

  Swindon

  April 2000

  June 2001

  D C2 wef Nov 2000

  PSYBT

  Scotland

  June 2000

  June 2002

  C1

  Business in the Community

  London

  July 2000

  On-going

  C1

  Crime Concern

  —

  February 2001

  April 2002

  C1

  The Princes Trust

  —

  March 2001

  On-going

  C1

  The Princes Trust

  —

  September 2000

  March 2002

  Snr Lec

  UCL

  London

  September 2000

  September 2002

  2001–02

  Band/Grade

  Parent company or organisation

  Secondment location (where known)

  Start date

  End date

  SCS

  Electronic Data Systems Ltd.

  London

  April 2001

  April 2003

  B2

  BAE Airbus UK

  —

  April 2001

  April 2003

  FSO

  SERCO

  NE England

  April 2001

  September 2001

  C1

  Brave Enterprise Agency

  —

  April 2001

  On-going

  C1

  BAE Systems

  Farnborough

  May 2001

  May 2003

  C1

  Renishaws

  —

  May 2001

  February 2002

  C1

  ESRI(UK)

  Aylesbury

  June 2001

  June 2002

  D

  BMT

  —

  June 2001

  June 2002

  D

  Royal & Sun Alliance

  SE England

  September 2001

  March 2002

  B2

  BMT

  —

  October 2001

  October 2004

  C1

  BAE Systems

  —

  October 2001

  October 2003

  E1

  DML

  —

  October 2001

  October 2003

  C1

  Defence Industries

  —

  October 2001

  September 2002

  B1

  Eurofighter

  —

  December 2001

  December 2004

  C2

  EMS

  —

  December 2001

  December 2004

  C1

  Amey Rail

  Bristol

  February 2002

  February 2003

  D

  BAE Systems

  —

  February 2002

  June 2002

  Brigadier

  General Dynamics

  —

  March 2002

  March 2004

  C1

  Princes Trust

  South East

  March 2002

  March 2003

  SCS

  Thales Underwater Systems

  France

  March 2002

  March 04

  B2

  Age Concern

  Somerset

  July 2001

  July 2003

  C2 (Temp)

  Employment Opportunities

  London

  August 2001

  August 2003

  C2 (Temp)

  Employment Opportunities

  London

  September 2001

  May 2003

  B1

  The Princes Trust

  SE England

  October 2001

  October 2003

  C2

  Business in the Community

  —

  November 2001

  November 2003

  SCS

  PSYBT

  Glasgow

  January 2002

  January 2004

  C1

  Youth Sports Assoc

  Leicester

  May 2001

  May 2003

  C2

  Surrey Hampshire Borders NHS Trust

  Farnham

  May 2001

  March 2002

  Lecturer

  University of Wales

  —

  September 2001

  January 2002

  SCS

  Cranfield University

  Bedfordshire

  September 2001

  September 2004

  Teacher

  Lincolnshire County Council

  NE England

  September 2001

  March 2003

  B2

  WIG

  London

  January 2002

  January 2003

  2002–03

  Band/Grade

  Parent company or organisation

  Secondment location (where known)

  Start date

  End date

  D

  DPMT

  —

  April 2002

  April 2004

  D (T&G)

  BAE Systems

  Farnborough

  May 2002

  March 2003

  C1

  UKCeb

  —

  June 2002

  December 2003

  B1

  Rolls-Royce

  —

  July 2002

  July 2004

  B1

  Thales, France

  —

  July 2002

  July 2004

  D

  DPMT

  —

  July 2001

  July 2004

  C1

  AWE

  —

  August 2002

  August 2004

  SCS

  BAE Systems

  Farnborough

  October 2002

  April 2003

  C2

  BAE Systems

  —

  November 2002

  November 2003

  C2

  Lloyds Register

  —

  November 2002

  November 2004

  C1

  BAE Systems

  —

  January 2003

  January 2004

  46W

  47W

  2002–03

  Band/Grade

  Parent company or organisation

  Secondment location (where known)

  Start date

  End date

  B2

  Lloyds Register

  —

  March 2003

  March 2005

  Captain RN

  BAE Systems

  —

  March 2003

  March 2005

  C2

  Commonwealth Games

  Manchester

  May 2002

  August 2002

  D

  Commonwealth Games

  Manchester

  June 2002

  August 2002

  SCS

  Employment Opportunities

  London

  July 2002

  July 2004

  C1

  The Princes Trust

  Glasgow

  August 2002

  August 2004

  D

  CSSC Sports & Leisure

  Eastern Regions

  August 2002

  August 2005

  C1

  Defence Industries Council

  —

  September 2002

  September 2004

  C1

  Forum for the Future

  Gloucester

  October 2002

  October 2004

  C1

  Bromley by Bow Centre

  London

  October 2002

  November 2004

  C2

  Royal Star & Garter Home

  Surrey

  December 2002

  May 2003

  C1

  Employment Opportunities for People with Disabilities

  —

  December 2002

  December 2004

  C1

  Employment Opportunities for People with Disabilities

  —

  December 2002

  December 2004

  SCS

  Royal Institute of International Affairs

  London

  September 2002

  September 2004

  Teacher

  Avon Community School

  USA

  September 2002

  June 2003

  NHS Grade

  City University London

  London

  October 2002

  June 2003

  E1

  TUC Learning Services NW

  Liverpool

  October 2002

  May 2003

  SCS

  Bromley Primary Care Trust

  Farnborough

  January 2003

  January 2006

  Stevens Inquiry
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many employees are suspended as a result of preliminary conclusions of investigations being conducted by Sir John Stevens. [111849]

  Mr. Ingram
  None.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what instructions were received by Sir John Waters from Sir Hugh Annesley concerning co-operation with the Stevens Inquiry; and if he will place a copy of the instructions in the Library. [111853]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Police investigation under Sir John Stevens is continuing. I am therefore withholding the information requested under section 4a of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many individuals have(a) died and (b) been injured as a result of collusion with loyalist paramilitary groups, as identified in the report of Sir John Stevens. [112275]

  Mr. Ingram
  Sir John Stevens overview and recommendations published on 17 April 2003 made clear that his enquiries and specific criminal investigations are continuing and that his recommendations cover the operations of all security forces in Northern Ireland. Thus it would be improper for the Ministry of Defence to comment.

  Warships
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Sonar 2087 sets(a) have been and (b) are scheduled to be ordered for Royal Navy vessels; and how many vessels, broken down by class, are to be fitted with them. [111311]

  Mr. Ingram
  Six Sonar 2087 ship sets have been ordered and a further six are planned to be ordered. It is planned to fit all 12 to Type 23 Frigates. There are at present no plans to fit Sonar 2087 to any other Royal Navy vessels.
  48W
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for the continuation in service of each of the(a) batch 3 Type-22 and (b) Type-23 frigates. [111315]

  Mr. Ingram
  At present the Royal Navys Type 22 and Type 23 Frigates are scheduled to remain in service until around the middle of the next decade from which point they will be progressively withdrawn.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the(a) destroyers and (b) frigates which (i) are and (ii) are not fully operational together with the reasons for non-availability of each of the non-operational vessels. [111318]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Royal Navy has 31 frigates and destroyers, of which 26 (± 1) are normally folly operational in Fleet time and available for tasking, and five in deep maintenance. Additionally, HMS Nottingham is currently being repaired following her grounding in July 2002.

  (i) Frigates and destroyers available for tasking are:

  Destroyers

  HMS Cardiff

  HMS Newcastle

  HMS Glasgow

  HMS Southampton

  HMS Liverpool

  HMS Manchester

  HMS Edinburgh

  HMS York

  49W
  Frigates

  HMS Cornwall

  HMS Cumberland

  HMS Chatham

  HMS Norfolk

  HMS Argyll

  HMS Marlborough

  HMS Lancaster

  HMS Iron Duke

  HMS Westminster

  HMS Northumberland

  HMS Richmond

  HMS Grafton

  HMS Sutherland

  HMS Somerset

  HMS Kent

  HMS Portland

  HMS St. Albans

  50W
  (ii) Frigates and destroyers not available for tasking are:

  Reason for non-availability

  Destroyers

  HMS Exeter

  Upkeep maintenance in dry dock

  HMS Gloucester

  Just started conducting Sea Acceptance Trails

  HMS Nottingham

  Dry dock undergoing repair work following grounding

  Frigates

  HMS Cambeltown

  Nearing completion of Sea Acceptance Trials

  HMS Monmouth

  Mid-way through Sea Acceptance Trials

  HMS Montrose

  Upkeep maintenance in dry dock

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what lessons he has drawn from Royal Navy operations in the Gulf in respect of(a) the number of escort vessels required to safeguard large units and (b) tactics to ensure security against suicide attacks against warships. [111332]

  Mr. Ingram
  A process is in hand to gather all the lessons learned from recent Royal Navy operations and the conflict in the Gulf region.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Broadband
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills by when he expects all schools in England to have broadband internet access; and what steps he is taking to bring this about. [112850]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Prime Minister has set a target for all schools to be connected to broad band by 2006. DfES is working with the Regional Broadband Consortia, LEAs and schools to ensure this target is achieved. Typically DfES would expect primary schools to be connected at a minimum of 2 Megabits per second (2Mbps) and secondary schools at 8 Mbps.

  Broadband connectivity is being rolled out through the 10 Regional Broadband Consortia for England, in conjunction with member LEAs. The Department is also working with a range of partners including telecoms companies and other Government Departments to identify other cost effective ways of providing broadband for schools.

  Disciplinary Methods
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what disciplinary methods newly-qualified teachers are(a) encouraged to use and (b) discouraged from using; and what guidance is available from the Department. [111650]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Teacher Training Agencys standards for initial teacher training and induction require all new teachers to be equipped with a range of strategies to support and improve pupil behaviour. It is for individual teachers, acting within law and in line with the school behaviour policy, to determine which methods to use in particular circumstances.

  We provided guidance to schools on drawing up and implementing effective behaviour policies in Social Inclusion: Pupil Support, published in 1999. We are investing nearly £470 million over the next three years in the national behaviour and attendance strategy, which will among other things, provide further advice and training to support the development and consistent implementation of whole school behaviour policies by all secondary school staff, including newly-qualified teachers.

  Disruptive Students
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the performance of behaviour improvement programme experts in addressing disruptive students. [111649]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Behaviour Improvement Programme (BIP) currently runs in 61 LEA areas, and involves extra funding for measures to tackle behaviour and attendance issues in schools where they present a significant threat to standards. Participating schools and authorities have used the funding to provide a range of additional staff including professionals working as 52W
  part of school-based multi-agency teams, and dedicated staff to mentor and support pupils with problems. Additional funding has also been used to enable a member of the senior management team to focus on whole school behaviour and attendance issues.

  Early findings from the two-year independent evaluation of BIP show classroom disruption, as measured by exclusions, decreasing. Further results will allow us to judge which staff and which models of intervention had the most impact on the target group.

  Education Act
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many schools have applied to the Department for power to innovate as a result of the Education Act 2002; and if he will list the areas of innovation applied for by each school. [112854]

  Mr. Miliband
  There have been two formal applications to use the power to innovate, both of which have been approved. Both schools that applied were reorganising their school day and applied for exemption from the Changing of School Session Times (England) Regulations 1999 in order to change the timing and length of their school days mid-way through the year.

  As well as these two formal applications, the Innovation Unit has provided advice to schools and LEAs on a whole range of inquiries about using the power to innovate and making use of the existing freedoms and flexibilities that are available to schools. (In a number of cases, schools that have contacted the Unit did not realise the extent of the freedoms and flexibilities that are already available and that they did not need the power to innovate to achieve their aims).

  The Unit does not keep a detailed list of all the inquiries that it receives, as many are informal discussions that members of the Unit have with schools and LEAs.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many schools have applied for earned autonomy as a result of the Education Act 2002; and if he will list the reasons for the application in each case. 112855]

  Mr. Miliband
  Schools are not currently eligible to apply, as the relevant provisions of the Education Act 2002 have not yet been commenced and the necessary regulations have not yet been made.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many applications he has received for the establishment of academies as a result of the Education Act 2002; and if he will list for each application(a) the principal sponsors and (b) whether the application has been successful. [112856]

  Mr. Miliband
  We have received 17 formal expressions of interest to establish an academy under
  53W
  Section 482 of the Education Act 1996 as amended by the Education Act 2002. These are detailed in the table. They do not include expressions of interest to establish city academies which were received prior to the commencement of the relevant sections of the Act.

  LEA

  (a) Principal

  (b) Status

  Croydon

  Lord Harris of Peckham

  Approved

  Kensington and Chelsea

  Martyn Arbib

  Approved

  Greenwich

  The Archdiocese of Southwark

  Approved

  Hackney

  Not yet announced

  Approved

  Lewisham

  The De La Salle Brothers

  Approved

  Lewisham

  The Haberdashers Livery Company

  Approved

  Westminster

  Chelsfield plc

  Approved

  Westminster

  Not yet announced

  Approved

  Doncaster

  Not yet announced

  Under current consideration

  Kent

  Not yet announced

  Under current consideration

  Peterborough

  Not yet announced

  Under current consideration

  Solihull

  Not yet announced

  Under current consideration

  Leicester

  Not yet announced

  Referred for further development

  Sheffield

  Not yet announced

  Referred for further development

  Bexley

  No sponsor

  Not approved

  Bristol

  No sponsor

  Not approved

  Portsmouth

  No sponsor

  Not approved

  EU Committees
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list the names, titles and grades of the officials who sit on the EU Co-ordination Group to promote uniformity of application of the general system for the recognition of higher education diplomas (first general system), the number of times and the dates on which it has met since January 2002, the agenda items it has considered since January 2002, the decisions it has made since January 2002 and the means used to communicate these decisions to the House. [110501]

  Ms Hewitt
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Department of Trade and Industry is represented in discussions at the EU Co-ordinators meetings on the first general system by the UK Co-ordinator for Directive 89/48, a post currently divided between two Range 8 government officials.

  The mandate for the Co-ordination Group of the first general system directive can be found in Article 9 (2) of Directive 89/48 EEC:
  A co-ordinating group shall be set up under the aegis of the Commission, composed of the co-ordinators appointed by each Member State or their deputies and chaired by a representative of the Commission.

  The group normally meets twice yearly. However, this has not been the case in the last year as work on enlargement of the EU has meant that meetings of this group have had to be postponed. The only meeting held since January 2002 was on 9 July 2002. The next meeting will take place on 25 June 2003.

  The main issues considered by the last meeting in July 2002 were:
  The proposed reform of the recognition of professional qualifications which will simplify and consolidate the legislation in this area
  State of accession negotiations
  Entry into force of an agreement which extends the provisions of the first general system to Switzerland
  54W
  Three academies are currently open, a further nine will open in September 2003. 12 academies are currently in development, and will open in 2004 or 2005, which were announced prior to the 2002 Education Act and are not included in the following table.
  Notification of the measures transposing Directive 99/42
  Discussion of the aew SOLVIT system, a mechanism for effective problem solving (including mutual recognition of qualifications problems) in the Internal Market
  A pilot project to examine and assist physiotherapists working in other Member States
  The use and legitimacy of bi-lateral agreements between various Member States for specific professions
  Discussion of a new, computerised system to assist the health professions.

  The main purpose of this committee is not decision making but:
  to facilitate the implementation of this Directive,
  to collect all useful information for its application in Member States.
  The group may be consulted by the Commission on any changes to the existing system that may be contemplated.

  Together with member states, the Commission is currently conducting a review to bring existing legislation on the conduct of comitology committees into line with Council Decision 1999/468/EC, to simplify the requirements for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission.

  As an obligation to this Decision, the Commission undertook to publish an annual report on the working of committees. The first report was deposited in the Libraries of both Houses on 26 February 2002 (Commission Document 5685/02).

  As part of the review process, the UK Government have encouraged the Commission to produce and maintain an electronic database of every comitology committee, its agendas and recent actions, to be accessible through its website.

  EU Directives
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list the EU Directives and Regulations which have been implemented by his Department since 17 April 2002. [106826]
  55W
  Margaret Hodge
  Since 17 April 2002, the Department for Education and Skills has implemented one Directive:Directive 2001/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 May 2001 amending Council Directives 89/48/ EEC and 92/51/EEC on the second general system for the recognition of professional qualifications and Council Directives 77/452/EEC, 77/453/EEC, 78/ 686/EEC, 78/687/EEC, 78/1026/EEC, 78/1027/EEC, 80/154/EEC, 80/155/EEC, 85/384/ EEC, 85/432/EEC, 85/433/EEC and 93/16/EEC concerning the professions of nurse responsible for general care, dental practitioner, veterinary surgeon, midwife, architect, pharmacist and doctor.

  EC Regulations are, in general, directly applicable in the member states, without the need for further incorporation into national law. However, some Regulations require UK measures to make them workable and enforceable. Some Regulations enact small or technical amendments. As far as we have been able to verify, the Department for Education and Skills has had no Regulation for implementation since 17 April 2002.

  Examination Results
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list the local education authorities in the(a) first decile and (b) tenth decile for results at (i) Key Stage 2, (ii) Key Stage 3 and (iii) GCSEs in each year since 1997. [110122]

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

  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of pupils in England achieving GCSEs in(a) mathematics and (b) English achieved grades A or above in (i) the best peforming local education authority and (ii) the worst performing local education authority in the last year for which figures are available. [110192]

  Mr. Miliband
  The percentages of pupil achieving A or above at GCSE in(a) Mathematics and (b) English in the highest and lowest performing LEAs are shown in the following tables:

  Local education authority

  Percentage of Pupils achieving grade A or above GCSE in 2002

  Maths

  (i) Highest percentage Sutton

  29.5

  (ii) Lowest percentage Knowsley

  3.1

  English

  (i) Highest percentage Sutton

  27.8

  (ii) Lowest percentage Knowsley

  4.3

  Graduate Incomes
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether he plans further studies on the 56W
  comparative lifetime incomes of graduates and non-graduates, with particular reference to (a) courses studied and (b) subsequent sector of employment. [110914]

  Margaret Hodge
  I have no immediate plans to produce estimates of the lifetime incomes or premiums of graduates broken down by courses studied and subsequent sector of employment. There are, however, plans to publish work later in the year which explores the variation in graduate lifetime earnings by type of institution attended.

  As we make clear in the recent White Paper, those with higher education qualifications earn on average around 50 per cent. more than those who do not. The White Paper also refers to other well-founded research evidence which shows that there is substantial variation in the percentage returns to higher education by subject of degree1, and there will inevitably be variations in graduate earnings by sector of employment.
  1 For example, see Walker and Zhu (2002), The Returns to Education: Evidence from the Labour Force Survey.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has to improve access to higher education courses other than foundation or first degrees for those from less privileged backgrounds. [110059]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  We have introduced a wide range of measures to encourage wider participation in higher education at both undergraduate and postgraduate level, such as the child care grant, the disabled students allowance and funds to create 1,000 new academic fellowships for postgraduates.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what evidence he has collated on the fairness of existing higher education admissions systems. [110882]

  Margaret Hodge
  I refer the hon. Member to The Future of Higher Education (Cmd 5735) and Widening Participation in Higher Education, both of which are available in the Library.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what credit will be given to efforts by an individual higher education institution to encourage wider participation by students in their area, notwithstanding that some may attend institutions elsewhere. [110926]

  Margaret Hodge
  Many universities and colleges are already engaged in partnership work with schools designed to raise levels of participation in higher education generally, including through the Departments Aimhigher programme. These activities would be included in the relevant access agreements.

  Local Education Authorities
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what contracts have been entered into by his Department for research into the performance of selective local education authority areas; and if he will give the(a) terms of reference and (b) costs in each case. [112742]
  57W
  Mr. Miliband
  The Department has not commissioned any specific research into the performance of selective local education authorities. However, we are aware of various research which has been published by others, and continue to note the conclusions reached.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the estimated level of saving to the Department is from the use of market testing in 2002–03. [107770]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  In 2002–03 my Department did not carry out any market testing.

  My Department takes a rigorous approach to ensuring the efficiency and effectiveness of our operations, including an analysis of whether functions could be delivered by, or with, other partners including the private sector. Private sector organisations are currently, and will continue to be, key partners in education and skills delivery.

  Microsoft Schools Agreement
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when he expects to conclude a new schools agreement with Microsoft. [112432]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Microsoft and the Department have been working together since last summer to reach an agreement on a way of reducing the cost of licences to schools. This has included work via our agency BECTA on clarifying current arrangements so that schools can make appropriate decisions on the best value for them. I had a meeting with Microsoft officials on 9 April and I am currently awaiting Microsofts response to the issues raised.

  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what effect the announcement of an Office of Fair Trading inquiry into the existing Microsoft Schools Agreement will have on negotiations about a new schools agreement between his Department and Microsoft. [112434]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Department will cooperate fully with the OFT, and will monitor closely the progress of the inquiry. In the meantime we will continue to work with Microsoft to reach an agreement on a way of reducing the cost of licences to schools.

  Office for Fair Access
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the annual(a) staffing and (b) running costs of the proposed Office for Fair Access to higher education will be. [110885]

  Margaret Hodge
  Staffing and running costs have yet to be determined and will be appropriate to the task. It will not be a large office.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what arrangements will be made for liaison between the Office for Fair Access and HEFCE in the collection and analysis of data on admissions and non-completion of courses. [110915]
  58W
  Margaret Hodge
  Details of the arrangements on data collection by the Office for Fair Access with and its relationship with HEFCE are set out in Widening Participation in Higher Education available in the library

  We have reflected on how best to take action to bear down on non-completion and decided that the work should be undertaken by HEFCE rather than OFFA.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether the proposed Office for Fair Access will be required(a) to report annually on overall achievements of the higher education sector in improving access and (b) to preserve confidentiality of their dealings with individual institutions in connection with the implementation of their access agreements. [110927]

  Margaret Hodge
  Details of the reporting arrangements are set out in Widening Participation in Higher Education, available in the Library. Subject to parliamentary approval of the relevant legislation, my right hon. Friend will issue more detailed guidance to the Office for Fair Access later.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what safeguards will be introduced(a) to ensure the independence of the proposed Office for Fair Access from HEFCE and (b) to define the financial and administrative relations between them. [110929]

  Margaret Hodge
  We have made it clear that the head of the proposed Office for Fair Access (OFFA) will exercise his or her independent judgement. This will be enshrined in legislation. OFFA will supported by, but separate from, HEFCE.

  Pupils Sugar Intake
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment his Department has made of the effect of sugar intake on the teachability of children in classrooms. [111467]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The Department for Education and Skills has not undertaken an assessment of this type.

  Staff Pay Awards
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what funding, as a proportion of costs, has been made available to(a) primary and (b) secondary schools to meet (i) teachers pay awards, (ii) non-teaching staff pay awards, (iii) the national insurance increase, (iv) increased pensions costs, (v) grade drift arising from pay spine compression, (vi) pay inflation caused by recruitment and retention pressures and (vii) threshold payments in schools within the Essex LEA. [108476]

  Mr. Miliband
  The total national cash increase in revenue funding for schools and LEAs in 2003–04 is £2.7 billion. In 2003–04 the cash increase in Education Formula Spending and School Standards Direct Grant is 11.6 per cent; this is £250 million greater than the 10.5 per cent. pressures due to pay, pensions, inflation and ending grants. It is not possible to identify these costs at the level of the individual local education authority since we do not collect information on the
  59W
  distribution of staff salaries by individual LEA. However, we appreciate that for some authorities, such as Essex that received low education formula funding increases coupled with reductions in grant through the Standards Fund, low budget increases for schools may result. In the light of representations, we have announced an additional £28 million in grant to ensure that the effective increase for all LEAs between 2002–03 and 2003–04 was no less than 3.2 per cent. per pupil for all authorities, taking account of specific grants as well as EFS. Essexs share is £1.164 million. As far as threshold payments are concerned, the full cost including on-costs is covered by 100 per cent. grant on a demand-led basis.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State published on 2 May an analysis of all LEAs schools for 2003–04. The analysis raises issues and the Department has written to the Assistant Director of Education asking about these and other issues. The authority has in particular been asked to explain why its central budget is increasing faster than its budget for schools, why it has significant funds intended for schools but not yet allocated to individual schools and why the range of increases for the authoritys individual schools is so wide. The authority has until 12 May to respond.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when he will answer the question from the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham on the average level of debt accumulated by university students, ref 106593. [112529]

  Margaret Hodge
  A reply was issued on 8 May.

  Teachers Pay
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has to harmonise pay grades between teachers in further education colleges and schools. [110070]

  Margaret Hodge
  Teachers in maintained schools are subject to national school teachers pay and conditions. Further Education (FE) colleges are run by independent corporations established under the Further Education and Higher Education Act 1992 and there is no national pay structure in place. It is for each FE college to agree pay scales and conditions of employment with its staff in the context of the overall resources available to it. There are no plans to change these arrangements.

  We have invested a significant amount of funding in the FE sector. Assumed total funding for FE colleges allocated to the LSC will increase by £1.2 billion in the three years to 2005–06, a 19 per cent. real terms increase. This funding provides the framework to allow FE colleges to make real progress on pay and pay structures and to narrow substantially the pay gap between general FE colleges and schools. We continue to work to deliver the Governments Manifesto commitment to bring up the level of funding for FE colleges towards that of school sixth forms.

  University Admissions
  Helen Southworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how he will measure the 60W
  effectiveness of universities in offering places to women and girls from lower income families equitably, according to their intellectual ability. [109519]

  Margaret Hodge
  As we have made clear in Widening Participation in Higher Education, we believe that all applicants to higher education should be treated fairly and on the basis of their merit and potential. We are not aware of any evidence which suggests that women are generally treated inequitably in the admissions process. Women are well represented in higher education. The participation rate for women aged under 21 in 2000 was 37 per cent., compared with 30 per cent. for men aged under 21. Although the bottom three social groups are under-represented in higher education, women of all age groups account for 53 per cent. of acceptances into higher education from these groups.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Asylum Accommodation Centres
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to announce his decision on whether he intends to apply for planning permission to develop an accommodation centre at the Daedalus site at Lee-on-the-Solent for political asylum seekers. [112370]

  Beverley Hughes
  Our assessment of this site is ongoing. I will make an announcement as soon as this process is complete and I have considered the assessment.

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people in asylum removal centres are not being detained pending removal. [112146]

  Beverley Hughes
  The information requested is not available and would be available only by examination of individual case-files at disproportionate cost.

  While our principal focus for the use of detention is in support of the removal of failed asylum seekers and others, we have made clear that there will continue to be a need to detain persons in other circumstances, specifically while identity and basis of claim are established, where there is a risk of absconding, or (in the case of straightforward asylum claims that can be decided quickly) as part of fast-track asylum procedures.

  Asylum Seekers
  Stephen Hesford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the operation of non-suspensive appeals for safe country asylum applications. [109651]

  Beverley Hughes
  Under provisions of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 which came into force on 7 November 2002, a claimant whose asylum or human rights claim has been refused and also certified as clearly unfounded may not appeal that refusal until they are outside the United Kingdom. The provisions are applied where the claimant is entitled to reside in one of the 17 countries listed at Section 94(4) of the Act.
  61W
  Claims from the initial 10 countries have fallen dramatically since the introduction of non-suspensive appeals, by around 85 per cent. compared with October 2002, based on early management information. The process has proved a considerable success.

  It is too early to comment upon the impact of the addition on 1 April to this list of Albania, Bulgaria, Jamaica, Macedonia, Moldova, Romania, and Serbia and Montenegro. However, early management information indicates that claims from these seven countries have fallen but it is too early to assess the overall impact.

  No appeals had been determined as at end December 2002 (the latest date for which published data are available). However, early management information shows that all appeals determined so far have been dismissed or withdrawn.

  We have used the established fast track process at the Oakington Reception Centre to decide claims rapidly and remove those whose claims have been refused and certified. The Court of Appeal found that the procedure at Oakington offers claimants a fair opportunity to demonstrate that their case is arguable.

  Claimants who are unsuitable for detention at Oakington, for whatever reason, have their claims decided in a non-detained process and, where appropriate, are subject to close contact management.

  Information on initial decisions on asylum applications is published quarterly. The next publication will cover the period up to March 2003.

  Margaret Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many replies to letters about asylum from the hon. Member for Luton, South have been outstanding for(a) one month, (b) three months, (c) six months, (d) 12 months and (e) more than 12 months; and which cases are involved in each instance. [110662]

  Beverley Hughes
  There are a total of 14 replies outstanding in response to letters from my hon. Friend on immigration matters. Of these, eight have been outstanding for less than one month; four for less than three months; and two for less than 12 months. This is an unacceptable standard of service and I will write to the hon. Member with details of the cases concerned as soon as possible.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information his Department(a) collects and (b) publishes on the number of children in asylum seeking families who are detained. [111262]

  Beverley Hughes
  Information on the numbers, ages and duration of detention of children who are detained as members of families is collected for internal management purposes but is not published.

  The published quarterly statistics record the number of people held solely under the 1971 Immigration Act at each immigration removal centre, and the number of these who have sought asylum at some stage. Information on the age of detainees is not yet available.
  62W
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers have gone missing after entering the country since 1 January 2001. [111300]

  Beverley Hughes
  I regret that the information requested is not available.

  Some asylum seekers leave the United Kingdom voluntarily; others may remain in the UK illegally. Applicants do not always inform the Immigration Service prior to leaving the UK. We are making substantial improvements in the area of contact management as detailed in the White Paper: Secure Borders, Safe Haven: Integration with Diversity in Modern Britain, paragraph 4.42. A robust new reporting regime is now being put in place.

  There is currently no official estimate of the number of people illegally present in the UK. Estimating the numbers of those illegally present is difficult because by definition, they fall outside of official statistics and are motivated to remain hidden. However, I have commissioned research into the feasibility of producing a reliable estimate.

  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applicants for asylum are resident in the London Borough of Redbridge. [111748]

  Beverley Hughes
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  The availability of information on the location of asylum seekers in the United Kingdom is currently linked to the support the asylum seeker receives. Asylum seekers in the United Kingdom either receive support from the National Asylum Support Service (NASS), local authorities or the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), or are supporting themselves.

  At the end of December 2002, 25 asylum seekers (including dependents) were being supported in NASS accommodation and 755 asylum seekers (including dependents) were in receipt of subsistence only support in the London Borough of Redbridge1.

  From the grant claims sent to the Home Office by local authorities, as at the end of December 2002, there were 625 asylum cases (comprising 340 individuals and 285 families) being supported by the London Borough of Redbridge Local Authority1. Asylum seekers are not necessarily resident in the local authority that supports them due to the voluntary dispersal programme which operated prior to NASS.

  No information is held centrally on the location of residence of asylum seekers supported by DWP or who support themselves.
  1 Figures have been rounded to the nearest five. These figures exclude cases where support has been ceased.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions his Department has with hospitals in which there are people seeking asylum in the UK who are receiving hospital treatment, with particular reference to those receiving medical treatment for HIV and Aids, before that person is moved to another area of the UK; and if he will make a statement. [112158]
  63W
  Beverley Hughes
  Only asylum seekers requesting that accommodation be provided are considered for dispersal. Dispersal is not automatic and the National Asylum Support Service (NASS) will consider any representations from or on behalf of an asylum seeker that they should not be dispersed. These representations can include requests from a hospital that an asylum seeker should not be dispersed because they are receiving medical treatment. All representations are carefully considered and, in making a decision on whether dispersal is nevertheless appropriate, NASS can take advice from Department of Health officials about availability of treatment in dispersal areas.

  Asylum seekers receiving medical treatment as an in patient are not considered for dispersal until they have been discharged from hospital.

  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he next plans to meet Scottish Executive Ministers to discuss the detention of children of asylum seekers in Dungavel Removal Centre. [112784]

  Beverley Hughes
  I have regular meetings with Scottish Ministers to discuss asylum and immigration issues and am also willing to meet when the need arises. Whilst there is no date set at present for a further meeting, I would be more than happy to arrange one if this is requested or should a need arise.

  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment has been made of alternatives to the detention of children of asylum seekers. [112785]

  Beverley Hughes
  Alternatives to detention are considered in every case. Each case, is considered on its merits and the presumption will always be in favour of granting temporary admission or release wherever possible. Very few families with children are detained and in each such case the decision to detain will not have been taken lightly or without consideration of alternatives.

  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what restrictions are placed on him by international law relating to the detention of children of asylum seekers in detention centres. [112786]

  Beverley Hughes
  The detention of children of asylum seekers in removal centres under Immigration Act powers is not in conflict with the requirements or obligations of international law.

  Asylum Support
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received about the Asylum Support (Amendment) (No.2) Regulations. [111728]

  Beverley Hughes
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 6 May 2003,Official Report, column 595W.

  Child Protection
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what structures are in place for, and what plans he has to improve, the exchange of information on child sex offenders between countries. [110781]
  64W
  Hilary Benn
  Since June 2001 sex offenders subject to the notification requirements of the Sex Offenders Act 1997 have been required to notify the police if they intend to travel abroad for eight days or more. The police can, and do, pass this information to other jurisdictions where they believe the offender may commit offences overseas.

  The meeting of G8 Ministers of Justice and Home Affairs on 5 May this year, discussed the implementation of the strategy against the sexual exploitation of children on the internet. The strategy includes objectives on collecting information, locating suspects and international co-operation, including the creation of an international image database that can be used to identify victims and persons suspected of paedophile acts. This is a major initiative which will assist police forces to combat the sexual exploitation of children on the internet.

  We are continuing to explore with our European partners how we might share information on sex offenders who travel within the European Union.

  Information relating to Scotland is a matter for Ministers in the Scottish Parliament. Information relating to Northern Ireland is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Child Witness Officer
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether there is a child witness officer available at every court; and if he will make a statement. [112107]

  Yvette Cooper
  I have been asked to reply.

  Each Crown court centre has a Child Liaison Officer, although in some courts the responsibilities will have been taken on by the new Witness Liaison Officers who were appointed in 2002. The Witness Service fulfils this role in the Magistrates courts.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to reply to the letter to him dated 11 March 2003 from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mrs. Natalia Belhka. [110609]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I wrote to my right hon. Friend on 8 May 2003.

  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to reply to the letter to him dated 10 February 2003 from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mr. Sheik Mohammad Kamal Uddin. [110610]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I wrote to my right hon. Friend on 8 May 2003.

  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to reply to the letter to him dated 11 March 2003 from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mrs. H. Abdul Wahed. [110611]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I wrote to my right hon. Friend on 8 May 2003.

  Counselling Services
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements are made in his Department to allow staff to access counselling services. [111933]

  Hilary Benn
  The Home Office Health and Welfare Service provides independent, confidential and non-judgmental advice, information and counselling to all staff in the core Home Office, the Forensic Science Service and the UK Passport Service. In cases where further assistance is required staff can be referred to accredited specialist counsellors. The Prison Service Staff Care and Welfare provides a similar service to all staff in the Prison Service.

  Employees may talk to their welfare officer about any concerns they may have, whether they are inside or outside the workplace. The service helps staff to deal with problems which may affect their performance or attendance and helps them to continue to remain effective at work.

  Criminal Justice Bill
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answer of 28 February 2003,Official Report, column 772W, on the Criminal Justice Bill, what research he used to reach his estimate of 1,000 additional prisoners. [109584]

  Hilary Benn
  A model was developed by the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate as part of the review of sentencing policy conducted by John Halliday (Making Punishments Work, published in July 2001). This model was then adapted for use in assessing the impact of the Criminal Justice Bill, focussing on those aspects of the reviews proposals that have been taken forward in the Bill, as well as additional proposals that have been developed following the publication of the review. The model considers the cost-benefits of the proposals, as well as the impacts on prison and probation workload. It uses published prison and probation statistics, and research evidence on the effectiveness of programmes in reducing re-offending. It is based on sentencing behaviour in 2000. The assumptions within the model were agreed with the relevant stakeholders such as the Prison Service, Probation Service and others. The projected net effect of implementation of the sentencing provisions in the Bill, of a small increase of about 1,000 in the prison population by 2009, was arrived at using the model. The impact is estimated to be about 500 once all the changes have been implemented and sufficient time has passed for their full effects to be seen.

  Drug-related Crime
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the cost of crimes committed as a result of drug addictions in the UK in each of the last five years. [111573]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  [holding answer 8 May 2003]: Recorded crime figures do not record whether an offence has been committed as a consequence of an offenders drug habits. Therefore it is not possible to make a direct assessment of the cost of crimes committed as a result of drug addiction.
  66W
  However, a recent study published by the Home Office provides estimates of the total economic costs of Class A drug use in 2000 in the range of £2.9 and £5.3 billion. These costs include those to the health service, courts, prisons and other parts of the criminal justice system. When social costs, such as the costs to the victims of drug-related crime, are added, the total rises to between £10.1 and £17.4 billion, with problematic drug users responsible for 99 per cent. of these costs.

  Extradition (USA)
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reason the draft agreements between the European Union and the United States on extradition and mutual legal assistance have been classified as confidential; and if he will withdraw his request for the parliamentary scrutiny committees to consider the documents in camera. [112155]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The decision to classify the draft EU-US judicial co-operation Agreements was taken by the General Secretariat of the Council, in line with the criteria set down in the Councils security regulations of 19 March 2001. It is normal practice for negotiations on third country agreements to be held in restricted session and for the accompanying documents to be classified. This is necessary in order to protect the negotiating positions of the parties.

  The Agreements were de-classified on 2 May and have now been deposited with the Scrutiny Committees. An accompanying Explanatory Memorandum is being prepared in the normal way. The decision to de-classify the text was not one which could be taken by the UK unilaterally but rather, in accordance with the Councils security regulations, required the agreement of all member states and the US.

  Forged Passports
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the number of forged passports in circulation in the UK. [112137]

  Beverley Hughes
  It is difficult to quantify the number of false passports circulating within the United Kingdom, given the nature of the problem.

  Forgery detection which is carried out by the Immigration and Nationality Directorates National Forgery Section (NFS). As part of a comprehensive brief addressing passport forgery, NFS conducts forgery detection training for all Immigration Service staff, ranging from basic training for new entrants, through intermediate to expert level. As a direct result of this training, a provisional total of 9,665 fraudulent documents were detected at UK ports of entry in 2002 (an increase of 46 per cent. over the 2001 figure). NFS also delivers training to the police, Customs and Excise, the DVLA and the Department for Work and Pensions. This in turn leads to substantial numbers of falsified documents being discovered within the United Kingdom and inhibits the adoption of false identities.

  Since October 2001, NFS has had a permanent presence at the main offices of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) in Croydon, following a pilot exercise which revealed large numbers of fraudulent

  67W
  documents being submitted in support of applications for leave to remain. As well as examining suspect documents on behalf of their colleagues in Croydon, NFS has also established a comprehensive training programme for caseworkers, resulting in the discovery of many more forged documents. Provisional figures for 2002 indicate that a total of 461 fraudulent documents was detected there, an increase of 28 per cent. over the figure for 2001.

  Work is now under way to ensure that the best use is made of biometric technology in travel documents, to combat identity fraud and facilitate the operation of border controls. Managers from NFS represent the United Kingdom at relevant international working groups, with the aim of securing art agreement on global interoperability of the appropriate technology.

  Immigration
  Kate Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when a constituent of the hon. Member for Vauxhall, ref G306128, will be sent(a) his status documents confirming his indefinite leave to remain in the UK, as indicated in letters to the hon. Member dated 21 November 2002 and 19 March 2003, and (b) the documents which he submitted to the Home Office in support of his application. [111039]

  Beverley Hughes
  I am pleased to inform my hon. Friend that Mr. Grant was issued with a letter confirming his grant of indefinite, leave to remain in the UK on 29 April 2003. The documents which he submitted in support of his application were returned with this letter.

  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases were referred to the MPs Hotline section of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate in each of the last 12 months. [111770]

  Beverley Hughes
  The number of inquiries received (including faxes) and dealt with by the MPs Hotline for each of the last 12 months is shown in the table:

  May 2002

  2,126

  June 2002

  2,184

  July 2002

  2,823

  August 2002

  2,872

  September 2002

  2,814

  October 2002

  2,294

  November 2002

  2,583

  December 2002

  2,237

  January 2003

  3,149

  February 2003

  3,017

  March 2003

  2,150

  April 2003

  2,055

  Naturalisation
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects the internal inquiries into naturalisation application B1090943, commenced on 21 September 2001, to be completed; and why these inquiries have been delayed. [111464]
  68W
  Beverley Hughes
  The inquiries have now been completed and we should be in a position to reach a decision soon. There has been no avoidable delay. Some cases take longer to resolve than others, depending upon the particular features of the case.

  Oakington Reception Centre
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he plans to amend the security arrangements at the Immigration Reception Centre, Oakington. [112425]

  Beverley Hughes
  UK Immigration Service staff are working with the operators of the Oakington Reception Centre, to ensure that the security arrangements at the centre remain robust, while ensuring that the residents can continue to live in a decent relaxed regime.

  Offence Categories
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in Home Office Statistical Bulletin 05/03, Table 2, in relation to the offence categories for which no adjusted figure is available, whether(a) the unadjusted figure is used to contribute to the adjusted totals and (b) the categories in question are excluded from the adjusted totals. [109563]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  In Table 2 of the Home Office Statistical Bulletin 05/03, recorded crime figures have been adjusted to take into account the impact of the National Crime Recording Standard (NCRS), which was adopted across all forces from April 2002. The NCRS has been implemented to help police forces adopt a more consistent and victim-focused approach to recording crime.

  It is important to note that the NCRS-adjusted figures for offence groups are estimates. These estimates have been calculated based on changes to the ratio of police recorded crimes and crime-related incidents brought to the attention of the police, before and after the introduction of the NCRS.

  The adjusted total recorded crime figure, published in Table 2 of the Home Office Statistical Bulletin 05/03, is a total for all recorded crime offences. (It therefore includes all the categories for which no adjusted figure is available, i.e. sexual offences, other thefts and handling, fraud and forgery, drug offences and other offences). NCRS adjustments made to the total recorded crime figure have been calculated using exactly the same methodology as the adjustments for the other offence groups in Table 2. The data used to calculate the adjusted total recorded crime figure are therefore not a sum of all the figures for the offence groups, it is a separate calculation. The adjustment for the total recorded crime figure is based on a return from forces asking separately (from the other offence categories), for total recorded crime and total crime-related incident data.

  The impact of the NCRS varies considerably across crime types. Currently, it is not possible to adjust the national data for the impact of the NCRS for certain crime types where police forces are unable to differentiate incidents, where numbers are too small, or where the nature of incident recording means that this

  69W
  measure is particularly unreliable as an indicator of underlying trends. However, these constraints do not apply when considering recorded crime as a whole.

  Parenting Programmes
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action his Department is taking to increase the availability of parenting classes in England and Wales. [110840]

  Hilary Benn
  Measures in the Criminal Justice Bill and the Anti-social Behaviour Bill will increase demand for parenting classes. Youth Offending Teams receive grants from the Youth Justice Board and prioritise in response to local demands. Parenting classes are delivered in response to parenting orders and on a voluntary basis. All Youth Offending Teams are expected to offer parenting classes or have plans for implementing a parenting service by April 2004. The Youth Justice Board is reviewing the provision of parenting programmes and this review will also extend to the Secure Estate where some parenting classes are already being delivered. The Home Office Family Support Grant provides £5.8 million a year to a range of voluntary organisations for parenting support, including parenting classes. Since 1999–2000 it has funded 108 organisations to deliver 182 different projects across England plus grants to the National Family and Parenting Institute, Parentline Plus, Home Start UK and the Parenting Education and Support Forum (which provides a range of services and support to other organisations that deliver parenting classes).

  In the 2002 Spending Review, the Government announced the creation of a new Parenting Fund worth £25 million (£5/10/10 million) over three years from 2003–04 for delivery of parenting support through the voluntary sector.

  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many parenting programmes are being provided in England and Wales in each county; what the cost is of each place on a parenting programme; and how many additional places on parenting programmes are going to be funded in(a) 2003–04 and (b) 2004–05. [110841]

  Hilary Benn
  Figures are not available for the number of parenting programmes being provided by county in England and Wales.

  The cost of each place on a parenting programme depends on various factors including the type of programme and the number of parents attending. The cost is currently estimated as approximately £750 per place on average but with expected increased volume of courses during next financial year this is estimated to fall to around £500 per place.

  Figures are not available for the number of additional places which will be funded in 2003–04 and 2004–05. The Youth Justice Board makes a general grant available to Youth Offending Teams which have to prioritise in response to local demands some of which will be driven by parenting orders others will be interventions including parenting contracts on a voluntary basis.
  70W
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many parents in England and Wales who have been ordered to attend parenting programmes are awaiting places on such courses. [110842]

  Hilary Benn
  This information is not available centrally. The normal process is that when a court considers making a parenting order it consults the Youth Offending Team and makes an order only if there is a local parenting scheme available.

  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many parenting orders have been issued in England and Wales in each year that they have been available. [110843]

  Hilary Benn
  Parenting orders were piloted between 30 September 1998 and 31 March 2000 during which 284 parenting orders were issued. Since then, the Youth Justice Board has been collating the figures by financial year, as shown in the table.

  Parenting orders made since April 2000

  April 2000 to March 2001

  979

  April 2001 to 2002

  1,216

  April to December 2002 (latest available figures)

  911

  Police
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what criteria he takes into consideration when determining whether special circumstances under the Police Reform Act 2002 enable special priority payments to be paid to more than 30 per cent. of any force. [112435]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The Special Priority Payment (SPP) Scheme was not introduced under the Police Reform Act 2002 but by agreement with all the main police organisations in the Police Negotiating Board (PNB). The Scheme was one of a number of ground-breaking reforms to police pay and conditions of service included in the PNB Agreement of 9 May 2002.

  Under the Agreement, PNB expected that no more than 30 per cent. of force strength should qualify for a SPP save in exceptional circumstances. A number of forces in the south east made out a case to have schemes covering up to 40 per cent. of force strength due to the particularly acute difficulties they were experiencing in retaining officers. Not all forces in the south east are experiencing such difficulties.

  Mr. Tom Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department from what sources of revenue the annual policing budget is drawn. [111162]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Policing revenue budgets are funded from the following sources:

  (a) Home Office Police Grant.

  (b) Revenue Support Grant and redistributed National Non Domestic Rates.

  (c) Specific grants for particular initiatives.

  (d) The element of local council tax raised through the police authority precept.

  (e) Police authorities reserves and locally generated income.

  Ports (Security)
  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what security measures are in place for the ports of(a) Grimsby, (b) Immingham, (c) Hull and (d) Goole. [111462]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  It is not the practice to disclose details of security measures.

  Refugees
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans are being made to reduce the percentage of refugees entering Europe who ultimately settle in the United Kingdom over the next decade. [111299]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Government are working on a number of measures to reduce the numbers of spontaneous arrivals of people seeking asylum in Europe and to address the problem of secondary movements of asylum seekers within the EU.

  Domestically, the measures in the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 will deter and prevent people who do not need international protection but lodge asylum applications in order to circumvent immigration controls, from entering the UK.

  Together with our European partners, the Government is active in numerous joint projects and operations to strengthen the EUs external borders. Stronger EU borders will have a significant impact on the numbers of illegal immigrants arriving in the UK. The first round of operations is currently being evaluated in order to set priorities for future action.

  The Government has also worked to secure a more effective mechanism to replace the Dublin Convention, determining which Member State is responsible for considering an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States of the EU. The Dublin II Regulation will enter into force in September this year. The Eurodac fingerprint database is now operational, and will provide much better evidence, to support the determination of responsibility. Together, the Dublin II regulation and the Eurodac system will enable the UK to effect the return of a greater number of asylum seekers to the Member State most responsible for their presence on EU territory.

  The UK has been active in negotiations to put in place minimum standards for reception conditions for asylum seekers, for asylum procedures and for qualification as a refugee across the EU. The proposed Qualification Directive, for example, will result in a more consistent interpretation of the definition of a refugee and ensure that each Member State accords refugees comparable rights and benefits. This should discourage those in genuine need of international protection from asylum shopping. The reduction of both the real and the perceived advantages of applying in certain Member States over others should deter secondary movements of asylum applicants within the EU.
  72W
  In the longer term, we believe that our proposals for zones of protection will make a significant contribution to better international management of refugees and asylum-seekers. These ideas are now being discussed with other Member States, the European Commission and United Nation High Commission for Refugees and we are encouraged by the support we have received to date. These zones are designed to improve the quality and availability of protection for refugees who need it, while ensuring we strengthen the management of our borders and can have proper control of who comes into the UK.

  Road Safety
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the policy of the Metropolitan police is on charging(a) victims and their families of road death or serious injury and (b) dependants for police reports, witness statements and collision investigation reports on such incidents in respect of incidents occurring (i) within the Metropolitan police area and (ii) partly within the Metropolitan police area and partly in neighbouring police authority areas. [111197]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  In each of the areas listed, the Metropolitan police follow the charging policy adopted by the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO). The ACPO standard requires the recovery of administration and reproduction costs applicable to all police records, including copies of road collision investigation reports.

  In cases involving serious road traffic incidents, local senior police officers have discretion to waive charges where, for example, payment would bring hardship or cause distress. The decision can also depend on the timing of the request and whether it comes from a third party. In some cases, the full circumstances of an incident may lead to a charge being levied.

  Disclosure of relevant police records to victims and dependants is clearly a sensitive issue. We will examine it carefully as part of pilot projects, due to commence later this year, on how best to meet the support needs of serious road crash victims.

  Street Crime (Redbridge)
  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on reducing street crime within the London borough of Redbridge. [1117451

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The Home Office has not commissioned any research which is specific to Redbridge. It has however commissioned a report on trends in crime statistics (including street crime) across London, which involves all the London boroughs. The results have not yet been evaluated.

  Theft Victims
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the circumstances in which police issue lost property numbers rather than crime numbers to victims of theft. [111463]
  73W
  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Prior to 2001 lost property numbers, rather than crime numbers, were issued by the police to members of the public who perceived themselves to be victims of theft but where there was insufficient evidence to show that a crime had been committed. The lost property numbers were issued primarily for insurance purposes.

  Since 2001 everyone who reports a theft to the police, whether real or perceived, should be issued with a crime number not a lost property number. This change occurred following a report from Her Majestys Inspectorate of Constabulary in July 2000 that set out the extent and causes of variations in police recording practices. One of the conclusions reached was that there was a need for all forces to have in place an accurate and ethical crime recording system.

  Whilst allegations which clearly have no basis in fact are now weeded out of the published recorded crime statistics, they all require initial recording as a crime, and a written justification if the matter is not pursued.

  Work-related Deaths
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to create a specialist police unit to investigate work-related deaths. [110827]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Within the context for policing in England and Wales, I have no plans to create a specialist police unit to investigate work-related deaths. However, the Health and Safety Executive, Crown Prosecution Service, the Association of Chief Police Officers, Local Government Association and British Transport Police have produced a revised protocol for investigating work related deaths. The protocol sets out the principles for effective liaison between the organisations responsible for investigating work related deaths in England and Wales

  Young Offenders Institutions
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what resettlement work is conducted with remand prisoners in young offenders institutions. [109603]

  Hilary Benn
  Resettlement work with remand prisoners in young offender institutions seeks to prevent the avoidable loss of accommodation, employment and family ties. Work is also undertaken to address education needs and drug misuse.

  Job centre Plus surgeries, providing benefit and employment advice and support to 18 to 20-year-olds on remand as well as sentenced prisoners, will be established in young offender institutions during 2003–04. The Youth Justice Board for England and Wales is seeking to improve resettlement work with remand prisoners aged 15 to 17 in young offender institutions through the provision of seconded youth offending team workers.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Anglo/US Discussions
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with members of the United States Administration regarding(a) Zimbabwe, (b) Iran, (c) North Korea and (d) Syria. [110588]

  Mr. Rammell
  Our policy toward both Iran and Syria has most recently been discussed with the US Administration in the context of the current crisis in Iraq. With regard to both, the UK remains committed to a policy of constructive and, where necessary, critical engagement, which allows us to support reform while maintaining a robust dialogue on issues of concern.

  We are in regular and close consultation with the US Administration on the issue of North Koreas nuclear programmes. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister discussed this with President Bush most recently on 26 March, and I visited Washington for talks with senior Administration colleagues at the beginning of April. We will continue to work with the US and other key partners to find a peaceful and lasting resolution to this issue.

  My noble Friend Baroness Amos discussed Zimbabwe with Walter Kansteiner, US Assistant Secretary of State for Africa, when they met on 30 April.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the US Administration regarding the future of the(a) European Union and (b) United Nations. [110711]

  Mr. Rammell
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is in frequent contact with his US counterpart, Colin Powell, on a range of subjects. These sometimes include issues connected with both the European Union and the United Nations.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the US Administration regarding the(a) German and (b) French Administration. [110713]

  Mr. Rammell
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is in regular contact with his US counterpart, Colin Powell. Discussions usually cover a wide range of issues.

  Arms Embargoes
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the Governments policy is in dealing with unfulfilled contracts with countries which subsequently are subject to arms embargoes; and if he will make a statement. [112295]

  Mr. Straw
  The Government places considerable importance on UK companies being able to honour their contractual obligations. However, arms embargoes are normally only imposed when a situation has deteriorated to such an extent that a continued trade in arms would be inconsistent with maintaining or restoring international peace and security.
  75W
  The UK requires that a licence is obtained for each export or supply of equipment on the Military List from the UK or by a UK registered company or national overseas. Every such licence is subject to being varied or revoked, and appropriate action will be therefore taken whenever a new embargo is introduced.

  Arms Exports
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what ministerial meetings have taken place with representatives of other countries at which the(a) export and (b) promotion of British military equipment was discussed in (i) 2002 and (ii) 2003 to date, in each case what was the country concerned and the substance of discussions; and if he will make a statement. [112292]

  Mr. Straw
  Ministers from a number of Government Departments regularly have meetings with representatives of other countries, during which they, as a main topic or as a secondary matter, promote British exports, including defence equipment.

  The Government keep a central record neither of these meetings, nor of the substance of the discussions.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which countries were invited by his Department to attend meetings promoting arms exports in(a) 2002 and (b) 2003 to date; and if he will make a statement. [112294]

  Mr. Straw
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office staff throughout the world, regularly have meetings with representatives of other countries, during which the promotion of British exports, including defence equipment is discussed.

  The Government keep a central record neither of these meetings, nor of the substance of the discussions.

  Civil Service (People with Disabilities)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in meeting targets for the proportion of people with disabilities in senior posts in the Department. [110528]

  Mr. Mike OBrien
  At 1 April, 1.7 per cent. of staff in the FCO senior management structure identified themselves as having a disability.

  We have a target of 3 per cent. of senior staff for 2005 and are taking measures to achieve this. We have recently formed a Disability Advisory Group. The group is actively looking at ways to encourage the progression of disabled staff through our career structure, including supporting them on overseas postings. Disability is one of the areas covered by our Ministerial Steering Group on Diversity, which is driving forward the FCOs diversity agenda. We also regularly fund a bursary under the Cabinet Offices Leadership Development programme for Disabled Civil Servants, which is worth £10,000, and supports a disabled member of staff with the potential to progress to senior levels.

  Drug Trafficking
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with his Spanish counterpart on combating South American international crime, particularly within the EU; and if he will make a statement. [111564]

  Mr. Mike OBrien
  We are in regular touch with Spain and other EU partners to co-ordinate efforts on combating international crime from South America, and in particular on the threat from Class A drugs. UK officials play an active role in developing implementation strategies for the EUs Action Plan on drugs. We are also active in the Technical Committee of the EU-Latin American-Caribbean Drugs Co-ordination and Co-operation Mechanism, which is engaged in strengthening inter-regional ties.

  HM Customs and Excise work closely on joint investigations and operations with their Spanish counterparts, and regularly share intelligence through NCIS.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent assessment has been made of the success of the international war on drugs; and if he will make a statement. [111565]

  Mr. Mike OBrien
  In April, the United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs concluded that since the Special Session of the UN General Assembly on Drugs in 1998 there had been mixed success in combating illegal narcotics. Many countries have put in place or strengthened measures to reduce demand for illicit drugs and to provide treatment for those affected. Improvements have also been made in national and international co-operation on supply reduction and law enforcement. But serious problems remain. The UK will continue to devote effort and resources to tackling the drugs problem at home and internationally, particularly in Afghanistan, where the creation of alternative economic activities is vital to the success of the fight against the international drug problem and to the stability of the region.

  Entry Clearance
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the total cost was of providing the UK visas entry clearance service worldwide in the financial year(a) 2000–01 and (b) 2001–02. [111083]

  Mr. Rammell
  The cost of providing the entry clearance service world-wide in 2000–01 and 2001–02 was £84,144,386 and £81,385,364 respectively.

  As a result of changes in the way in which costs are attributed to the entry clearance operation by the FCO, a net loss of £3.3 million was incurred for 2000–01 when costs were netted off against income. Following on from this £3.3 million loss in 2000–01, there was a further loss of £0.4 million in 2001–02 taking the cumulative loss to £3.7 million.

  The operation appears to be on course to break even in 2002–03 with forecast income of £91.5 million and costs of £87.1 million.
  77W
  The cumulative position is forecast to deliver a marginal surplus of around £0.7 million. Figures for 2002–03 are provisional and subject to change.

  Gaza Strip
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make representations to the Israeli Government to have the wall removed that separates the people of Mawassi from the rest of the Gaza Strip. [111259]

  Mr. Mike OBrien
  Yes. We have instructed our embassy in Tel Aviv to make representations to the Israeli Government on the wall surrounding Mawassi.

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make representations to the Israeli Government to ensure that humanitarian aid agencies have access to the people of Mawassi in the Gaza Strip; and if he will make a statement. [111260]

  Mr. Mike OBrien
  Yes. We have instructed our embassy in Tel Aviv to make representations to the Israeli Government to ensure humanitarian aid agencies can gain access to Mawassi.

  Global Conflict Prevention Pool
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what projects were funded from the Global Conflict Prevention Pool in 2002–03; and if he will make a statement. [112290]

  Mr. Straw
  The Global Conflict Prevention Pool funds a wide range of projects and activities that contribute to the Governments conflict prevention Public Service Agreement (PSA) target of reducing the number of individuals whose lives are affected by violent conflict and reducing the potential sources of future conflict, where the UK can make a difference.

  Examples of areas covered by projects are:

  improving access to justice and reform of judicial systems;

  support to reform of the security sector to improve human security and reduce tension, through promoting professionalism and democratic accountability;

  reducing the availability of small arms and light weapons in potential conflict zones;

  support to disarmament and demobilisation of former combatants, together with their re-training and resettlement back into civil society;

  support to national and international efforts, and work with civil society to reduce inter-ethnic and other sources of social tension.

  Projects under the GCPP are managed by cross-Government geographical and thematic strategies. These take a strategic approach to conflict reduction in particular regions of the world, based on agreed analysis of the local conflict reduction needs, or are based around particular activities which often influence conflict reduction. All strategies relate their activities to the PSA target.
  78W
  In Financial Year 2002–3, the geographical strategies were:
  Afghanistan, The Balkans, Belize/Guatemala, Central and Eastern Europe, Indonesia/East Timor, India/Pakistan/ Kashmir, Middle East/North Africa, Nepal, Sri Lanka and Russia/FSU.

  In the same period, there were five thematic strategies:
  EU Civilian Crisis Management, OSCE/Council of Europe, Security Sector Reform, Small Arms and Light Weapons, and UN capacity building for peacekeeping and conflict prevention.

  A report on the activities of the Global Conflict Prevention Pool will be published this summer and a copy placed in the Library of the House.

  Guantanamo Bay
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of whether the terms of UN Resolution 43/173 of 9 December 1988 are being observed in Guantanamo Bay. [110813]

  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received on whether detainees at Guantanamo Bay are being treated in accordance with the terms of UN resolution 43/173 dealing with the body of principles for the protection of all persons under any form of detention or imprisonment; and if he will make a statement. [111110]

  Mr. Mike OBrien
  The US has said that the detainees at Guantanamo Bay are being treated humanely and consistently with the principles of the Geneva Conventions.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether his Department has been informed of the names, the nationality and the age of all of the prisoners being held by the United States authorities in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; and if he will make a statement. [111190]

  Mr. Mike OBrien
  No.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations Her Majestys Government has made to the United States administration in respect of the incarceration of children under 16 at Camp X-ray in Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. [111232]

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations his Department has made regarding the holding of children in Guantanamo Bay. [111046]

  Mr. Mike OBrien
  None of the UK detainees in Guantanamo Bay are under 16. The question of juveniles detention at Guantanamo Bay will be part of the regular dialogue between the UK and US Governments on the detainees.

  Honours
  Mr. Pope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many officials in his Department have received honours; and how many honours are held by his officials, broken down by category of honour. [111490]
  79W
  Mr. Straw
  In the five-year period from New Year 1999 to Birthday 2003, 170 officials will have received awards in honours lists prepared by my Department, as follows:

  GCMG—6, D/KCMG—21, CMG—50, D/KBE—8, CBE—1, QBE—37, MBE—47:

  total 170, or an average of 34 per annum. This does not include awards in the Royal Victorian Order, which are made personally by The Queen.

  We are unable to provide the information on the number of honours held by officials as the information is not kept on a database and could only be collected at disproportionate cost.

  International Criminal Court
  Tony Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about his policy regarding the exemption of peacekeepers from possible referral to the International Criminal Court when the policy comes up for renewal at the Security Council. [111810]

  Mr. Rammell
  Security Council Resolution 1422 is in force for a period of 12 months as from 12 July 2002. The Security Council has not yet embarked on discussion of what action to take upon the expiry of this Resolution, though I expect that it will do so within the next few weeks. SCR 1422 provides for its renewal for further 12-month periods.

  Iraq
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans there are for the management of Iraqi oil revenues; and if he will make a statement. [110981]

  Mr. Mike OBrien
  We plan to discuss the management of Iraqs oil sector, including oil revenues, with coalition partners and other members of the UN Security Council and with an Iraqi interim authority when one is established. As we have consistently made clear, Iraqi oil revenues should be used for the good of the Iraqi people.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with(a) his United States counterpart and (b) other representatives of the United States administration, in respect of the appropriate way to interrogate and incarcerate former members of the former (i) government and (ii) military leadership of Iraq who are apprehended; and what discussions have taken place about the form of trial that may be necessary to deal with such prisoners. [111239]

  Mr. Mike OBrien
  Officials have been in discussion with their US counterparts over the handling of prisoners of war in Iraq and the mechanism(s) that may be necessary to bring them to justice. There are strong arguments for allowing the Iraqis to take responsibility for this, with suitable international help. We are working with the US to assess the capacity of the judicial system in Iraq to deal with serious crimes such as crimes against humanity. Clearly, any new arrangements will require the approval of the Iraqi people.
  80W
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received of sensitive information relating to British diplomacy passing between Russia and Iraq in recent months. [111461]

  Mr. Mike OBrien
  We have no authoritative reporting on this.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many UK embassies in EU countries have required additional protection since the start of the Iraq conflict; and if he will make a statement. [111479]

  Mr. Rammell
  The security of British Diplomatic Missions overseas is subject to constant and ongoing review, and protective measures are deployed where they are considered necessary. This has been the case for Embassies within the EU as well as elsewhere. Due to security Issues, I am withholding further information under exemption 4(e) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions his Department had with the Iraqi Patriotic Union prior to 28 April. [111585]

  Mr. Mike OBrien
  The FCO has maintained close and regular contact with the PUK at a variety of levels over many years in London, Ankara, Tehran, northern Iraq and elsewhere. I most recently met Barham Salih, head of the PUK administration in northern Iraq, in London on 17 March 2003. I also met representatives of a group of Iraqi parties, including the PUK, on 27 March.

  Members of the PUK attended the Baghdad conference on 28 April and I spoke to a number of Kurds there, some of whom were probably PUK although that issue did not arise.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what evidence was provided by the United Kingdom to the members of the United Nations Security Council to demonstrate Iraqs possession of weapons of mass destruction in support of preambular paragraphs 3 and 6 of Security Council Resolution 144 (2002) prior to the vote on the resolution on 8th November 2002. [111701]

  Mr. Mike OBrien
  The information on which the text in preambular paragraphs 3 and 6 of UN Security Council Resolution 1441 came from UNSCOMs reports of their findings in Iraq during the 1990s. UNSCOM repeatedly stated that Iraqs declarations concerning their WMD programmes were incomplete and that Iraq was concealing the real extent of their programmes.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how the Government plans to achieve independent verification of the discovery of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. [111702]

  Mr. Mike OBrien
  The Government appreciates the need for credible, independent validation of any discoveries made by coalition forces. We are actively looking at means to ensure such validation.
  81W
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received of the removal of(a) weapons of mass destruction and (b) weapons of mass destruction material by members of (i) the Baath Party and (ii) the former Iraqi Government. [111703]

  Mr. Mike OBrien
  There have been a number of media reports suggesting that Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and the material for such weapons have been removed from Iraq.

  At this stage we have not substantiated these reports.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he intends to take to make provision for UNMOVIC inspectors to return to the permissive areas south of Baghdad. [111704]

  Mr. Mike OBrien
  Dr. Blix has himself stated that the circumstances are not right for the return of UN inspectors at present. If and when they do return, their tasks would have changed; their focus would be on monitoring and verification rather than detection. That would call for different skills, and some restructuring of their operation would be necessary.

  Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the UN Security Council on the re-introduction of UN weapons inspectors to Iraq to validate and oversee the destruction of weapons of mass destruction, should such weapons be found. [111716]

  Mr. Mike OBrien
  The Government appreciate the need for credible, independent validation of any discoveries made, and we are engaged in discussion over how best to ensure this. UNMOVIC and the IAEA would be an option to provide such validation.

  Tony Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will urge that alleged Iraqi war criminals should be tried in the International Criminal Court; and if he will make a statement on his policy relating to offences committed by the previous Iraqi regime. [111807]

  Mr. Rammell
  The International Criminal Court has no jurisdiction prior to 1 July 2002, the date when the Rome Statute came into force. As Iraq is not a Party to the Statute, a Security Council Resolution referring a situation to the Court, or a declaration by a new Iraqi governing authority accepting the jurisdiction of the Court in relation to an alleged crime, would be required for the ICC to consider any situation arising since that date.

  We shall need to consult the Iraqis as to their wishes in relation to crimes committed against them by the previous Iraqi regime. There are strong arguments in favour of an Iraqi-led process. But international assistance is likely to be required. The present state of the Iraqi judicial system needs to be assessed. We are working closely with coalition partners on this.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what advocacy he has undertaken on behalf of British companies with regard to the rebuilding of Iraq; and if he will list the companies that have secured contracts. [112101]
  82W
  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 8 May 2003]: I have been asked to reply.

  We expect UK companies to play a significant role in the redevelopment of post-conflict Iraq. In the short-term, US funded contracts are likely to be the main source of opportunities for UK companies on a subcontract basis. In this context, I have spoken to the US authorities, including Andrew Natsios of US AID. While we expect UK companies to win contracts, they are not obliged to inform us if and when they do so.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with representatives of(a) the International Atomic Energy Agency and (b) the Government of the United States of America concerning the request by the IAEA that an IAEA investigative mission be allowed to examine the condition of Iraqs nuclear facilities. [112374]

  Mr. Mike OBrien
  The Director-General of the IAEA, Dr. Mohamed El-Baradei, is today (12 May) in London for discussions with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on a number of issues of mutual concern. The question of renewed IAEA visits to Iraq is one of the subjects that will be discussed.

  We continue to discuss all issues relating to future Iraq policy with the Government of the United States.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make representations to the United States of America in support of the request of the International Atomic Energy Agency that an IAEA investigative mission be allowed to examine the condition of Iraqs nuclear facilities. [112375]

  Mr. Mike OBrien
  The matter of a return by IAEA inspectors to Iraq to continue their monitoring tasks is among a number of issues relating to the monitoring and verification of Iraqs weapons and nuclear energy programmes, which we have discussed with the Government of the United States.

  The timing of any eventual IAEA return must be judged in the light of circumstances in Iraq, including the security situation.

  We will continue to discuss with the US Government all issues relating to future Iraq policy.

  Israel
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make representations to the Israeli Government to ensure the safety of British citizens engaged in(a) peace campaigning and (b) humanitarian work in Palestine; and if he will make a statement. [111258]

  Mr. Mike OBrien
  We have had frequent contact with the Israeli authorities over our concerns about the safety of British nationals in the Occupied Territories. Most recently, I spoke to the Israeli Ambassador on 19 April to raise our concerns. Given the number of recent incidents involving foreign nationals and Palestinian civilians, I asked the Israeli authorities to revise the Rules of Engagement for the Israel Defence Forces to ensure that there can be no repeat of these incidents.

  Middle East
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps the Government are taking to encourage religious leaders from all sides in the Middle East to work towards a peace settlement in Israel and Palestine. [110996]

  Mr. Mike OBrien
  In January 2002 the Alexandria process brought senior Muslim, Jewish and Christian religious leaders together to work for peace in the Middle East. The Alexandria Declaration pledges religious leaders to work together to promote a peaceful settlement to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and continuing inter-faith dialogue. We recognise the important role religious leaders can play in promoting peace in the Middle East, and we have provided administrative, financial and moral support for this process, with which we remain involved.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations the UK has made to Israel to stop further settlement in East Jerusalem. [111323]

  Mr. Mike OBrien
  Our Ambassador in Tel Aviv raised the issue of Israeli settlements in East Jerusalem, and in particular that at Ras al-Amoud, with the Israeli Interior Minister, Avraham Poraz, on 1 April. Ministers and officials regularly make representations to Israel about illegal settlements throughout the Occupied Territories.

  A freeze on all settlement building is required under Phase One of the Quarter roadmap. The Government have made it clear that this is essential to the continuing viability of the two-state solution.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions took place among the drafters of the roadmap for peace in the Middle East concerning Israel and the Palestinian Authoritys compliance with international law. [111325]

  Mr. Mike OBrien
  The UK does not have details of the private discussions between Quartet members during the drafting of the roadmap.

  The roadmap is a description of a political process. Its content does not affect Israels obligations to comply with international law or the commitments given by the Palestinian Authority to do so. The Government are concerned that both Israel and the Palestinian Authority should act in accordance with international law, including the 4th Geneva Convention.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Israeli government concerning the wall surrounding the West Bank; and what response he has received. [111326]

  Mr. Mike OBrien
  Our Embassy in Tel Aviv has raised with the Government of Israel our concerns about the location and likely impact of the security fence. We deplore the seizure of Palestinian land, the isolation of Palestinian villages, and the creation of a further physical obstacle to the two-State solution.

  The Israeli Government argues that the construction of the wall is a necessary security measure. We fully understand Israels security concerns and the need to
  84W
  take steps, within the law, to protect itself from terrorist attacks. But lasting peace can only be achieved through a negotiated settlement and not unilateral actions.

  Morocco
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the government of Morocco regarding the recent arrest of Mr. Sidi Mohammed Daddach; and if he will make a statement. [111182]

  Mr. Mike OBrien
  Sidi Mohammed Daddach was held by the Moroccan authorities in Laayoune for a matter of hours before his release. Nevertheless, officials raised our concerns with the Moroccan authorities in April 2003. We will continue to monitor the situation closely, taking appropriate action where necessary.

  United Arab Emirates
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to his answer of 10 March 2003, column 33W, what action he is taking to seek redress for the period of Mr. Atkinsons detention from arrest to sentencing on 13 December 1999. [108655]

  Mr. Mike OBrien
  We have advised Mr. Atkinson that questions about the application and interpretation of Dubai law should be pursued through his legal representatives in the United Arab Emirates.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the response of the Government of Dubai was to his note verbale concerning the detention of Mr. Atkinson; and what measures he took to follow up the note verbale. [108656]

  Mr. Mike OBrien
  On 10 November 1998 our Embassy in Dubai sent a note verbale to the Government of Dubai about Mr. Atkinsons detention. On 4 April 1999 the Government of Dubai replied to the note stating that they had been in contact with the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (UNWGAD) and had received confirmation that UNWGAD had accepted the Dubai Governments clarifications.

  Nuclear Non-proliferation
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will place in the Library copies of submissions by(a) the United Kingdom and (b) other states relevant to United Kingdom policy, to the Review Conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, held in Geneva from 28 April; and if he will make a statement on compliance with the Treaty; [111237]

  (2) what steps have been taken to implement the total elimination of nuclear weapons as agreed by the United Kingdom and the other states signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty which possess nuclear weapons, at the review and extension conference of the NPT in 2000; [111368]

  (3) whether, in respect of commitments entered into in the final declaration of states party to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Review and Extension Conference in 2000, it is Her Majestys Governments objective to achieve complete nuclear disarmament; [111707]
  85W
  (4) what progress has been made in the last five years in improving United Kingdom verification techniques in respect of nuclear weapons; [111709]

  (5) in what way Her Majestys Government has implemented its commitment, made at the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty Review and Extension Conference 2000, to provide regular updates on progress towards nuclear disarmament. [111708]

  Mr. Mike OBrien
  The second session of the Preparatory Committee (PrepCom) to the 2005 Review Conference on the implementation of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) is currently meeting in Geneva (28 April to 9 May). The UK remains fully committed to all aspects of the NPT, including global and verifiable nuclear disarmament. The Head of the UK Delegation publicly reaffirmed this commitment to states party to the NPT on 29 April. We have also reaffirmed our commitment to the Decisions and Resolution of the 1995 Review Conference and the Final Document agreed at the 2000 Review Conference. The UK has also made clear that full compliance by all States Party is central to the object and purposes of the Treaty.

  At the second session of the PrepCom we also gave a comprehensive account of UK policies in all areas of implementation of the NPT. The UKs speech on 30 April set out some of the steps the UK has taken in recent years towards nuclear disarmament. The US, France, the Russian Federation and China also reported their progress and policies on implementation with their disarmament obligations.

  I have placed copies of these five general statements in the Library. I will also be placing copies of all other UK speeches made at this session of the PrepCom in the Library. In due course they can be accessed through the FCO Internet site at www.fco.gov.uk.

  The UK circulated a working paper at the PrepCom on its research into the verification of nuclear disarmament. The UK presented the conclusions of this interim study at a seminar on 1 May in the margins of the PrepCom. I have also placed a copy of this working paper in the Library. We anticipate publishing a further paper for the 2004 session of the PrepCom and a consolidated paper at the Review Conference in 2005.

  Sudan
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on(a) the recent increase in the use of the death penalty in Sudan, with particular reference to the Darfur region and (b) the use of special courts to try people under sharia. [111346]

  Mr. Rammell
  We are concerned about the use of the death penalty in Sudan. On 26 April 2003 the Minister of Justice confirmed reports that the special courts in Darfur had been abolished. Instructions had been given that in future all trials should be conducted according to normal procedures, including defence lawyers and no military judges. Outstanding death sentences, imposed by the special courts, would be reviewed individually by the appeal court.

  Western Sahara
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Morocco on human rights in the western Sahara, with particular reference to its action against the Forum for Truth and Justice. [111353]

  Mr. Mike OBrien
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on 28 April 2003,Official Report, column 134W.

  In April this year FCO officials raised concerns over the trial, sentencing and prison conditions of a Forum for Truth and Justice activist with the Moroccan authorities. We have also raised concerns about travel restrictions on a small number of Saharawi activists, including some associated with the Forum for Truth and Justice. We continue to monitor the situation closely, and will take action with the appropriate authorities where necessary.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he plans to have with the interim President of the African Union on the western Sahara. [111354]

  Mr. Mike OBrien
  None.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Moroccan Government on its proposal to increase substantially phosphate production in western Sahara. [111355]

  Mr. Mike OBrien
  None.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the Government of Algeria on the western Sahara. [111356]

  Mr. Mike OBrien
  I met Amine Kherbi, the Algerian Presidential Special Envoy, when he visited London to discuss Western Sahara last year. Foreign Office officials in London, Algiers and New York are in regular contact with their Algerian counterparts.

PRIME MINISTER

  Cabinet Office
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will bring the Cabinet Office under the aegis of a new Prime Ministers Department. [112444]

  The Prime Minister
  There are no plans to change the status of the Cabinet Office.

  Counselling Services
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Prime Minister what arrangements are made in his Office to allow staff to access counselling services. [111952]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer my hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office gave him today.

  E-mail Address
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to set up an official e-mail address. [112847]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Guildford (Ms Doughty) on 6 November 2002,Official Report, column 399W.

  Entertainment Costs
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Prime Minister when he has entertained Labour hon. Members at public expense in the last 12 months; and at what cost. [106393]

  The Prime Minister
  Hon. Members from all parties are invited to nominate and accompany their constituents to attend a childrens tea or a tour of the building at 10 Downing street.

  For the total cost to my office for all official entertainment at 10 Downing street and Chequers, I refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) on 28 February 2002, Official Report, columns 1444–48W, and the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) on 27 January 2003, Official Report, column 564W.

  As was the practice under previous Administrations, I have hosted a number of political events at Downing street. The costs of these were met by the Labour Party.

  House of Lords Appointments Commission
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister what changes he proposes to make to the composition of the House of Lords Appointments Commission. [112313]

  The Prime Minister
  None.

  Iraq
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister what compensation he plans to provide to all surviving civilians from families whose members were injured or killed by the use of United Kingdom weapons during the invasion of Iraq. [111242]

  The Prime Minister
  Throughout the military conflict we have always tried to minimise the adverse effects of our actions on Iraqi civilians. We have always been, and will remain, in the forefront of efforts to help the Iraqi people.

  As the United Kingdom has acted in accordance with international law no issue of compensation arises.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Prime Minister how many former members of the Iraqi Baathist regime are claiming asylum in the UK. [112211]

  Beverley Hughes
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Home Office has no record of an asylum application from anyone with a credible claim to be a senior Baath party member or member of the Iraqi regime. Any evidence to the contrary will be thoroughly investigated.
  88W
  All applicants for asylum are screened in order to establish their identity. Anyone who might be of security interest will be detained and referred to the appropriate agencies.

  Official Gifts
  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the official gifts he has received for his 50th birthday. [112725]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government are committed to publishing an annual list of gifts received by Ministers in an official capacity valued at more than £140. The first ever list was published on 14 March 2003,Official Report, column 482W. Details of gifts received during 2003–04 valued at more than £140 will be published at the end of the current financial year.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Abu Hamza
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the withdrawal of benefits for Abu Hamza because of his alleged terrorist connections. [111721]

  Malcolm Wicks
  We do not disclose personal information in regard to an individuals benefit. This is in line with paragraph 12, Part 2, of the Code of Practice on access to Government information.

  Accountancy Services
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the total cost to his Department was for accountancy services in 2002–03. [109480]

  Maria Eagle
  The Department is unable to provide the information requested because DWP accounting systems record accountancy spend under the general headings of Consultancy and Professional Services. Our current systems are not able to disaggregate expenditure to reflect the individual spend on accountancy services and a manual sift of the expenditure data could not be undertaken without incurring disproportionate cost.

  Age Discrimination
  Kate Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on his policy on the Central Office of Informations decision to reject a job application from a constituent of the hon. Member for Vauxhall, on the grounds that he is over the age of 60 and this contravenes their pension fund rules. [108679]

  Mr. Alexander
  I have been asked to reply.

  The job application was rejected on the grounds that the applicant is over 60 and this would contravene pension fund rules.

  The rejection was wrong.

  There is no bar in the civil service pension schemes to employment over the age of 60. Indeed there are large numbers of scheme members over that age.
  89W
  It is, in fact, COIs current retirement policy, agreed with its trade unions that it does not employ staff over 60. An apology was sent, explaining the error.

  However, it is acceptable under existing COI policy, for people over 60 to be employed on fixed term contracts, rather than on permanent terms.

  Correspondence with the applicant subsequent to the apology has indicated, implicitly, that his application would be considered, but this seems to have generated more confusion. COI has, therefore, sent an explicit statement offering, exceptionally, to extend the deadline for this applicant should he wish to apply. [108679]

  Benefit Fraud
  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
  [pursuant to the reply, 31 March 2003, c. 592 W]: The information is in the table.

  Custodial sentences1 following investigations by Departmental Investigators

  Number

  1997–98

  550

  1998–99

  640

  1999–2000

  640

  2000–01

  660

  2001–02

  650

  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.

  In accordance with National Statistics Guidelines all figures in the table are rounded to the nearest 10 with — indicating a figure of 5 or fewer. Due to rounding process the total will not necessarily agree.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many persons were(a) convicted and (b) acquitted of benefit fraud offences in each of the last three years, broken down by type of offence; how many of those convicted of each type of offence in each year were sentenced to (i) immediate custody and (ii) other disposals broken down by type of disposal; what the (A) mean average and (B) longest individual custodial sentence imposed in each year was for each type of offence; and if he will make a statement. [88466]

  Malcolm Wicks
  [pursuant to my reply, 28 February 2003, c. 762 W]: Information on benefit fraud by type of offence and the length of custodial sentences imposed following conviction are not recorded. The available information is in the table.
  90W
  Further analysis of investigation data has required revisions to previously published figures. The corrected data is shown in the table.

  Outcome of prosecutions following investigations by Departmental Investigators

  Custodial sentences1

  Convictions Community sentences2

  Other sentences3

  Acquittals

  Total prosecutions

  1997–98

  550

  2,550

  8,280

  140

  11,520

  1998–99

  640

  2,290

  7,030

  160

  10,130

  1999–2000

  640

  2,210

  6,270

  140

  9,270

  2000–01

  660

  2,700

  8,040

  180

  11,580

  2001–02

  650

  3,070

  7,470

  170

  11,360

  1 Imprisonment, Young Offenders Institute, custodial and fine

  2 Community Service

  3 Absolute discharge, conditional discharge, compensation only, admonishment, fine, community rehabilitation, suspended sentence, supervision order, Young Offenders Institute, attendance centre, unknown

  4 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

  Notes:

  1. In accordance with National Statistics Guidelines all figures are rounded to the nearest 10 with — indicating a figure of 5 or fewer.

  2. Due to rounding process the totals will not necessarily agree.

  Source:

  Fraud Information by Sector system and data from Counter-Fraud Investigation Division Operations4

  Benefits
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many claimants there were of(a) jobseekers allowance, (b) incapacity benefit,
  (c) housing benefit and (d) lone parents on income support, in (i) May 1997 and (ii) the last year for which figures are available. [110680]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information is in the table.

  Numbers of benefit recipients in Great Britain, May 1997 and May 2002

  Benefit

  May 1997

  May 2002

  Jobseekers Allowance

  1,406,300

  827,500

  Incapacity Benefit

  1,732,700

  1,514,400

  Housing Benefit

  4,639,000

  3,813,000

  Income Support (Lone Parents)

  1,013,500

  856,300

  Notes:

  1. Jobseekers Allowance, Incapacity Benefit and Income Support figures are rounded to the nearest hundred.

  2. Jobseekers Allowance, Incapacity Benefit and Income Support figures are based on a 5 per cent. sample and are therefore subject to sampling variation.

  3. Jobseekers Allowance and Incapacity Benefit figures do not include credits only cases.

  Sources:

  1. Jobseekers Allowance Quarterly Statistical Inquiries, May 1997 and May 2002.

  2. Incapacity Benefit Quarterly Statistical Inquiries, May 1997 and May 2002.

  3. Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit Management Information System Quarterly 100 per cent. caseload count, May 1997 and May 2002.

  4. Income Support Quarterly Statistical Inquiries, May 1997 and May 2002.
  91W
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what work his Department has completed on the destinations of those people leaving each of the benefits of his Department for people of working age. [110764]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Information on the first destination of people leaving jobseekers allowance is included in the Office for National Statistics monthly publication Labour Market Trends, copies of which are in the Library. The information may also be accessed on the National Statistics website at http://www.statistics.gov.uk/products/p550.asp.

  The Department is currently developing a system to collect similar information on people leaving income support and incapacity benefit. However, as this is not due to be implemented until the end of 2004, we plan to conduct a survey this summer of the destinations of people leaving income support and incapacity benefit as well as those leaving jobseekers allowance whose destination is unknown.

  Report

  Publication date

  Housing Benefit Review — Main Stage Report

  January 1996

  Benefit Review Retirement Pension — Final Report

  March 1996

  Benefit Review Invalid Care Allowance — Report on Main Study

  July 1996

  Benefit Review Disability Living Allowance — Report on Main Study

  February 1997

  Benefit Review — The Review of Child Benefit and Child Benefit (Lone Parent) 1996–97

  July 1998

  National Housing Benefit Accuracy Review 1997–98

  August 1998

  Fraud and Error in Claims to Incapacity Benefit — The Results of the Benefit Review of Incapacity Benefit

  July 2001

  Fraud and Error in Income Support and Jobseeker's Allowance from April 2001 to March 2002

  February 2003

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what percentage of households below pensionable age had no-one in work and were dependent on benefit in each of the last 30 years. [110690]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Information is not available for the time period requested.

  The Family Resources survey can provide estimates from 1994–95 for Great Britain. This information is presented in the following table:

  Percentage of working age households

  Year

  Workless households dependent on benefits.

  1994–95

  17

  1995–96

  18

  1996–97

  17

  1997–98

  15

  1998–99

  15

  1999–2000

  15

  2000–01

  14

  2001–02

  14

  Notes:

  1. All figures are estimates and are taken from the Family Resources Survey (FRS). A consistent series is available from 1994–95. 2001–02 is the latest year for which data is available.

  2. Dependent on benefits has been defined as in receipt of Income Support, Jobseeker's Allowance/Unemployment Benefit Incapacity Benefit/Invalidity Benefit or Severe Disablemen Allowance.

  3. From October 1996 Jobseeker's Allowance replaced Unemployment Benefit and Income Support for unemployed people. Recipients of those benefits were automatically transferred to JSA.
  92W
  We are also well advanced in our plans to collect data from the Inland Revenue to provide information on how long people who have left working age benefits to enter work remain in employment.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list each benefit that is subject to a departmental benefit review; and for each of those benefits, what the estimated(a) percentage of customers who are receiving benefit at an incorrect rate, (b) percentage of customers receiving an underpayment, (c) percentage of customers receiving an overpayment, (d) grossed up number of customers receiving an underpayment, (e) grossed up number of customers receiving an overpayment, (f) average amount of weekly underpayment, (g) average amount of weekly overpayment, (h) grossed up annual underpayment and (i) grossed up annual overpayment is. [112337]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Not all of the information requested is available. However, the available information is in the following reports of departmental benefit reviews, copies of which are in the Library:

  4. From April 1995 Incapacity Benefit replaced Sickness Benefit and Invalidity Benefit. Recipients of those benefits were automatically transferred to IB.

  5. Working age households contain at least one adult below pensionable age.

  6. Workless households contain no-one in work.

  7. Benefit receipt is based on self-assessment and therefore may be subject to misreporting.

  8. The estimates are based on sample counts that have been adjusted for non-response using multi-purpose grossing factors that control for tenure type, Council Tax Band and a number of demographic variables. Estimates are subject to sampling error and remaining response bias.

  Source:

  Family Resources Survey, Great Britain

  Child Poverty
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many children have been removed from poverty since 1997; how many are estimated to be living in poverty; what targets he has for reducing child poverty; and if he will make a statement on progress towards reaching those targets. [110769]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Poverty and social exclusion are complex and multi-dimensional issues, affecting many aspects of peoples' lives—including their living standards, health, housing, the quality of their environment and not just low income. The fourth annual 'Opportunity for all' report published in September 2002 (Cm 5598) sets out the Government's strategy for tackling poverty and social exclusion and presents information on the indicators used to measure against this strategy.
  93W
  In April 2002 we published Measuring child poverty: a consultation document to gather views on an appropriate measure of child poverty for the long term. This consultation was very well received and we plan to publish initial conclusions in May 2003.

  There is a shared Department for Work and Pensions/HM Treasury PSA target to reduce the number of children in low-income households by at least a quartr by 2004. Data for this is published in Households Below Average Income 1994–95 to 2001–02;. On this measure the number of children in low income fell by around half a million between 1996–97 and 2001–02. The baseline for the PSA target is 1998–99. We are making steady progress towards the target.

  All publications, statistics and targets quoted in this reply are in the public domain and are available in the Library.

  Disability Employment Advisers
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many disability employment advisers there have been in each year since 1992. [110899]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Disability Employment Advisers (DEAs) within Jobcentre Plus provide support to people facing the complex barriers to work associated with disabilities. They can offer help with finding work and can refer people, where appropriate, to occupational health assessments, training and the full range of Jobcentre Plus disability programmes.

  The information is not available in the format requested, as figures are not collected centrally. However, we estimate there are currently around 700 DEAs employed by Jobcentre Plus (including Access to Work Advisers).

  External Reports
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions 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. [103728]

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

  Financial Support
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to his answer of 20 March 2002,Official Report, column 921W, on financial support, what the average length of time to grant indefinite leave to remain on the basis of the domestic violence concession was in the last 12 months for which figures are available; and what financial support is available during that time to (a) women who are pregnant or with one or more children and (b) single women
  94W
  for (i) subsistence and (ii) housing costs, including funding for places at refuges for victims of domestic violence. [110983]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Home Office is responsible for considering applications for indefinite leave to remain from victims of domestic violence, using the special provisions under the Immigration Rules. Information on the average length of time taken to decide on these applications is not available.

  DWP benefits are not available to people in these circumstances until the Home Office is satisfied that a marriage has broken down due to domestic violence, and the victim is given indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom. To allow access earlier would undermine the general principle that those who are subject to immigration control have no access to the benefits system.

  However, local authorities may be able to provide financial support to people with children under Section 17 of the Children Act 1989. Or where someone can prove that they are destitute and have no other means of support, help may be available through Section 21 of the National Assistance Act.

  Housing Benefit
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, with reference to his letter to the hon. Member for North Norfolk of 23 April 2003, which local authorities in Norfolk have been successful in applying for additional resources from the Performance Standards Fund in respect of handling housing benefit applications; which authorities have worked with the Housing Benefit Help Team; and which authorities are being closely monitored. [112802]

  Malcolm Wicks
  We have taken a number of steps to improve Housing Benefit administration. We have made an additional £200 million available through a Performance Standards Fund to help local authorities get over some of the barriers to improved performance. We have also set up a Housing Benefit Help Team, which works with local authorities to secure improvements, and we have introduced a system of monitoring and publishing local authority performance on a quarterly basis. Where the performance of an authority causes concern, the chief executive is being asked to provide details of how they intend to improve their benefits service and their performance is being monitored closely.

  There are seven local authorities in Norfolk. Of these, Broadland, Great Yarmouth, Kings Lynn and West Norfolk, North Norfolk and Norwich have so far been successful in applying for additional resources from the Performance Standards Fund; Breckland and Norwich have worked with the Housing Benefit Help Team; and we are also closely monitoring the performance of Breckland, Great Yarmouth and North Norfolk.

  Information Technology
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what his Departments(a) total managed expenditure, (b) total spending on information technology and (c) spending on information technology as a proportion of its total managed expenditure was in each financial year since 1997–98. [107180]

  Maria Eagle
  The contribution by the Department for Work and Pensions to total managed expenditure can be measured by the total of spending under resource and capital budgets, less non-cash items in AME. Data for 1997–98 to 2001–02 were published in the 2002 Departmental Report (Cm 5424).New estimates will be published in the same table in the 2003 Departmental Report.

  Total spending by the Department for Work and Pensions on information technology was £449 million in 2001–02. Of this expenditure, £38 million has been recovered from other Government Departments for work undertaken on their behalf. The Department for Work and Pensions was created in June 2001 by merging elements of the former Department of Social Security and the former Department for Education and Employment. Therefore comparable information on total spending on information technology for the years 1997–98 to 2000–01 is not available.

  Invalid Care Allowance
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to his answer of 6 May 2003,Official Report, column 552W, on invalid care allowance, if he will estimate in how many of the successful claims in each quarter by people over state pension age payment was not made because of the operation of the overlapping benefits regulations. [112367]

  Maria Eagle
  The available information is in the table.

  Carers Allowance: number of successful claims made by people over state pensions age in Great Britain where the allowance was not in payment because of the overlapping benefit regulations at the end of each quarter from June 2001 to December 2002

  Quarter to end of

  Successful claims not in payment

  September 2001

  885

  December 2001

  770

  March 2002

  870

  June 2002

  860

  September 2002

  4,295

  December 2002

  12,440

  Source:

  100 per cent. Data from the CA Computer System (CACS) supplied by Information and Analysis Directorate. Figures are rounded to the nearest 5.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the estimated level of saving to the Department is from the use of market testing in 2002–03. [107757]

  Maria Eagle
  We have not undertaken any market testing programmes during 2002–03. Departments are no longer required to undertake a programme of market 96W
  testing. They are, however, required to ensure that high quality public services are delivered on the basis of value for money in line with the Better Quality Services ethos.

  Ministerial Duties
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what arrangements he has made for Ministers in his Department to carry out the duties of the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), with special reference to taking forward the proposals contained in his Green Paper on pensions. [112286]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Comprehensive arrangements were immediately put in place on 4 April 2003 for Ministers in my Department to carry out all of the duties formerly the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield including taking forward the proposals contained in the Green Paper Simplicity, security and choice: Working and saving for retirement (Cm 5677).

  Pensioners
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what research he has commissioned regarding support for pensioners in(a) Ireland and (b) other EU member states. [112636]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The United Kingdom has contributed to the voluntary exchange of information and good practice by EU member states within a framework of common objectives on pensions covering adequacy, financial sustainability and modernisation. As part of this process, the EU spring council on 21 March adopted the joint commission and council report on Adequate and Sustainable Pensions which sets out the approach of each member state, including Ireland. A copy of the Joint Report is in the Library.

  In 2001, the Department published Cross-country comparisons of pensioners incomes by Richard Disney and Edward Whitehouse (DSS Research Report No.142). The research looked at 12 comparative studies of incomes and poverty among older people in OECD countries including Ireland.

  Pensions
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions whether he will review the introduction of a compulsory employer contribution to stakeholder pensions as part of the pensions green paper consultation. [110860]

  Maria Eagle
  There is no proposal in the Green Paper Simplicity, security and choice: Working and saving for retirement, (Cm 5677), to introduce compulsory employer contributions to stakeholder pensions. However, the Government is keen to encourage employers to make pension contributions. As we pointed out in the Green Paper, employer contributions are a major factor in encouraging take up of stakeholder pensions by employees. The generous tax relief available on employers pension contributions supports this.

  The Government believe that the long-standing voluntarist pension system in this country, based on a partnership with employees, employers, pension providers and government all working together, is the

  97W
  way forward. The Green Paper put forward radical proposals to simplify the tax rules, provide better information about pension choices, help people to work for longer and provide more protection for employees whilst simplifying administration for those who run pension schemes. These proposals will renew the pensions partnership and make the voluntarist system work better.

  The Green Paper also announced the setting up of a pensions commission, chaired by Adair Turner, to provide an independent check on the progress of the voluntarist pension system and to make recommendations to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on whether there is a case for moving beyond the current voluntarist approach.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions where his Department has conducted research to assess the benefits of targeting pensions advice at workers that have recently entered new permanent positions. [111436]

  Maria Eagle
  The Green Paper Simplicity, security and choice: working and saving for retirement, recognised the vital part that the workplace plays in pension provision and set out the Governments proposals for working with employers to encourage and facilitate the provision of better pensions information to employees and prospective employees.

  To date no research has been conducted by my Department to assess the benefits of targeting pensions advice at employees that have recently entered new permanent posts. However, we are now concluding a wide-ranging consultation exercise in which we have sought views on the Green Paper proposals. We have received more than 800 written responses and we will be setting out our plans, including any plans for research in this area, in more detail in due course.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many submissions received during the online consultation on the pensions Green Paper were edited or amended before being made public. [110902]

  Maria Eagle
  20 messages were edited before publication.11 appeared as edited because the title of the message was changed so that it did not mislead people into thinking that replies to the message from the Minister were from the Minister.
  5 edits were made to remove web links where the content of the website that was linked to was potentially libellous, and to remove names of individuals or companies that could also have been potentially unfair.
  4 were edited as they asked specific questions on their own pensions situation and there was concern about other participants giving them misleading advice. Those participants were given details of how to contact the relevant department for their concern.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many submissions were received during the online consultation on the pensions Green Paper; and how many submissions are not to be made 98W
  public (a) because the author specifically asked for their comments to be kept private and (b) for other reasons. [110903]

  Maria Eagle
  A total of 186 messages were posted to the four forums.

  The online consultation was independently pre-moderated by the Hansard Society to ensure that comments posted through the discussion were appropriate and lawful.

  No comments were withheld from publication due to the request of the author.

  16 contributions were not made public, as they breached the rules published on the website. Of those, four were repeat postings—where people had posted the same message in all of the forums; and 12 were not published as they were off-topic.

  Winter Fuel Allowance
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what estimate he has made of the number of men in their sixties who have been denied the winter fuel allowance because of missing the deadline for claims, in each year for which figures are available. [90855]

  Malcolm Wicks
  [holding answer 16 January 2003]: The information is not held in the format requested. However, there have been around 13,800 late claims made in respect of the 2000–01 winter and around 5,100 in respect of the 2001–02 winter. For winters prior to 2000–01 claims for winter fuel payments are not time-limited.

LORD CHANCELLORS DEPARTMENT

  Lewes Crown Court
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellors Department how many days Lewes Crown Court sat in the last year for which figures are available. [109632]

  Yvette Cooper
  During the financial year ending March 2003, 1,865 judicial days were sat at Lewes Crown Court.

  Consultancies
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellors Department if she will list, by project, the consultancies his Department and its non-departmental public bodies have used on e-government projects since 1 January 2001. [112837]

  Yvette Cooper
  I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Judges Lodgings, Telscombe
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellors Department what income was derived from renting out the judges lodgings in Telscombe in each year since 1997. [109633]

  Yvette Cooper
  The judges lodgings in Telscombe is owned by the National Trust and has not been rented out since 1997.
  99W
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellors Department how much has been spent on the judges lodgings in Telscombe, broken down by(a) maintenance, (b) renovations, (c) staff costs and (d) other expenses, in each year since 1997. [109635]

  £

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Property maintenance costs

  30,837.00

  15,643.18

  22,478.00

  46,295.06

  29,776.00

  Staffing Costs

  84,464.89

  76,667.74

  61,731.86

  61,147.72

  60,577.05

  Other expenses

  91,497.64

  77,156.35

  58,702.35

  70,884.33

  69,128.18

  Total spend

  206,799.53

  169,467.27

  142,912.21

  178,327.11

  159,481.23

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellors Department what leisure services are provided for judges at the Telscombe lodgings; and how much these services cost. [109628]

  Yvette Cooper
  No leisure services are provided at the Telscombe lodgings.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellors Department how many chauffeured cars are available for use by judges at Telscombe; what costs were incurred for providing chauffered cars in each of the last five years; and how many miles were travelled in chauffeured cars by judges residing at Telscombe in each of the last five years. [109629]

  Yvette Cooper
  One chauffeured car is available for the use of the judiciary when staying at the Lodgings at Telscombe and while sitting at the Crown Courts at Lewes and Hove. The cost of providing the service between 1997 and 2002 was:

  £

  1997–98

  13,417

  1998–99

  21,360

  1999–2000

  12,037

  2000–01

  13,090

  2001–02

  14,924

  No data is available on the number of miles travelled in chauffeured cars by members of the judiciary while residing at the Lodgings at Telscombe.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellors Department how many nights judges lodgings at Telscombe were occupied in each year since 1997. [109630]

  Yvette Cooper
  Occupation rates for the judges lodging at Telscombe between 1997 and 2002 are contained in the table. The lodging was not able to be used in 2002–03 for health and safety reasons. Alternative accommodation for the judiciary at Lewes is being considered.

  Judge nights

  1997–98

  170

  1998–99

  155

  1999–2000

  120

  2000–01

  125

  2001–02

  60

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellors Department what the total cost was for judges lodgings at Telscombe in each year since 1997. [109631]
  100W
  Yvette Cooper
  The spend on the judges lodgings at Telscombe Manor in each year since 1997 is summarised in the table. It should be noted that the accounts draw no distinction between maintenance and renovation.

  Yvette Cooper
  The total cost of running the Judges Lodgings at Telscombe between 1997 and 2002 was:

  £

  Cost

  1997–98

  206,799.53

  1998–99

  169,467.27

  1999–2000

  142,912.21

  2000–01

  178,327.11

  2001–02

  159,481.23

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellors Department how many(a) formal lunch parties and (b) dinner parties were held at the judges lodgings in Telscombe in each year since 1997; what the cost of these events was; and how many guests in total were invited. [109634]

  Yvette Cooper
  This information is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Postal Voting
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellors Department what plans the Lord Chancellor has to develop the use of postal voting in general elections; what criteria he will use to determine pilot constituencies; and if he will make a statement. [112368]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 12 May 2003]: Postal voting on demand is available at all elections in Great Britain. Electoral pilot projects (including all postal voting pilots) can currently only be run at local elections. We are considering the results of this years local election pilots and the implications for the future. The independent Electoral Commission is currently evaluating all the electoral pilot projects which took place on 1 May. We will consider carefully their assessment and any recommendations they may make.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellors Department if he will introduce all-posting voting at general elections. [112369]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 12 May 2003]: All postal voting is currently possible only in local elections. The independent Electoral Commission is currently evaluating all the electoral pilot projects which took place on 1 May, including the all-postal voting pilots. We will consider carefully their assessment and any recommendations they may make.

HEALTH

  Accident and Emergency Services
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information about ambulance waits at accident and emergency departments has been collected since 1 January; where this information is kept; and what actions have been taken as a result of the collection of this information. [111084]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Department has asked ambulance trusts to provide information on the number of delays of 15 minutes or more between the time of arrival of an ambulance at accident and emergency (A&E) and the hand-over of the patient to the care of the A&E staff.

  This information is fast track internal management information only and is not validated and of poor quality. Coverage is not complete and interpretation of the definition is inconsistent and it is therefore not appropriate for publication under exemption 11 of the code of practice on access to Government information.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health where the additional accident and emergency funding announced on 25 January 2001 has been spent; and what changes the additional spending has made to the performance of the accident and emergency departments involved. [110176]

  Mr. Lammy
  A total of £150 million was invested in the Accident and Emergency (A&E) Modernisation Programme in three waves. On 25 January 2001, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced the final wave of funding totalling £35 million.

  Expenditure on non-NHS Nurses by NHS Trusts and Primary Care Trusts in the West Sussex Region 1997–98 to 2001–02.

  Trust name

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Brighton Health Care NHS Trust1

  684,226

  1,825,524

  2,423,597

  2,530,120

  3,424,800

  Mid Sussex NHS Trust1

  50,902

  138,321

  308,367

  335,549

  821,400

  Mid Sussex PCT

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  0

  Surrey and Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust

  n/a

  1,136,517

  2,361,955

  3,612,627

  5,504,034

  Sussex Weald and Downs NHS Trust2

  161,724

  176,437

  1,366,393

  265,287

  118,643

  The Queen Victoria Hospital NHS Trust

  40,484

  45,682

  121,461

  249,448

  280,329

  The Royal West Sussex NHS Trust

  130,610

  126,878

  20,650

  172,024

  707,769

  Worthing and Southlands Hospitals NHS Trust

  998,449

  1,266,644

  1,199,299

  1,132,291

  1,223,576

  Worthing Priority Care Services NHS Trust 2

  241,619

  331,753

  422,350

  794,023

  241,238

  West Sussex total

  2,308,014

  5,047,756

  8,224,072

  9,091,369

  12,321,789

  Expenditure on non-NHS Nurses by NHS Trusts and Primary Care Trusts in the West Sussex Region 1997–98 to 2001–02.

  Trust name

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Brighton Health Care NHS Trust1

  313,792

  193,364

  221,020

  218,760

  339,176

  Mid Sussex NHS Trust1

  695,739

  792,400

  958,106

  1,071,226

  1,723,626

  Mid Sussex PCT

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  0

  Surrey and Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust

  n/a

  1,043,486

  1,450,586

  1,236,600

  1,245,739

  Sussex Weald and Downs NHS Trust 2

  127,602

  145,971

  167,613

  706,414

  1,122,924

  The Queen Victoria Hospital NHS Trust

  9,266

  411

  8,426

  42,177

  138,725

  The Royal West Sussex NHS Trust

  316,494

  342,516

  475,227

  572,843

  837,597

  Worthing and Southlands Hospitals NHS Trust

  524,915

  566,162

  582,773

  825,392

  738,674

  Worthing Priority Care Services NHS Trust2

  281,772

  398,916

  371,164

  555,944

  959,818

  West Sussex total

  2,269,580

  3,483,226

  4,234,915

  5,229,356

  7,106,279

  Total nurses and doctors in West Sussex

  4,577,594

  8,530,982

  12,458,987

  14,320,725

  19,428,068

  Notes:

  Nurses = Nursing, Midwifery and Heath Visiting Staff.

  Doctors = Medical Staff.

  1 Brighton Health Care NHS Trust and Mid Sussex NHS Trust merged on 1 April 2002 to form Brighton & Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust.

  2 Sussex Weald & Downs NHS Trust and Worthing Priority Care Services NHS Trust merged on 1 April 2002 to form West Sussex Health and Social Care NHS Trust

  Source:

  Annual financial returns of NHS Trusts

  Annual financial returns of Primary Care Trusts
  102W
  The modernisation has improved the patient experience in A&E. This is a result of improved capacity and patient flows, improved environment for patients and staff and a reduction in clinical times lost between facilities.

  The A&E Modernisation Programme has enabled 180 A&E departments to be modernised. Work at 175, 97 per cent., of these has been completed.

  Information on the funding allocation to NHS trusts under the A&E Modernisation Programme has been placed in the Library.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to use career grade doctors to cover emergency 24 hour access to medical and surgical care. [110946]

  Mr. Lammy
  At present, career grade doctors operate an on-call rota to cover emergency 24-hour access to medical and surgical care.

  Agency Nurses and Doctors
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much each hospital trust in West Sussex spent on agency recruitment in(a) nurses and (b) doctors in (i) the last 12 months and (ii) for the previous five years. [107592]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 7 April 2003]: Information about how much each hospital trust in West Sussex spent on agency nurses and doctors is shown in the tables.

  Cardiovascular Disease
  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to promote and facilitate(a) exercise programmes in the community and (b) other cardiovascular disease prevention initiatives. [110677]

  Ms Blears
  The Government is committed to reducing the death rate from coronary heart disease (CHD) and stroke and related diseases in people under 75 by at least 40 per cent., to 83.8 deaths per 100,000 population, by 2010. Prevention of CHD in the population and in high-risk patients by promoting physical activity, promoting healthy eating, reducing overweight and obesity and reducing smoking can make a significant contribution to this target.

  In order to inform and lead action on exercise across the National Health Service, the Department of Health, Sport England and the Countryside Agency are funding a £2.5 million programme of local exercise action pilots (LEAPs). The nine pilots, which will run for two years and are located in each of the nine English regions go live in September of this year.

  The Department of Health is also working with other Government Departments to implement a sport and physical activity board, to begin raising mass participation for young people and adults, particularly women and the elderly.

  The Department of Health is delivering a range of programmes and activities in line with policy commitments to promote healthy eating. Action includes the food and health action plan, the five-a-day programme and work with industry and the Food Standards Agency on salt, fat and sugar in food.

  The tobacco programme of work is focussed on delivering a reduction in the number of smokers. Between April 1999 and September 2002, over 481,000 people set a quit date with the help of the NHS smoking cessation services. Among other action underway, we are:
  funding tobacco control alliances across England to ensure action is taken locally;
  increasing the visibility of health messages highlighting the risks of smoking, particularly second hand smoke. The European Union Directive on the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products require tobacco products to carry larger and starker health warnings on both the front and back of the packet; and
  continuing the media campaign with hard hitting messages on the dangers of smoking.

  Community Health Councils
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what additional funding he has provided to local authorities to take on responsibilities currently held by community health councils. [109071]

  Mr. Lammy
  I refer the hon. Member to the response I gave the hon. Member for Southend West (Mr. Amess) on Thursday 3 April,Official Report, col. 853W.

  Consultants
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to use consultants to cover 24-hour emergency access to both medical and surgical care. [111029]

  Mr. Lammy
  At present, consultants operate an on-call rota to cover 24-hour emergency access to both medical and surgical care.

  Foetus Viability
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance he has issued on when a foetus becomes viable. [109690]

  Ms Blears
  The Department of Health has not issued guidance on when a fetus becomes viable. However, the British Association of Perinatal Medicine has produced a framework for practice for the management of fetuses and newborn infants at the threshold of viability. Also, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists has issued guidance on issues relating to late abortion, fetal viability and registration of births and deaths.

  The World Health Organisation has defined the perinatal period as commencing at 22 completed weeks of gestation. Infants born between 22 and 28 weeks gestation have been described as having threshold viability.

  Food Labelling
  Mr. Roger Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 27 March 2003,Official Report, column 397W, on food labelling, for what reasons the number of informal samples of foodstuffs declined in the last 10 years; and what measures he is taking to reverse the trend. [111215]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 6 May 2003]: The responsibility for the enforcement of food labelling Regulations and associated food sampling under the Food Safety Act 1990 rests with local authorities. The Food Standards Agency (FSA) has raised its concerns about the decline in local authority food sampling activity and is taking forward a number of initiatives with local authorities to reverse the trend.

  There appears to be no single cause for the fall in sampling. The FSA has carried out a focussed audit programme to examine local authority sampling and make recommendations. A report will be published later this year.

  The FSA is already taking action to help to ensure that effective food sampling arrangements are in place in all local authorities. The FSA is working with local authorities co-ordinators of regulatory services (LACORS) to develop better co-ordination and targeting of food and feed standards sampling throughout the United Kingdom. Local authorities and public analysts are also being involved more closely in the FSAs own food surveillance activities.

  The FSA is also working with LACORS and with the association of public analysts to develop a UK samples database, which will help local authorities to target their sampling programmes more effectively.
  105W
  More emphasis has also been placed on sampling in the revised statutory code of practice, which is currently out for consultation. Under the code, local authorities are required to prepare and publish a food sampling policy and programme and make these available to food businesses and consumers. The FSA will also be providing more practical guidance on sampling for local authority enforcement officers.

  Food Standards Agency
  Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much the Food Standards Agency has spent in the last two years on research into(a) Basmati rice, (b) balsamic vinegar and (c) sodium alternatives. [111206]

  Ms Blears
  The Food Standards Agency (FSA) has funded five projects over the past two years on Basmati rice. Three projects dealt with improving and evaluating an innovative DNA method used to check adulteration of Basmati rice. One has applied electronic nose technology to determine sensory properties more accurately and a fifth has applied a new DNA approach to authenticating Basmati rice. The total spend over the two years has been £148,217.

  The FSA is funding a project on a method to check speciality vinegars, a part of which includes balsamic vinegar. The spend so far has been £15,661, but it is not possible to apportion specifically the spend on balsamic vinegar. There have been no projects funded which deal with sodium alternatives during this period.

  Health Care-acquired Infections
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many wards have been shut down to prevent the spread of healthcare-acquired infections in each of the last three years. [111044]

  Ms Blears
  There are no centrally held statistics on the number of ward closures in hospital trusts due to healthcare associated infections.

  However, the Department of Health does collect data on methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia (MRSA) for every acute National Health Service hospital trust in England, as part of a mandatory surveillance scheme for healthcare associated infection. Results for the first year of this scheme, from April 2001 to March 2002, were published in the Communicable Disease Report Weekly or 20 June 2002 and are available on the Public Health Laboratory Service website at www.phls.co.uk/publications/cdr/PDFfiles/2002/cdr2502.pdf.

  Health Protection Agency
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 1 April,Official Report, column 688W, on the Health Protection Agency, if he will list the programmes; and what slippage has occurred to contribute to the underspends of revenue and capital. [110892]

  Ms Blears
  The total funds identified amounted to a small proportion of the combined turnover of the three organisations and cover a number of projects across the spectrum of their activity, both for revenue and capital expenditure. The reasons for the slippages are similarly 106W
  varied, for example, delays in advertising new posts or in ensuring that capital investment projects had proper justification and approval. An example of the former is the creation of a travel health advice service, which comprised a consortium of the Public Health Laboratory Service, the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, University College, London and the University of Liverpool. Here, the development of advertisements for new staff took longer than expected. An example of the latter is the upgrading of the communications facilities at the Colindale site. Both of these projects are now moving forward.

  The Health Protection Agency is factoring into its business planning how projects which have suffered delays may be brought up to speed.

  Heart Disease (Women)
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what public health education programmes he has launched aimed at the risk of heart disease in women. [111755]

  Ms Blears
  Programmes in place to tackle the risk factors for coronary heart disease in the general population are aimed at both women and men. These take a life-course approach and focus upon diet and nutrition, reducing overweight and obesity, increasing physical activity and reducing the prevalence of smoking.

  It is also a Government priority to reduce the proportion of women continuing to smoke throughout pregnancy, focusing especially on smokers in low-income groups. This is reflected in a key target for the National Health Service for 2003–06.

  In support of these commitments, the Department of Health has continued to build upon the ABC poster campaign, which commenced in 2001, highlighting the lesser known risks associated with smoking during pregnancy. The £250,000 campaign is aimed primarily at 18–24 year old pregnant women in low income groups, their partners and families. Since 2001 the Department of Health has also distributed £6.8 million of extra funding to continue the development of smoking cessation services tailored for pregnant smokers.

  Hyperactive Children
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment his Department has made of the effect of sugar intake on hyperactivity of children. [111407]

  Ms Blears
  The Department has not carried out research on the effect of sugar intake on hyperactivity. However, research published to date has not confirmed an association between sugar intake and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children or adults.

  Local Food
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the FSA Report on Local Food; and when he expects to publish a response to it. [111756]
  107W
  Ms Blears
  The report, Local Food—a snapshot of the sector, was produced by a cross-departmental working group on local food and published on 9 April.

  The groups aims were to consider the evidence relating to the impacts of local food initiatives and the wider issues relating to local food, so that Government policy in this area could be developed.

  The development of the food and health action plan will consider all aspects of nutrition policy, including strengthening links to related areas of food and farming policy, such as local food. The local food report should be a valuable resource for this work.

  The Department of Health is already exploring the potential contribution of the local food sector to health goals, for example through the five-a-day programme, including the National School Fruit Scheme. We are also exploring how National Health Service food purchasing policy can better support sustainable development objectives and increase opportunities for local and United Kingdom businesses.

  Motor Neurone Disease
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the proposed use of cloning by the Roslin Institute to research a cure for motor neurone disease. 111750]

  Ms Blears
  I am aware of media reports that the Roslin Institute is proposing to conduct research into the treatment of motor neurone disease using stem cells derived from embryos created by cell nuclear replacement, known as therapeutic cloning. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, which licenses research involving human embryos, has advised me that it has yet to receive such a licence application.

  NHS Dentists
  Joyce Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS dentists have transferred wholly to private practice in each of the last five years. [111261]

  Mr. Lammy
  The information requested is not available centrally. The information collected is for the number of dentists treating National Health Service patients. This number rose by 1,672 between 1997 and 2002. The number is for the net increase after allowing for those leaving or joining.

  NHS Direct
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on plans for a national patient database, referred to in the strategy document, Developing NHS Direct. [110818]

  Mr. Lammy
  The creation of a national patient database will allow NHS Direct nurses to handle calls from patients from any part of England and thus will help make best use of NHS Direct resources.

  Obesity
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions took place between his Department and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport on the Cadbury initiative with the Youth Sport Trust on 108W
  assessing the effects chocolate has on obesity; and whether he expects an increase in the amount of confectionery consumed by children following the introduction of the initiative. [111554]

  Ms Blears
  Getting children and young people to be more active through increased participation in physical activity and sport, together with a healthy, balanced diet is key for the prevention of obesity. Increasing levels of physical activity across the whole population is a top priority across government. The Cadbury initiative, Get Active, is not a Government initiative and the Department of Health was not, therefore, consulted.

  To prevent and manage obesity, consumption of food high in fat and/or added sugar, such as chocolate, should be kept to a minimum, accompanied by increased levels of physical activity. Food consumption by children is assessed by the National Diet and Nutrition Survey (NDNS). The NDNS published in 2000 showed that the average consumption of chocolate confectionery in males aged four to 18 years was 138 grams per week and in females aged four to 18 years 115 grams per week. Further assessments will be carried out in future surveys.

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his Departments working relationship with the International Obesity Taskforce; and what the latest figures are for childhood obesity in(a) Teesside and (b) the UK. [111764]

  Ms Blears
  The Department of Health recognises that the International Obesity Taskforce (IOT) is an important organisation working on issues relating to obesity. Although the department does not have close links with the IOT, it has provided us with information on a range of issues on obesity.

  In relation to childhood obesity, the Health Survey for England 2001 showed that 8.5 per cent., of six year olds and 15 per cent., of 15-year-olds are obese. Information is not available for Teesside.

  Domiciliary Oxygen
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what response he has made to the recommendations of the Royal College of Physicians on ambulatory and domiciliary oxygen supply. [111780]

  Mr. Lammy
  We have been reviewing the domiciliary oxygen supply in the light of the report from the Royal College of Physicians. I hope to announce the outcome of that review shortly.

  Pharmacies
  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to safeguard the future of local pharmacies and chemists within the national health service. [111744]

  Mr. Lammy
  We are committed to improving access to pharmacies and to driving up the quality of the services they provide for patients. We are currently discussing with the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee and the NHS Confederation a new national contractual framework to support these objectives. We aim to have this in place by April 2004. Additionally,
  109W
  national health service primary care trusts can devise contracts for local pharmaceutical services, which address particular needs.

  Public Health
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action his Department intends to take to implement the recommendations in the 1988 Public Health in England report by the Chief Medical Officer on revising the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984. [110922]

  Ms Blears
  Public Health in England was commissioned by a previous Government. Its recommendation, that the then Department of Health and Social Security should revise the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 with a view to producing a more up to date and relevant legislative backing to control of communicable disease and infection,
  was taken forward by publication of a consultation document Review of Law on Infectious Disease Control in 1989. However, the then Government did not subsequently put before Parliament proposals for changes to the 1984 Act.

  We made clear in Getting Ahead of the Curve, the strategy for health protection published by the Chief Medical Officer in January 2002, that we intend to carry out a review of the infectious disease law. This review will take account not only of changes to local government and the National Health Service since 1988, including, most recently, the creation of the Health Protection Agency, but also of the new emergency powers which it is planned to provide through the Civil Contingencies Bill.

  Stephen Hesford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will introduce a consolidating piece of legislation which defines citizens rights to access to public health services. [109974]

  Ms Blears
  There are no plans to do so.

  Royal Shrewsbury Hospital
  Mr. Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what additional financial assistance will be given to the Royal Shrewsbury hospital in 2003–04 to improve cancer services. [111920]

  Mr. Lammy
  In the financial year 2003–04, the Royal Shrewsbury hospital National Health Service Trust will receive the following funding for cancer services:

  £

  Breast cancer prognostic testing

  24,000

  NICE allocations for cancer

  225,000

  Endocopy/colonoscopy

  125,000

  General growth in clinical oncology and clinical oncologists

  34,000

  Source:

  Royal Shrewsbury Hospital NHS Trust

  Salt
  Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on salt intake in food in the UK. [111211]
  110W
  Ms Blears
  At the request of the Food Standards Agency (FSA), the Scientific Committee on Nutrition has reviewed the evidence on the public health implications of dietary salt intakes of the United Kingdom population. It is expected that the committee will publish its report on this shortly. Papers relating to the Committees work on this matter are available on its website at www.SACN.gov.uk.

  It is likely that the committee will support previous expert advice that significant public health gains would be achieved if consumers, including children, reduced their salt intake. In anticipation of this the FSA, working in conjunction with the Department of Health, has been in discussion with food industry organisations about reducing salt levels in processed food which contributes most to current salt intakes in the UK.

  Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how the alert on severe acute respiratory syndrome was disseminated to(a) health professionals and (b) the public. [108180]

  Ms Blears
  The Department of Health issued information and advice to all general practitioners, trusts and public health professionals on Friday 14 March and on Monday 7 April via the Chief Medical Officers Public Health Link System. The Department also issued advice to the public and travellers about severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) through its website, which is reviewed on a daily basis.

  Following the statement in the House by my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Health, on 28 April, a letter went to all chief executives of national health service primary care trusts, reminding them of the precautionary action they need to take in their own organisations in case of further possible cases of SARS presenting to the NHS.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will allocate funding for a vaccine to counter severe acute respiratory syndrome. [107930]

  Ms Blears
  The probable causative pathogen of severe acute respiratory syndrome has only recently been identified. There is still a certain amount of scientific work to be carried out before we can start research into the development of a vaccine.

  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received on the level of satisfaction amongst health professionals with the(a) adequacy and (b) timeliness of information on severe acute respiratory syndrome. [108181]

  Ms Blears
  We have provided early, accurate information to both the public and the health service in response to the World Health Organisation (WHO) global alert about severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS). The Chief Medical Officer (CMO) contacted all doctors on 14 March and subsequently on 7 April with detailed information on the symptoms and signs of SARS, and what to do if they encountered a possible case. Up to date information on SARS is also available to the public on the WHO, Health Protection Agency
  111W
  and Department of Health websites, as well as through the NHS Direct telephone helpline, which many members of the public have contacted.

  The CMO issued advice to people travelling abroad on 2, 23 and 30 April in line with WHO recommendations. He strongly advised against travel to specific SARS affected areas. That remains his very strong advice.

  As a result of this timely response, to date we have had only six probable cases of SARS in the United Kingdom against a total of 6,583 in 27 countries.

  Statutory Instrument (Food Supplements Directive)
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to publish the Statutory Instrument on the Food Supplements Directive. [111026]

  Ms Blears
  The Food Standards Agency expects The Food Supplements (England) Regulations 2003 to be published in June 2003.

  Stroke Treatment
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans his Department has to conduct an investigation into the treatment of stroke patients at Eastbourne District General Hospital since 1992; and if he will make a statement. [108433]

  Ms Blears
  The Department has no plans to investigate the treatment of stroke patients at Eastbourne District General Hospital.

  The Commission for Health Improvement (CHI) was set up by the Government to improve the quality of patient care in the National Health Service across England and Wales. CHI started operating on 1 April 2000 and has a programme underway which aims to reduce unacceptable variations in care and ensure that every NHS patient receives a high level of care. The patients experience is at the heart of CHIs work and one of CHIs four statutory functions is to conduct investigations into serious service failures in the NHS.

  Sunbeds
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent discussions he has had with the British Medical Association regarding health risks associated with the use of sunbeds; and if he will make a statement on health risks associated with the use of sunbeds. [110589]

  Ms Blears
  No discussions have taken place with the British Medical Association regarding health risks associated with the use of sunbeds.

  Available evidence suggests that it is likely that ultra violet radiation (UV) exposure from sunbeds will contribute to the risk of adverse health effects, particularly skin cancers (and cataracts, if protective eyewear is not worn) and that certain groups of people will be at an increased level of risk.
  112W
  The report from the National Radiological Protection Boards Advisory Group on Non-Ionising Radiation (AGNIR): Health Effects of Ultra Violet Radiation, published in January 2002 (ISBN: 0–85951–474–7), recommended that the use of sunbeds and sunlamps for cosmetic tanning should be discouraged. This only applies to cosmetic tanning and not to the use of sunbeds and sunlamps as part of medical treatment, where the benefits and potential risks need to be assessed in a clinical context.

  The International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protections report, published in February 2003, concluded, any use of suntanning appliances is likely to raise the risk of skin cancer. It recommended against the use of W-emitting appliances for tanning or other non-medical purposes and set out the groups of people who should not use sunbeds. The report concludes that there is no conclusive direct evidence that sunbed exposure causes skin cancer.

  For those people who choose to use cosmetic tanning equipment, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) advise in its leaflet Controlling Health Risks From The Use of UV Tanning Equipment (IND (G) 20910195) that it is best not to exceed 20 sessions per year and that certain groups of people are advised not to use tanning equipment.

  No sufficient conclusive direct evidence is available at present to justify a ban on the use of UV sunbeds.

  Thrombolytic Treatment
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what targets have been set for the NHS on the wait for eligible patients between their call for professional help and receiving thrombolytic treatment. [111397]

  Ms Blears
  The national service framework for coronary heart disease and the NHS Plan, both published in 2000, set a service standard of 60 minutes from the time of calling for professional help for the administration of thrombolytic treatment to clinically eligible heart attack patients. This standard is reflected in the Priorities and Planning Framework 2003–2006, published in October 2002, which required the national health service to deliver a 10 percentage point increase per year over the national figure for 2002 of 38 per cent. of patients treated within the 60 minute target period.

  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of eligible patients waited less than 60 minutes between their call for professional help and receiving thrombolytic treatment,(a) for the latest day for which figures are available and (b) for previous recent periods in the last 12 months for which data was collected. [111398]

  Ms Blears
  National data show that for the first quarter of 2003, 43 per cent., of clinically eligible heart attack patients were treated with thrombolytic drugs within 60 minutes of calling for professional help. The overall figure for 2002 was 37 per cent., rising from 32 per cent., in the first quarter to 38 per cent., 39 per cent., and 40 per cent., respectively in the subsequent quarters.
  113W
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evidence he has collated on the number of lives that could be saved by reducing the time between(a) the onset of symptoms and (b) arrival in hospital and the start of thrombolytic treatment. [111399]

  Ms Blears
  Studies involving more than 150,000 patients have demonstrated the overwhelming benefit of treating heart attack patients with thrombolytic drugs within 12 hours of developing symptoms. Early treatment results in 65 lives per 1,000 saved if patients are treated within the first hour and 37 lives per 1,000 if treated within the first two hours.

  EU Committees
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list(a) the names, titles and grades of the officials who sit on the EU committee on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the member states concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products, (b) the number of times, and the dates, on which it has met since January 2002, (c) the agenda items it has considered since January 2002, (d) the decisions it has made since January 2002 and (e) the means used to communicate the decisions to the House. [110279]

  Ms Blears
  The Tobacco Policy Team leader, Grade 6, sits on the committee established under article 10 of Directive 2001/37/EC. The committee has met twice since January 2002, on 23 September 2002 and 10 February 2003. The first meeting was inquorate. The second adopted its rules of procedure and primarily discussed the European Commissions draft decision on the use of photographic warnings on tobacco packaging. No decisions were taken on the use of photographic warnings, as the Commission is due to circulate a further draft, on which the committee will be invited to submit an opinion. There was also a general discussion at this second meeting on the implementation of the Directive in member states.

  Tuberculosis
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the incidence of tuberculosis in the United Kingdom in each of the last 10 years. [110319]

  Ms Blears
  The incidences of tuberculosis for England and Wales reported to the Health Protection Agency and formerly the Public Health Laboratory Service are shown in the table.

  Year

  Incidence rates per 100,000 of the population

  1992

  11.31

  1993

  11.51

  1994

  10.83

  1995

  10.82

  1996

  10.87

  1997

  11.22

  1998

  11.61

  1999

  11.66

  2000

  12.41

  2001

  12.90

  Weils Disease
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of Weils disease there were in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [110150]

  Ms Blears
  The numbers of cases of human leptospirosis (Wells Disease) in England and Wales reported to the Health Protection Agencys Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre over the last five years are shown in the table.

  Number

  1998

  30

  1999

  41

  2000

  54

  2001

  27

  2002

  48

  Total

  200

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement about the future of the Millennium Dome; and when he expects to be able to stop putting public money into the project. [112120]

  Mr. McNulty
  English Partnerships (EP) took over full responsibility for the Dome in July 2001. It will remain responsible for the Dome, and will continue to pay for its upkeep, until the commercial deal between EP and Meridian Delta Ltd (MDL) becomes unconditional. EP and MDL signed contracts on 29 May 2002, to develop much of the Greenwich Peninsula, including a new use for the Dome. The deal is conditional primarily on securing a planning permission satisfactory to the contracting parties.

  On 23 December 2002, MDL, EP, Anschutz Entertainment Group and Quintain Estates and Development submitted a planning application to the London Borough of Greenwich (LBG), for a 26,000 capacity arena inside the Dome, with associated facilities, and a new masterplan covering 190 acres of the Greenwich Peninsula.

  LBGs Planning Committee considered the planning application on 16 April 2003 and resolved unanimously that it is minded to grant permission subject to a number of conditions and resolution of section 106 negotiations. The next stage, as part of the normal planning process, will be for LBG to refer the application to the Mayor and First Secretary of State.

  As the application is going through the statutory planning process it i s not possible to say when the Dome will be handed over to the private sector. While EP is responsible for meeting the costs of maintaining the Dome, it continues to seek short-term and one-off events to keep the Dome in use and help defray costs.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much the costs of maintaining the Millennium Dome have been each month; and from which departmental budget this money has come. [112127]
  115W
  Mr. McNulty
  English Partnerships (EP) took over full responsibility for the Dome in July 2001, and will continue to fund its management and maintenance until the commercial deal between EP and Meridian Delta Ltd (MDL) becomes unconditional.

  EP meets the costs associated with the Dome from resources made available to it by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. The average monthly cost incurred by EP for management, maintenance and security, including associated staff costs, for the period July 2001 to February 2003, was around £250,000, or £5 million for the whole period.

  In addition to the management, maintenance and security of the Dome, EP has also incurred Dome-related costs, up until the end of February 2003, comprising: £6.5 million for decommissioning the contents of the Dome and its site in preparation for the future long-term use; £6.3 million in connection with the current sale process; and £6.7 million for the previous competition to find a long-term use for the Dome.

  All of the above costs amount to a total figure of £24.5 million, to the end of February 2003. These costs will be recovered from sale proceeds.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the total cost has been to public funds of the millennium Dome project. [107951]

  Mr. McNulty
  [pursuant to the answer, 10 April 2003, Official Report, c. 357W]: The New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC), was responsible for building the Dome and running the Millennium Experience. NMEC was allocated £628 million of National Lottery funds from the Millennium Commission for the Millennium Experience, which included the associated national programme of events across the United Kingdom as well as the Dome at Greenwich. NMEC is currently in solvent liquidation and it is expected that some £25 million of this grant facility will not be required.

  Up to the end of December 2002, English Partnerships (EP) had incurred a total cost of £23.5 million. This includes, from 1 July 2001—when EP took over the ownership of the Dome—£4.6 million for the management, maintenance and security of the Dome; £6.5 million for decommissioning the contents of the Dome and its site in preparation for the future longterm use; and £5.7 million in connection with the sale process. It also includes £6.7 million for the previous competition to find a long-term use for the Dome. All of these costs incurred by EP in relation to the Dome will be recovered from sale proceeds.

  Criminal Offences
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list, broken down by Act, the criminal offences created in legislation sponsored by his Department and its predecessors since 1997. [111790]

  Mr. Leslie
  The following information covers Acts of Parliament for which the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has current responsibility.

  The Regional Development Agencies Act 1998 created two new offences in relation to rights of entry.
  116W
  The Local Government Act 1999 created one new offence. This Act also gives my right. hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister a power to make regulations, breach of which may also constitute an offence. The Greater London Authority Act 1999 created 17 offences and confers bylaw making powers, breach of which may also constitute an offence.

  The Local Government Act 2000 created 4 offences.

  The Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2000 created 2 offences.

  Document Classification
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many documents are held by his Office that are subject to security classification, broken down by category of classification. [107355]

  Mr. Leslie
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Alexander) on 7 May 2003,Official Report, column. 696w.

  Empty Properties
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the cost was to his Department and his Departments agencies and non-departmental public bodies of their empty and under-utilised properties in each year since 1997. [104174]

  Mr. Leslie
  Since the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister was set up on 29 May 2002 the cost of its vacant accommodation on its central estate is estimated to have been £153,370 in lost rental. The cost to its Agencies in lost rental since 1 April 2002 is estimated to have been £267,590. The information for Non Departmental Public Bodies is not held centrally and can only be provided at disproportionate cost. All are vacant and on the market.

  Footpaths
  Andrew Bennett
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what discussions he has had with the Ordnance Survey about the recording of footpaths which are not designated as(a) public rights of way on the Carneddu and (b) footpaths and bridleways on the Glyders in Snowdonia, until such time as they are registered as public rights of way under the historic paths requirement of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. [112800]

  Mr. McNulty
  I have not had discussions with Ordnance Survey on this specific issue, however it is Ordnance Survey policy to depict all designated rights of way on the OS Explorer and OS Landranger Series when supported by confirming information from the footpath authorities. Many undesignated footpaths are also depicted on these map series where there is clear evidence for their existence on the ground.

  Footpaths and bridleways to be registered as rights of way under the historic paths requirement of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 will be added to OS Explorer and OS Landranger maps following the receipt of confirming details from the footpath authorities.

  Homelessness (Redbridge)
  Linda Perham
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to relieve homelessness in the London Borough of Redbridge. [111746]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Homelessness Directorates report More than a roof sets out specific measures to tackle homelessness backed up by a £125 million investment in 2002–03 and £260 million over the following three years.

  The Homelessness Directorate has allocated funding to the London Borough of Redbridge which consists of:

  (a) £426,245 in 2002–03 and a further £260,000 for 2003–04 to help them reduce the number of homeless families with children in bed and breakfast hotels (B&B) and meet the national commitment of ensuring that by March 2004, no homeless family with children is placed in B&B other than in an emergency and even then for no more than six weeks.

  (b) £32,000 in 2002–03 to develop homeless services and £32,000 in 2003–04 to help them support a voluntary sector provider to carry out a mediation and reconciliation service to prevent homelessness amongst young people, and to provide a floating support and tenancy sustainment service for those to whom a homelessness duty is accepted where prevention is not possible. This aims to prevent a re-occurrence of homelessness and rough sleeping.

  In relation to the number of people sleeping rough, figures show that over the past few years Redbridge has maintained a very low number of no more than five people sleeping rough on any one night.

  Housing
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much the Merseyside Housing Renewal Group are paying in fees to Grimley in the first year of operation; and whether other professional fees are being paid during this start-up period. [110681]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Merseyside Housing Market Renewal Pathfinder has been awarded £2.66 million from the Capital Modernisation Fund. This funding will cover the costs to develop a strategic scheme for the Merseyside sub-region and to undertake some early action. Eligible costs include professional fees. The use of the funding is a matter for the Pathfinder Board, subject to the terms of the funding agreement issued by Government.

  Local Elections
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will move polling day for future local elections to a Sunday. [112384]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has no plans to move polling day for future local elections to a Sunday. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) said in a written statement to the House on 6 May 2003,Official Report, column 29WS, the Government intends to take forward further pilots of weekend voting in view of potential benefits to electors, and taking into account the costs involved.

  Local Government Ombudsman
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister by what means the Local Government Ombudsman is accountable to the public; and how his work is monitored. [111193]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Commission for Local Administration in England (Local Government Ombudsman) was established by the Local Government Act 1974. It is treated as a specified body for the purposes of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 and receives funding as a deduction (top slice) from Revenue Support Grant. The Commission is required under the Local Government Act 1974 to publish an annual report and submit the report to such persons as appear to the Commission to represent local authorities. The Commission makes this report publicly available, including via the Ombudsmans website. The report is available in the Library of the House.

  The Ombudsmans investigations are wholly independent of the Government, and as regards matters of legality may be subject to judicial review.

  Newspaper Advertising
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the expenditure of his(a) Department and its predecessors, (b) agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies was on newspaper advertising, by title, in each year since 1997; and what estimate he has made for 2003–04. [106856]

  Mr. Leslie
  Information on newspaper advertising expenditure for each year since 1997 by agencies and non-departmental public bodies for which the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is responsible is not held centrally and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Overhanging Debt
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the total value was of payments made to pay off overhanging debt in the financial years(a) 1999–2000, (b) 2001–02 and (c) 2002–03. [108624]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The payments made in respect of overhanging debt in each financial year since arrangements were introduced are set out in the table.

  Year

  £ million

  1999–2000

  21.0

  2000–01

  255.2

  2001–

  None

  2002–03

  584.3

  Postal Voting
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the change in turnout in elections in each local council area in England which held all-postal vote elections on 1 May was when compared with turnout in the previous local council election; and if he will make a statement. [112371]

  Mr. Leslie
  Turnout at each of the all-postal pilot elections in May 2003 is shown in the table.
  119W

  Name of authority

  Year of comparable election

  Percentage of turnout at last comparable election

  Type of election this time (full/third)

  Percentage turnout 2003

  Change in percentage since last comparable election

  Blackpool BC

  2000

  29

  Whole

  50.43

  21

  Blyth Valley BC

  1999

  27

  Whole

  52.00

  25

  Bolton MBC

  2002

  32

  Thirds

  42.00

  10

  Brighton and Hove City C

  1999

  38

  Whole

  45.96

  8

  Chesterfield BC

  1999

  35

  Whole

  51.69

  17

  Copeland BC

  1999

  39

  Whole

  55.70

  17

  Corby BC

  1999

  31

  Whole

  43.00

  12

  Darlington BC

  1999

  34

  Whole

  51.54

  17

  Derwentside, Chester-le-Street and Wear Valley (Joint Pilot)

  1999

  31

  Whole

  52.40

  21

  Doncaster C

  2002

  29

  Thirds

  47.00

  18

  East Staffordshire BC

  1999

  34

  Whole

  44.97

  11

  Gateshead MBC1

  2002

  57

  Thirds

  54.65

  -2

  Guildford BC

  1999

  37

  Whole

  54.00

  17

  Herefordshire CC

  1999

  38

  Whole

  61.00

  23

  Hyndburn BC

  2002

  36

  Thirds

  51.47

  15

  Kings Lynn and West Norfolk

  1999

  36

  Whole

  47.66

  12

  Lincoln City C

  2002

  26

  Thirds

  47.33

  21

  Newcastle City C

  2002

  32

  Thirds

  49.83

  18

  North Lincolnshire

  1999

  33

  Whole

  51.28

  18

  North Shropshire DC

  1999

  33

  Whole

  47.00

  14

  Redcar and Cleveland BC

  1999

  37

  Whole

  51.50

  14.50

  Rotherham MBC

  2002

  27

  Thirds

  51.30

  24

  Rushcliffe BC

  1999

  40

  Whole

  54.00

  14

  Salford City C

  2002

  25

  Thirds

  41.00

  16

  Sedgefield BC

  1999

  30

  Whole

  44.15

  14

  St. Edmundsbury BC

  1999

  38

  Whole

  38.50

  0

  St. Helens MBC

  2002

  26

  Thirds

  48.00

  22

  Stevenage BC1

  2002

  53

  Thirds

  52.20

  -1

  Stockton-on-Tees BC

  1999

  31

  Whole

  52.00

  21

  Sunderland City C

  2002

  22

  Thirds

  46.46

  24

  Trafford MBC1

  2002

  53

  Thirds

  52.39

  -1

  Telford and Wrekin

  1999

  28

  Whole

  48.65

  19

  Wansbeck DC

  1999

  32

  Whole

  50.20

  18

  Comparisons for Gateshead, Stevenage and Trafford are with previous all-postal elections

  It is clear that all-postal voting has produced a significant increase in turnout, with an average across all 33 pilots of just under 50 per cent. The Electoral Commission, as required by statute, are evaluating each pilot scheme.

  Bob Russell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what representations he has received about abuses in the postal vote system in the May local government elections in England; what steps he is taking to investigate alleged abuses; and if he will make a statement. [112493]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister receives occasional correspondence about concerns with postal voting. Investigation of alleged abuses in the voting system is a matter for the returning officer concerned, the police, and the Crown Prosecution Service.

  The Electoral Commission is carrying out a full evaluation of all electoral pilots held at the May 2003 local elections, including those involving all-postal voting. They have also completed a review of absent voting. The Government will be considering their recommendations very carefully.

  Public Liability Insurance
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many contracts have been awarded to businesses that do not hold public liability insurance by each local authority in the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement. [112450]

  Mr. Raynsford
  This information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Local authorities are independent and autonomous bodies, responsible within the law for making their own decisions on procurement matters.

  Regional Government
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the administrative costs have been as a percentage of total spending of each Government Office of the Regions since 1999. [103811]

  Mr. Leslie
  The responsibility for the monitoring of programme funding lies with sponsor Departments (The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, DTI, DfT, DffiS, DEFRA, HO and DCMS). However in 2001–02 the estimated amount of programme funding that was either managed or influenced by the Government
  121W
  Offices was approximately £7 billion. The estimated amounts in 1999–2000 and 2000–01 were of the order of £6 billion.

  The administrative funding of the Government Offices is not directly related to programme expenditure. However, the table below shows the total expenditure figures and the percentage of administrative costs as a proportion of total spending.

  Year

  Programme Expenditure

  Administration Expenditure

  Admin % of Total Expenditure

  1999–2000

  6,000,000,000

  83,707,460

  1.38

  2000–01

  6,000,000,000

  88,094,250

  1.45

  2001–02

  7,000,000,000

  95,320,160

  1.34

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Home Start and Sure Start
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list, by district council areas, the(a) Home Start schemes and (b) Sure Start schemes funded by health boards and trusts in Northern Ireland. [110580]

  Mr. Browne
  With regard to Sure Start projects, the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety provides funding to the four Childcare Partnerships through the appropriate Health and Social Services Board. For financial year 2002–03, the Department

  Home Start Scheme

  HSS Board Area

  H and SS Trust

  East Belfast

  Eastern

  South and West Belfast

  North Belfast

  Eastern

  North and West Belfast

  North Down

  Eastern

  Ulster Community and Hospitals

  Newry and Mourne

  Southern

  Newry and Mourne

  Causeway

  Northern

  Causeway

  Colin

  Eastern

  Down Lisburn

  Lisburn

  Eastern

  Down Lisburn

  Down District (includes Newcastle and Ballynahinch)

  Eastern

  Down Lisburn

  Armagh and Dungannon

  Southern

  Armagh and Dungannon

  West Tyrone

  Western

  Sperrin Lakeland

  Antrim District

  Northern

  Homefirst

  Carrickfergus

  Northern

  Homefirst

  Speech Therapy
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many NHS vacancies there are for speech therapists in Northern Ireland. [111803]

  Mr. Browne
  As at 30 September 2002 there were speech and language therapy vacancies amounting to a whole time equivalent (WTE) of 12.5. Speech and language therapy vacancies detailed by the Trust are given in the table.

  Trust

  WTE1

  Homefirst Community

  5

  North and West Belfast

  2.5

  Sperrin Lakeland

  0

  Armagh and Dungannon

  2

  Causeway

  1

  Mater Hospital

  0

  122W
  allocated a total of £6.6 million across the four Childcare Partnerships. Information regarding allocations to each district council area is not available. Details of Sure Start schemes funded through Childcare Partnerships in financial year 2002–03 are set out in Table 1 below:

  Sure Start Scheme

  Childcare Partnership/ HSS Board Area

  Inner City South Belfast

  Eastern

  Inner City East Belfast

  Eastern

  Shankill

  Eastern

  Colin

  Eastern

  Clan Mor (Falls)

  Eastern

  Kids'n'Kin (Ardoyne/Oldpark)

  Eastern

  Downpatrick

  Eastern

  Lower Ards Peninsula

  Eastern

  Newtownabbey

  Northern

  Ballysally

  Northern

  G-old (Cookstown)

  Northern

  Close to Home (Dungannon)

  Southern

  Clogher Valley

  Southern

  Orana (Newry)

  Southern

  Blossom (Portadown)

  Southern

  Cherish (Irvinestown)

  Western

  Dungiven

  Western

  Creevagh/Springtown

  Western

  Shantallow

  Western

  LAST (Omagh)

  Western

  Straband

  Western

  Information on resources allocated by Boards and Trusts for Home Start schemes is also not available on a district council basis. Details of Home Start schemes supported by HSS Trusts in financial year 2002–03 are set out in Table 2 below.

  Trust

  WTE1

  United Hospitals Group

  0

  Craigavon and Banbridge

  0

  Altnagelvin

  0

  Foyle (including Westcare)

  1

  Royal Group of Hospitals

  0

  Belfast City Hospital

  0

  Newry and Mourne

  0

  Craigavon Area Hospital

  0

  Ulster Hospital

  0

  Green Park

  1

  South and East Belfast

  0

  Total

  12.5

  1 Whole time equivalent.

  Note:

  The above figures do not include vacancy numbers from Down Lisburn HSS Trust.

TRANSPORT

  Air Safety
  Dr. Pugh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what his policy is on the proposals of the European Parliament for longer flying hours. [112546]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) has reviewed the European Parliaments proposed Flight Time Limitations (FTL) requirements. They advise me that, while the requirements are not totally acceptable, with suitable amendment they could form a baseline European FTL requirement which could be supplemented by additional requirements in each member state. We recognise the need for FTL requirements to be harmonised at a European level and should the proposal come before the Council we will work constructively with other member states to ensure that it is appropriately amended. We will not endorse the proposal if any of the limits are significantly different to those set by the CAA in CAP 371, which are in line with scientific advice that the CAA has received over the years.

  Counselling Services
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what arrangements are made in his Department to allow staff to access counselling services. [111948]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Departments Counselling and Support Service is available to all its staff including those in its Agencies. Following machinery of Government changes, the service is provided by the Office of The Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) through Service Level Agreements. Staff can access the service direct during office hours about any issue where there is a perception that work performance is affected.

  Goods Vehicles
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to his answer of 6 May, ref 111284, if he will propose an amendment to the law to allow parish and community councils to make representations about applications for a Goods Vehicles Operators licence regardless of whether they own or occupy land or buildings in the proposed operating centre; and if he will make a statement on the basis for restricting such representation to owners and occupiers of land and buildings. [112347]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The most effective way for parish councils to comment on applications for a heavy goods vehicle operators licence is to work with local authorities who have a statutory right to object. The Government launched The QUALITY Town and Parish Council Initiative, a framework for partnership working equipping local councils to take on a stronger role for the benefit of the local community, on 18 March.

  International Maritime Organisation
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the UK will become a contracting party to the IMO Bunkers 2001 Convention. [111425]
  124W
  Mr. Jamieson
  The International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage (the Bunkers Convention) was adopted by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) in 2001. It will establish a regime for adequate, prompt and effective compensation to persons who suffer damage caused by spills of oil, when carried as fuel in ships bunkers.

  On 19 September 2002 the Council of the European Union issued a Decision authorising member states, in the interest of the Community, to sign, ratify or accede to the Bunkers Convention, taking the necessary steps to deposit instruments of ratification, or accession with the Secretary General of the IMO if possible before 30 June 2006.

  On 26 September 2002, the United Kingdom signed the Convention as a clear signal of intent to become party in the near future. We are working with both EU counterparts and states with an interest internationally so that the Convention is brought into operation as soon as possible.

  London Underground
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent discussions he has had with(a) the Home Office, (b) the British Transport Police and (c) Transport for London regarding crime on the District line in the London Borough of Havering; and if he will make a statement. [110550]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My right hon. Friend and ministerial colleagues meet representatives of these bodies periodically to discuss a variety of relevant matters.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on what basis the selection of the preferred bidders was made in respect of London Undergrounds public private partnership. [110811]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Negotiation of the PPP was the responsibility of London Underground and its parent body, London Regional Transport. The London Transport Board selected preferred bidders in 2001 for all three PPPs following a rigorous assessment process. London Transport published London Underground Limited Public Private Partnership: Final Assessment Report in February 2002, which describes bid evaluation for the PPP.

  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to prevent a recurrence of the recent disruption to services on the Central Line of the London Underground. [111739]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Both the Health and Safety Executive and London Underground are conducting detailed investigations into the causes of the derailment at Chancery Lane on 25 January. The London Transport Users Committee is holding an inquiry to consider whether total closure of the line was the only reasonable option following the incident and whether services could have been restored more quickly. Once these have concluded, we shall be looking, with LU, at what lessons can be learned to further improve both safety and service resilience in the future and ensuring that a programme is put in place to implement them.
  125W
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many units of new rolling stock Metronet are to receive; and when they are due to be delivered. [110809]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I understand that Metronet have announced that they will be providing a fleet of 47 new eight car trains for the Victoria Line. The first of these will enter service in 2009 (with prototypes running from 2006) and the entire upgrade will be completed by August 2012. The Sub Surface Lines will receive 190 new trains, the first on the Metropolitan Line in 2009, with new trains coming off the production line at the rate of one every 10 days. A new fleet of trains will also be built for the Bakerloo Line by 2019.

  M2
  Jonathan Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much compensation has been given, and on what dates, by the Highways Agency to Buckmore Park Scout Centre as a consequence of the M2 widening; and if he will make a statement about outstanding claims. [111087]

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

  Letter from Tim Matthews to Mr. Jonathan Shaw, dated 7 May 2003:
  The Transport Minister, David Jamieson, has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question regarding the amount of compensation that has been given, and on what dates, by the Highways Agency to Buckmore Park Scout Centre as a consequence of the M2 widening.
  You will know from your previous involvement with the M2 Widening scheme that the Buckmore Park Scout Centre was accepted as a Rule 5 Case under the Land Compensation Act. This provides for compensation to meet the costs of reasonable equivalent reinstatement. Exceptionally, to enable work to be undertaken to organise the replacement facilities and get them built ahead of the M2 widening construction, it was agreed that compensation would be released in stages ahead of the normal land entry requirement. The payment of compensation was therefore spread over a period of time commencing in October 1995.
  I set out in the attached annex the full schedule of payments made and dates of release. All these payments included the payment of VAT. You will note that the last entry is for statutory interest, providing for the interest on the difference between the sum released at the time of entry and the latest estimate of compensation.
  You raise the issue of outstanding claims. At the end of 2001, the Valuation Office Agency (VOA), the independent valuer acting for the Highways Agency, had discussed with the scouts valuer, all the heads of claim and had reached a point where a full and final offer could be made. However, because there was some question as to whether the VAT element could be recovered by the scouts, and therefore not form part of the cost of reinstatement, the full and final offer made was presented without prejudice to the outcome of the VAT enquiry.
  The full and final offer, in the sum of £10,100,000 (including VAT) was made on 4 December 2001 and apparently accepted by the valuer for the scouts but his recommendation to accept was rejected by his client.
  The dispute over the VAT element eventually led to the scouts making a reference to the Lands Tribunal on 15 April 2002. At that time the solicitor for the scouts raised a claim for compensation on a number of additional items. These were not specified in any way and to date the scouts have not responded to our request for this to be done.
  126W
  The Highways Agency has therefore paid in full all the compensation recommended by the VOA up to the full and final offer that was rejected. Subject to the scouts justifying their claim for additional items there are no outstanding sums.
  I hope that this answers your queries. The Project Sponsor for the M2 scheme is Colin Chadwick. He would be happy to discuss this issue in greater detail if you wish. He can be contacted at Room C8, 5 Broadway, Broad Street, Birmingham, B15 1BL—telephone 0121 6788281.

  Annex

  Date paid

  Amount(£)

  Works/fees

  Cumulative (£)

  30-10-1995

  49,256.06

  Fees

  49,256.06

  15-01-1996

  21,525.00

  Survey/design

  70,781.06

  16-04-1996

  15,143.11

  Design fees

  85,924.17

  15-05-1996

  8,750.00

  Design fees

  94,674.17

  28-01-1997

  59,511.50

  Design fees

  154,185.67

  05-03-1997

  29,819.00

  Design fees

  184,004.67

  11-03-1997

  26,590.25

  Fees & preparation

  210,594.92

  09-05-1997

  20,715.25

  Design fees

  231,310.17

  27-10-1997

  7,470.26

  Design fees

  238,780.43

  21-01-1998

  104,271.41

  Fees

  343,051.84

  16-02-1998

  101,590.25

  Design fees & bank charges

  444,642.09

  12-03-1998

  17,625.01

  Fees

  462,267.10

  19-03-1998

  19,413.94

  Fees

  481,681.04

  17-04-1998

  43,850.76

  Design fees

  525,531.80

  23-06-1998

  2,432.25

  Fees

  527.964.05

  22-09-1998

  50,525.01

  Design fees

  578,489.06

  14-10-1998

  227,125.15

  Works

  805,614.21

  22-10-1998

  468,733.35

  Works

  1,274,347.56

  23-11-1998

  523,427.00

  Works

  1,797,774.56

  21-12-1998

  449,153.00

  Works

  2,246,927.56

  29-01-1999

  204,034.00

  Works

  2,450,961.56

  18-02-1999

  303,761.00

  Works

  2,754,722.56

  18-03-1999

  333,020.00

  Works

  3,087,742.56

  16-04-1999

  104,455.31

  Fees

  3,192,197.87

  19-05-1999

  308,414.00

  Works

  3,500,611.87

  18-06-1999

  7,843.13

  Design Fee

  3,508,455.00

  23-06-1999

  103,987.50

  Works

  3,612,442.50

  23-07-1999

  677,768.94

  Works &. Buffer

  4,290,211.44

  26-08-1999

  293,750.00

  Works

  4,583,961.44

  30-09-1999

  762,401.47

  Works

  5,346,362.91

  28-10-1999

  765,129.80

  Works

  6,111,492.71

  11-01-2000

  422,507.39

  Works

  6,534,000.10

  10-02-2000

  726,000.00

  Works

  7,260,000.10

  25-02-2000

  2,018,000.00

  Works

  9,278,000.10

  25-02-2000

  22,000.00

  Fees

  9,300,000.10

  18-05-2000

  50,000.00

  Disturbance

  9,350,000.10

  12-09-2000

  175,000.00

  Works

  9.525,000.10

  04-01-2001

  225,000.00

  Works

  9,750,000.10

  15-03-2001

  100,000.00

  Works

  9,850,000.10

  28-08-2001

  16,634.02

  Seeboard invoice

  9,866,634.12

  14-02-2002

  252,327.58

  Interest

  10,118,961.70

  Marine Environment
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent discussions he has had with(a) his counterparts in Europe, (b) his counterparts in other maritime nations and (c) the International Maritime Organisation regarding the creation of internationally recognised marine environment high risk areas. [111426]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have had no discussions of the sort described concerning marine environmental high risk areas (MEHRAs). MEHRAs are a domestic UK initiative. However, there is an international designation entitled Particularly Sensitive Sea Area (PSSA), which represents the very highest level of environmental protection available through the International Maritime Organisation (IMO). A proposal for a PSSA in western European waters was discussed at the Transport Council in March, and my Department has played an active role in developing that proposal in co-operation with French,
  127W
  Spanish, Irish, Portuguese and Belgian colleagues. The six countries joint proposal for a PSSA stretching from the Shetland Islands in the north to the coast of Portugal in the south, and including the English Channel, was submitted to the IMO last month and will be considered by the IMOs Marine Environment Protection Committee in July.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what targets he has set for the creation of marine environment high risk areas in waters within UK jurisdiction. [111427]

  Mr. Jamieson
  In his report Safer Ships, Cleaner Seas, which first recommended the identification of marine environmental high risk areas (MEHRAs), Lord Donaldson proposed that not more than about a tenth of the UK coastline should qualify. That is the target I have set.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to his answer of 16 December 2002,Official Report, column 580W, to the hon. Member for Reading, East (Jane Griffiths), what progress his Department is making towards the publishing of the consultation document on marine environment high risk areas. [111560]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government remain strongly committed to marine environmental high risk areas (MEHRAs). An interdepartmental group, including representatives of Defra, DTI and my own Department (including its Maritime and Coastguard Agency), together with the devolved Administrations, the country agencies for nature conservation and the UK Hydrographic Office, has been working to produce a report, which will announce the areas which have been identified as MEHRAs and which will consult on the protective measures proposed to protect these locations.

  We have completed traffic surveys of a number of the identified locations on the east and west coasts of the UK, and we are developing proposals on ship routeing measures to take to the International Maritime Organisation (IMO). An outline of the results of the traffic surveys and the proposed routeing measures will be included in the report.

  However, this is a substantial task and an appreciable amount of work has still to be done in developing the proposed protective measures. In the circumstances, I now expect the report to be issued this autumn.

  National Minimum Wage
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the estimated cost is in 2003–04 to his Department, agencies and the non-departmental public bodies for which he is responsible of the increase in the national minimum wage from £4.20 per hour to £4.50 per hour. [110444]

  Mr. Jamieson
  No additional costs for staff will be incurred by my Department, agencies and the non-departmental public bodies for which I am responsible as a result of the increase in the national minimum wage with the exception of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency where the estimated cost is £120,000, related to voluntary auxilliary coastguards.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport who the chief executive officer is of the(a) Driving Standards Agency, (b) Vehicle Certification Agency and (c) Vehicle Inspectorate. [112703]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The following are Chief Executives of their agencies:

  (a) Mr. Gary Austin—DSA

  (b) Mr. Derek W. Harvey—VGA

  (c) Mr. Maurice R. Newey1—VI

  1 On 1 April the Vehicle Inspectorate merged with the Traffic Area Network and is now called the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency.

  Railways
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what plans his Department has to stop train companies adding minutes to their summer timetables in order to reduce the fines paid for late trains; [111406]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the announcement by Thameslink that it will increase the journey times on its routes in order to reduce the fines it pays for late services. [111405]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Passenger Service Requirement (PSR) in franchise agreements prescribes permitted journey times on core routes. Operators cannot exceed the prescribed journey times without the approval of the Strategic Rail Authority (SRA). No extensions of permitted journey times have been approved for Thameslink. For services which are not part of the PSR operators agree both train paths and journey times with the infrastructure manager (Network Rail). However, journey times for similar services are usually close because of the way the timetable is constructed.

  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library a copy of the letter of engagement between his Department and Schroders Salomon Smith Barney of 31 August 2001, concerning the future of Railtrack Plc; and if he will make a statement. [111213]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The letter of engagement referred to is a commercially confidential agreement between the Department and Schroder Salomon Smith Barney (SSSB) and so would not be appropriate to place in the Library. SSSB were engaged by the Department on 31 August 2001 to provide financial advice on matters relating to Railtracks financial difficulties.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will make a statement on the Greater Anglia rail franchise; [110595]
  129W
  (2) what recent discussions his Department has had with (a) First and (b) the Strategic Rail Authority in relation to the Greater Anglia rail franchise; [110596]

  (3) what reasons First has been excluded from the bidding process for the Greater Anglia rail franchise. [110597]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Departmental officials met First Group representatives on 3 April. Departmental officials and Ministers regularly meet the Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) to discuss rail issues, including issues relating to franchises. The decision on those selected to bid for the Greater Anglia franchise is a matter for the SRA. The decision followed a detailed qualification process, which is confidential in respect of the commercial propositions put forward. Arriva Trains Ltd., GB Railways plc and National Express Group plc were confirmed as bidders on 1 April 2003, with Invitations To Tender issued on 15 April. Detailed proposals are to be submitted to the SRA by 1 September.

  Drivers

  Operators

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Tampering with tachograph machine/chart

  459

  495

  379

  98

  51

  61

  Removal of tachograph chart

  21

  37

  40

  7

  13

  11

  Total

  480

  532

  419

  105

  64

  72

  Road Haulage Industry
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will bring forward measures to monitor and enforce the legislation relating to the misuse of tachographs; if he will undertake more frequent spot-checks in respect of(a) hours of working by lorry drivers, (b) the roadworthiness of vehicles and (c) the legal weight and safety of the cargo; and if he will make a statement. [111499]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The specification and use of tachographs is laid down in European legislation, principally Regulation (EEC) 3821/85. This regulation has been amended to require the fitting and use of digital tachographs in vehicles put into service after August 2004. This new instrument will address the common misuses associated with the current analogue tachograph. The working time of drivers is not currently subject to limits except to the extent that drivers subject to the drivers hours rules must meet minimum requirements for daily and weekly rest—in addition to limits on driving time. A minimum level for checks on compliance with the EU drivers hours rules is set in an EU Directive.

  We have already taken steps to increase the levels of enforcement for HGV traffic and roadworthiness regulations. In 2001–02, we introduced an additional HGV enforcement package, funded by the Road Haulage Modernisation Fund. The package includes projects to increase the number of examiners available for roadside checks, provide equipment to increase the scope and mobility of roadside inspections, augment advice and education initiatives to prevent offending, enhance data collection and analysis for targeting purposes, and improve roadside inspection facilities.
  130W
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many(a) lorry drivers and (b) haulage firms were convicted in each of the last three years for which figures are available for offences involving the (i) tampering with and (ii) removal of tachographs. [111498]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The number of lorry drivers and haulage firms (operators) convicted by the Vehicle Inspectorate (now the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency) in each of the last three years for offences involving (i) tampering with or (ii) removal of tachographs is set out in the table below. In such cases operators are convicted for causing or permitting these offences, unless they are owner/drivers. The figures for convictions for tampering with tachographs also include offences of tampering with the tachograph chart.

  The agency also has powers to prohibit vehicles if the calibration of a tachograph has been tampered with. The prohibition can only be cleared at an approved tachograph calibration centre.

  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many lorry drivers were convicted in each of the last three years for which figures are available for exceeding the number of permitted hours of working. [111500]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The number of lorry drivers convicted by the Vehicle Inspectorate (now the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency) in each of the last three years for breaching drivers hours regulations is set out in the table below. The agency also has powers to impose a prohibition in such cases to prevent the driver from continuing his journey until the road safety risk has been eliminated.

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Exceed 45. hours continuous driving

  639

  559

  696

  Exceed 10 hours driving in a day

  300

  262

  243

  Exceed 9 hours driving in a day

  51

  30

  16

  Exceed fortnightly driving (90 hours)

  3

  7

  19

  Insufficient rest in a 24 hour period

  541

  464

  460

  Insufficient rest in a 30 hour period (double manned)

  11

  29

  19

  Failure to take weekly rest

  156

  1,507

  1,568

  Total

  1,701

  1,507

  1,568

  School Buses
  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to introduce further safety standards for school buses. [112540]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have no plans to amend the construction standards of buses used specifically for school transport.

  The Department consulted last year on the reform of national regulations and approval schemes for the construction and use of minibuses, buses and coaches. The main purpose of these changes is to simplify the

  131W
  current regulatory structure and align our requirements with those common in the rest of Europe. While these proposals do not differentiate between the uses to which buses and coaches are put they will effect all such vehicles including those used for school transport.

  Shrewsbury Driving Test Centre
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the reasons for proposing the closure of the driving test centre in Shrewsbury. [111917]

  Mr. Jamieson
  In March, the Driving Standards Agency issued a letter of consultation to interested parties about options for the future provision of practical car driving and motorcycleriding tests in the Shropshire area in order to ensure that the existing test centres continued to meet the needs of the Agency and its customers. The four driving test centres involved were at Telford, Shrewsbury, Whitchurch and Oswestry. The preferred option would have involved co-locating the Shrewsbury and Telford test centres at Telford and closing the Shrewsbury centre. However, as a result of an upsurge in demand for practical tests, the review has now been shelved indefinitely and the consultation exercise suspended. On 28 April, the Agency wrote to all the interested parties explaining there were no longer plans to close test centres in the area for the foreseeable future.

  Traffic
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received from(a) the Association of Chief Police Officers and (b) the RAC Foundation regarding the proposed Active Traffic Management Pilot Scheme. [111183]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Secretary of State has not received any formal representations from the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) nor the RAC Foundation with regard to the proposed Active Traffic Management pilot.

  The Highways Agency have ongoing consultations with ACPO, which has provided appropriate advice to the Highways Agency as part of the development of the pilot. Discussions have also taken place with the various motoring organisations, and these discussions are on-going.
  132W
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will restrict the number of lanes that heavy goods vehicles may use within the Active Traffic Management pilot scheme in the places where drivers are permitted to use the hard shoulder. [111402]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The detailed operation of hard shoulder running in the pilot scheme is currently being developed.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on what basis, and for what reasons, a reassessment of the traffic statistics for 2000 began in 2002. [110812]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Starting in 2000–01, a number of steps have been taken to improve the quality of the published traffic estimates. These include an improvement in the database used to represent the road network, using a Geographic Information System and use of new data from the Highways Agency. Preliminary revisions to estimated traffic levels in 1999, 2000 and 2001, along with a note explaining the revisions, were published in the Transport Statistics Bulletin Road Traffic Statistics: 2001, issued in August 2002, a copy of which is in the Library. A full revised series back to 1993 will be published in the forthcoming quarterly bulletin Traffic in Great Britain: Q1 2003, on 8 May.

  Train Maintenance Depot, Bedford
  Mr. Pollard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with(a) Network Rail and (b) the Strategic Rail Authority on the delays in commencing the installation of a new train maintenance depot at Bedford. [111400]

  Mr. Jamieson
  None. The Strategic Rail Authority and Network Rail are working with Bedford Borough Council to enable the construction of this crucial depot required to facilitate Thameslink services during the Channel Tunnel Rail Link blockade of St. Pancras in 2004.

  Transport Scheme Funding
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to establish compatibility of method between funding of rail schemes and road schemes. [112445]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Rail and road schemes are funded in ways that reflect the nature of the investment and of the delivery agents involved. Compatible methods are used for assessing the costs and benefits of rail and road schemes.

TREASURY

  Double Taxation (Canada/Mauritius)
  The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo)
  Protocols amending the existing Conventions with Canada and Mauritius were signed on 7 May 2003 and 27 March 2003 respectively. After signature both texts were deposited in the Library of the House and made available on the Inland Revenue's website. The texts of both Protocols will be scheduled to a draft Order in Council and laid for consideration by the House at the earliest convenient opportunity.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Law Commission
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Ms Rosie Winterton)
  My right hon. and noble Friend, Baroness Scotland of Asthal, Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, has today announced that John Halliday CB submitted the report of his independent review of the Law Commission on 31 March 2003. The report praises the high quality of the Commission's work while making a number of recommendations aimed at further improving the effectiveness both of the Commission itself and of the overall law reform process. The Lord Chancellor welcomes the thrust of his recommendations and has asked the Ministerial Committee on the Law Commission, which is currently chaired by Baroness Scotland, to oversee the action taken on the report.

  Copies of the report have been placed in the libraries of both Houses and will be available on the Lord Chancellor's Department's website (http:// www.lcd.gov.uk/).

HEALTH

  Mr. Cyril Mark Isaacs
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. David Lammy)
  We are publishing today a report by Her Majesty's Inspector of Anatomy, Dr Jeremy Metters CB, into the case of the late Mr. Cyril Mark Isaacs whose brain was removed following coroner's post mortem in 1987 without the knowledge or consent of his widow.

  The Inspector found that Mr. Isaacs' brain was retained as part of an arrangement whereby the coroners' office in North Manchester would identify
  2WS
  brains suitable for a research programme at Manchester University. The Inspector also found evidence that brains were removed from adults in other locations.

  The Secretary State for Health asked HM Inspector to undertake this investigation following concerns raised by Mr. Isaacs' widow, Mrs. Elaine Isaacs. I wish to pay tribute to Mrs. Isaacs for bringing this case to public attention and to say how much I regret the distress that has been caused not only to her and her family but to others whose cases are mentioned in the Inspector's report.

  The events described in the report relate to unacceptable practices some years ago. Since then, and particularly in the light of other reports, including those into events at Alder Hey and Bristol, we have made considerable steps to improve arrangements relating to any removal, retention and use of human organs and tissue from adults or children. In doing so, we have worked very closely with many statutory, professional, family, voluntary and other bodies. I am grateful to them for helping to change the culture and practice in this area.

  The report makes a number of specific recommendations with implications for the National Health Service, coroners, universities and medical researchers. We shall consider these carefully in the light of action already taken in this area and then respond more formally. Following extensive consultation, we have recently published an interim framework of guidance and other materials to reflect transparent new systems founded on consent. Steps have been taken to modernise the practice of pathology and to improve the management of joint NHS and academic posts. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is considering the report of the fundamental review of the coroner's system. We have also consulted on changes to the law on human organs and tissue, which is outmoded and inadequate. We shall introduce new legislation as soon as Parliamentary time allows.

  I appreciate that some people may be concerned about organ retention in the light of the Inspector's report. We have therefore asked the Retained Organs Commission to put specific arrangements in place for anyone who wishes to make an enquiry. A helpline has been established (0800 838909).

  It is important that public confidence in medical research is not adversely affected by the findings in the report. Good quality research is essential if we are to meet today's public health challenges seriously. Our recently published interim statement on the use of human organs and tissue sets out clearly our expectations within the current law. This should help to reassure the public, as well as those who need to use organs and tissue for purposes that serve all our interests.

  I am grateful to Dr. Metters for investigating this matter in such detail and for producing such a helpful and comprehensive report. Copies of the report have been placed in the Library.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Portsmouth.

English House Condition Survey 2001
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare that I am president of the National Home Improvement Council.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government when the English House Condition Survey for 2001 is to be published.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, the Government are working towards publication in July of the full English housing condition survey results for 2001. The results will be published in hard copy and on the housing website of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. Key results of the survey have already been used as the basis for monitoring progress towards the delivery of important government policy objectives, principally those for decent homes and the reduction of fuel poverty.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that information. However, given that the report was originally scheduled to appear at the end of last year, is not publication in July a little regrettable? In view of the survey's importance, that delay is really unfortunate. Is there any truth in rumours that the report will indicate that at least 5 million of the 20 million homes in England are below standard and would require major repairs to bring them up to standard and that those homes are
2
inhabited by people on low incomes who mainly suffer from fuel poverty? What special action are the Government taking to deal with that problem?
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, it is regrettable that there has been delay in publishing the survey. However, this delay is no longer than that in publishing the 1991 and the 1996 surveys. However, as I said, quite a bit of the material has already been released as data which underpins important government objectives.
The survey results are actually quite encouraging, showing a substantial improvement since the previous survey in the housing stock across both the social and the private sectors. The percentage of non-decent stock—which I shall define in a moment—decreased from 46 per cent in 1996 to 33 percent in 2001. Such stock has decreased from 52 per cent to 38 per cent in the social housing sector and from 45 per cent to 32 per cent in the private sector. All the details underlying those figures will be published in July. It is an encouraging development. The Government's objective is that all social housing will be brought up to a fit-for-purpose standard by 2010. As noble Lords will know, the Government will be investing £22 billion over the next five or six years to get our housing up to standard.
I should like, if I may, to say one thing about the definition of housing that is not decent. If, for example, a house does not have insulation in the loft or is missing a window catch, it will be included in the 7 million houses regarded as not decent. The Government are therefore setting them selves a very high standard—much higher than that in any other European country.
Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, the Minister has mentioned insulation in lofts. What do the Government intend to do about fuel efficiency measures in general for those homes?
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I think that we will find that the housing Bill contains provisions to ensure that fuel efficiency is brought up to absolute and

3
certain standards. It also gives local authorities the power to intervene and ensure that houses meet the standards that the Government and everyone else require.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I declare an interest as a vice-president of the National Home Improvement Council. Can the Minister tell us what has been done particularly to older properties in poor repair since the previous housing conditions survey was announced? That survey threw up the fact that we have one of the oldest housing stocks in Europe and that those living in our older housing tend to be poor and elderly. What measures have been taken, and have they had a real impact on this sector?
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, the Government are fully aware that one of the absolute priorities is to improve the houses of the elderly and the disadvantaged. That is why the housing Bill, which is currently out for consultation, provides for a new fitness standard that covers nine provisions—all of which, when implemented, will mean that, over a period of years, all housing reaches a certain standard. The nine provisions are aimed very specifically at old housing that needs to be brought up to a certain standard and where the tenants tend to be either disadvantaged or elderly.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that one of the places where they can start doing something is the Houses of Parliament? This is one of the worst buildings in the country for heat efficiency. We need more double glazing, more doors closing and all kinds of other such measures. Will he pass on to his colleagues what many of us feel about the efficiency of this place?
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, that clearly follows on from my previous answer when I talked about the elderly and the disadvantaged. It would be quite inappropriate for me to comment on matters that concern the running of Parliament. All I ask for is a light behind the Whips' Gate so that we can read while we are sitting there.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, will the Minister elaborate on his earlier comment that local authorities will have power to intervene, and also on his comment that all houses should be brought up to standard? Will he explain exactly who will pay for that? Will it be the people in the relevant houses, the owners of the houses, the councils or the Government?
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, the answers to many of those questions can be found in the draft housing Bill published on 31st March. Consultation will run until June 2003. I gather that there will be an onus on those tenants who can afford it to repair their houses; otherwise, local authorities will intervene. The cost of that is included in the £22 billion worth of investment that I mentioned earlier. It is important to note that this
4
is the first time in a generation that any government have made a serious attempt to tackle these problems. We are absolutely convinced that by the year 2010 the commitments we have made will be realised.

Healthy Eating
2.44 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davisasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have had any discussions with the sugar industries concerning guidelines on healthy eating.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, there is an NHS Plan commitment to work with industry to improve the overall balance of the diet, including salt, fat and sugar in food. The Department of Health and the Food Standards Agency are in discussion with industry on reducing the salt in foods. Work on sugars and fat will follow through 2003–04.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, will my noble friend do everything she can to support the WHO at a time when it is under attack from the sugar and other industries in the United States? What representations have been made by the Government to the WHO and also to the industries concerned?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, as the noble Lord knows, the WHO has recommended that sugar should form no more than 10 per cent of average energy intake. That is the level mentioned in the UK's own guidelines so we are foursquare with the WHO in that regard. The expert committee will refer back to the WHO. I am sure that we shall support it in every way.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, on a secondary but no less important matter than our own guidelines, will the Government assist the World Health Organisation in precisely the terms mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis; that is, in resisting pressure from US sugar interests to try to bury the kind of recommendation we are discussing? Recently, the US Sugar Association responded to the WHO report by saying that there was,
'''a preponderance of recent scientific evidence' exonerating sugar as a cause of obesity, diabetes, heart disease, hyperactivity and tooth decay".
That is clearly nonsense. Will the UK Government make absolutely certain that they support the WHO?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, it is important to note that the expert report which contained the recommendation referred to the global population. It suggested that individual countries would make their own recommendations. The best thing we can do is to uphold our 10 per cent figure. We believe that that figure indicates a safe level of sugar consumption for our population and that of the rest of the world.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree—it is a fact, so she should

5
Agree—that it is absolutely futile for the Government or anyone else to talk about nutrition and what is good or bad for people until the Food Standards Agency and the Government take appropriate steps to require easily assimilable and comparable nutritional labelling on all packed foods? That step is still overdue.
Baroness Andrews: Yes, my Lords. How dare I disagree with the noble Baroness? I wish to make two comments. First, the Food Standards Agency has an action plan on labelling. It is considering the whole range of issues concerning labelling, not just its scope and its efficiency. Just as importantly, we are taking a lead in Europe. Obviously, to an extent our food labelling is governed by European directives. We are pressing in Europe for more comprehensive ingredient listing, better country of origin labelling, clear nutrition labelling and tight controls on nutrition and health claims. We are doing our best to take a lead in this area.
Lord Rea: My Lords, can my noble friend say what the Government's position is with regard to the Private Member's Bill being introduced in another place which seeks to regulate advertising of food and sweets directly aimed at children? Is she aware that a recent opinion poll showed that some 80 per cent of the population would favour such legislation?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I am sure that the Government will look carefully at the Private Member's Bill. Importantly, the Food Standards Agency is taking a lead in funding a systematic review of research into advertising and the promotion of food with regard to children. That will be published in July 2003. We are painfully short of information and research on the link between food promotion and eating behaviour. I hope that the review will help to clarify the position.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, what is the opinion of the Government in relation to the current campaign by Cadbury's to sell more chocolate to children thereby encouraging the purchase of IT equipment for schools?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I am sure the noble Baroness knows that the Get Active! programme is not a government initiative. We are not encouraging children to eat more confectionery. The project was negotiated between Cadbury's and the Youth Sport Trust, an independent charity. Ultimately, schools themselves decide whether to take part in that project. The most important action we can take is to pursue our schools' fruit scheme, which will reach a million four to six year-olds this summer, and the Food and Health Action Plan, which next year will bring together all our policies. I refer also to the considerable amount of money we are putting into school sport in a number of different ways.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, have the Government had discussions with the manufacturers
6
of confectionery? Can the Minister confirm that chocolate and the products of the cocoa bean represent healthy eating if consumed in moderation?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, as something of a "chocoholic" myself, that is quite good news. We must take care when trying tackle the problem of obesity that our general message is one of moderation, balance in the diet and good sense. I am sure that the industry has been involved in the FSA's discussions on the reduction of sugar in foods in general. We will play a part in getting them into partnership as much as possible.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, my noble friend's comments on labelling will be most welcome, but will she use her influence to ensure that it is not good enough merely to have labelling but that such labelling should be in a type that is large enough to be readable in a supermarket? All too often, one cannot see what it says in the dim light of a supermarket and one does not know what the labelling means.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, it is not merely in the dim light of a supermarket; often one cannot see it in the full light of day. I agree that the label should be of a size and a clarity that really makes it helpful to people. I am sure that that is one of the issues that the FSA review will be examining.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the fact—
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, we are over time now; we are all waiting for my Cabinet colleague to reply.

Iraq: Food and Medical Supplies
2.51 p.m.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, perhaps I may, on behalf of these Benches, congratulate the noble Baroness on her appointment as Secretary of State for International Development. I am sure that I speak for the whole House—clearly I do—in wishing her well in that important position. I hope that her appointment will not stop the noble Baroness performing her important role in this House.
The Question was as follows:
To ask her Majesty's Government what steps are being taken to help secure food and medical supplies stored in Iraq.
The Secretary of State for International Development (Baroness Amos):My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, for his very kind wishes. I am absolutely delighted, as the House can imagine. This House has a strong interest in international development issues which crosses parties and which I hope will continue.

7
As part of their obligations under the Geneva Convention and Hague regulations, coalition forces are working to protect hospitals and storage facilities containing food and medical supplies. There is not currently a widespread shortage of food. The World Health Organisation reports that the overall stocks of medical supplies are sufficient. There are a few specific shortages of specialist drugs that it is working to address. DfID has committed £115 million for support work by humanitarian agencies in the current crisis.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that response. The WHO has predicted a possible cholera outbreak in Basra. What contingency plans have been made to deal with that and to replenish medical supplies in Iraqi hospitals, which are running short as a result of looting and the continued insecurity?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right. The WHO has confirmed 16 cases of cholera in Basra in the past 12 days. It is important that noble Lords remember that cholera is endemic in southern Iraq at this time of year. A cholera taskforce has been established, bringing together the WHO, UNICEF, the Department of Health and NGOs. There are reported to be sufficient stocks of relevant medical supplies, but there are some difficulties in distribution as many vehicles have been stolen. We are looking at that as a matter of urgency. In addition, DOD has cholera kits sufficient to treat 11,000 people on standby in Kuwait.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords. I am sure that many Members of the House would like to second the congratulations of the noble Lord, Lord Astor, and I do so myself. I am sure that the noble Baroness is aware that the problem goes far deeper than has been outlined and that although Iraq expects a bumper wheat harvest, only two thirds of it is certain because of high petrol prices and farmers' inability to use machinery. Does not the root of the problem lie far deeper? Is there not a need for Iraq to be helped to be Iraq and for that poor country to move towards some sense of stability in the long term?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate is absolutely right. While the humanitarian crisis is not on the scale that was predicted—for example, in terms of the movements of internally displaced people—and there are food and medical supplies available, the security situation remains a matter of grave concern. The right reverend Prelate also referred to the high prices of petrol. That is why the reconstruction effort is so important and why the UN resolution that is under discussion in New York is so important. They will pave the way for the establishment of the interim Iraqi authority that will take over the administration.
Baroness Northover: My Lords. I congratulate the Secretary of State on her new position. Her appointment is extremely welcome, as we have heard.
8
On all sides of this House, and across the development community, her hard work and commitment are justly recognised.
Does the noble Baroness agree that our key aim in Iraq must be to restore security and to assist, as the right reverend Prelate indicated, in the establishment of a legitimate Iraqi government who can oversee all areas, including the security of medical supplies and food? In light of Clare Short's resignation, does she feel that the United Nations is being offered an appropriate role in trying to move forward the establishment of that legitimate Iraqi government?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, the right reverend Prelate and others for their very kind wishes. Our priority must of course be the restoration of security. That is why the coalition forces are working so hard on that. We have managed to achieve that to a degree in the south. There is still fighting in Baghdad and that is why the situation there is so difficult. With respect to the importance of establishing a legitimate Iraqi government, the noble Baroness was absolutely right. The role of the UN is critical to that.
There are three key issues with which the new resolution deals. The first is the role of a special UN coordinator. The operative paragraph in the draft resolution is paragraph 8. It sets out a substantial mandate for a special co-ordinator to play a full part in all aspects of post-Iraq activity, from humanitarian efforts through to economic reconstruction, human rights, rebuilding police capacity, promoting legal and judicial reform and the political process. I hope, in the light of my comments about the scale of the role envisaged for the UN's special co-ordinator, that the noble Baroness will appreciate that we continue to see a vital role for the UN in that process.
Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, as one who has put to the Minister a number of critical and, I hope, testing questions on foreign policy aspects of Iraq and the Middle East over the past few years, I join in the congratulations and thank her for the courteous, helpful and well informed way in which she has always dealt with those questions.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wright. I am sure that those testing questions will continue.

Iraq: Water Supply
2.58 p.m.
Baroness Rawlingsasked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking to improve the water supply to rural areas of Iraq.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, ongoing security concerns mean that access to rural areas is still limited. Few assessments have yet been made of the needs of rural communities. Supplies of water in rural areas

9
come from a variety of sources, including piped water, wells and rivers. We have had no reports that rural areas suffered substantial disruption to supply as a result of the conflict. Improving supplies of water in the longer term will need to be considered as part of the broader reconstruction of Iraq once there is a UN mandate.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I thank the Secretary of State for her reply. Before I ask my supplementary question, I would like to add my congratulations to those of my noble friend Lord Astor of Hever and of all the others to the noble Baroness on her new position as Secretary of State for International Development. It is a true reward for her achievements and we all wish her well for the challenges that lie ahead. We also appreciate the Government recognising the importance of your Lordships' House with another Cabinet post.
According to CARE International, people in rural areas depend on a central water infrastructure to get their supplies, which they are not currently getting. At the moment, that infrastructure is working only precariously; that is due to the lack of investment and repairs. Even before the war, the infrastructure was in very bad shape and available in only some cities. Rural areas have pretty much had the last claim on whatever water there is. What plans are there to alter the centralised infrastructure of Iraq's water and sanitation systems so that rural areas have an equal claim rather than the last claim to water? That will avoid exacerbating the problems being experienced.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings. We have worked closely together on development issues and I hope that we will continue to do so.
I said in my original Answer that it has been quite difficult to assess the problem with respect to water supplies in rural areas. Some information is coming to us from NGOs but we must examine the issue in some detail. Maintaining clean water has been a priority for us. The ICRC and others, including the UK military, have done excellent work to repair water stations and supply water by alternative means in the interim. In many parts of the country, the situation has improved. However, I agree with the noble Baroness that we must ensure that rural areas are treated as well as urban areas and are considered to he part of our overall reconstruction effort.
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne: My Lords, as the World Health Organisation special envoy for the region, I offer warm congratulations to the new Secretary of State for International Development. I am sure that everyone in the World Health Organisation will warmly welcome her appointment. She is absolutely right about the underlying weaknesses of the water system. Is she aware that in the early 1980s Saddam Hussein cut the water infrastructure budget from 15 per cent of the agriculture budget to 5 per cent and never recovered it, in order to buy more weapons? After the Basra uprising he retailored the water supply so that those who had opposed him most fiercely got no water in the
10
consequential rebuilding of the water supply. Will she work closely with her colleagues in the Ministry of Defence and empower the Army and, in view of their arrival, the Royal Engineers in particular, to do as much work on this as possible in rural and city areas? The fact that security is so very difficult means that we badly need the Army.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness. She rightly said that Saddam Hussein did not, for example, repair water systems in Basra; the current difficulty with water supplies is not new. However, the situation in Baghdad was different. The noble Baroness will he aware that our military has, under the Hague and Geneva Conventions, specific responsibility with respect to immediate humanitarian assistance. That assistance will continue, pending putting in place the interim Iraqi authority.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I am delighted by my noble friend's appointment. This Question and t he previous Question concern widely the health of the people of Iraq. Is the food distribution programme. which was previously run quite efficiently by the Iraqi government under the Oil for Food programme, still up and running?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I thank my noble friend. I confirm that much of the food distribution programme under the Oil for Food programme is still in place and that individuals have been turning up for work. That is why the humanitarian crisis with respect to the distribution of food has not been as problematic as we had feared. That distribution process is pretty much still in place.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, has the noble Baroness seen the recent reports about the widespread damage to the desalination plants in southern Iraq, including the looting of parts of those plants? Those parts had no purpose outside those plants; they were simply being taken. Does t hat not call for what one might call the secondary forces of law and order? I refer to military police working with civilian police to ensure that such random looting stops as soon as possible.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I was not aware of the specific example of desalination plants although I entirely agree with the noble Lord that in terms of the overall security situation, we need the military and others. He will be pleased to know that in Basra we have some 600 police now operating. We want that to be repeated across the country.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I join in the congratulations offered to my noble friend. Will the Government seek the assistance of Red R, the Register of Engineers for Disaster Relief? It consists largely of consulting engineers and their employees and has considerable experience in dealing with water problems in disaster areas.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for providing information about the Register of

11
Engineers for Disaster Relief. The department is already in touch with it. We have used its advice in previous humanitarian crises.

Business
Lord Grocott: My Lords, with the leave of the House, at a convenient time after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lady Symons will repeat a Statement on Iraq.

Business of the House: Standing Orders 41 and 47
3.6 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
If noble Lords agree, the Northern Ireland Assembly (Elections and Periods of Suspension) Bill will come from the Commons tonight—probably after we have gone home, thanks to all the reforms that were recently introduced. No, it does not say that in my briefing. First Reading and Second Reading will take place tomorrow as first business. The Public Bill Office will be open to receive any amendments to that Bill from 10 a.m. tomorrow until either 5 p.m. or 30 minutes after the end of the Second Reading debate, whichever is the later.
Moved, That, if the Northern Ireland Assembly (Elections and Periods of Suspension) Bill is received from the Commons. Standing Order 47 (No two stages to he taken on one day) be dispensed with in respect of the Bill on Tuesday 13th and Wednesday 14th May; and that Standing Order 41 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be dispensed with on Wednesday 14th May to allow the Bill to be taken before the Motion standing in the name of the Baroness Williams of Crosby.—(Lord Williams of. Mostyn.)
On Question. Motion agreed to.

Railways and Transport Safety Bill
3.7 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords. I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Grand Committee to which the Railways and Transport Safety Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 15,

Schedule 1,

Clause 16.

Schedules 2 and 3,

Clauses 17 and 18,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 19 to 72,

Schedule 5,

Clauses 73 to 102,

Schedule 6,

12

Clauses 103 to 115,

Schedule 7,

Clauses 116 to 119.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Courts Bill [H.L.]
3.8 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 67 [Process for making Criminal Procedure Rules]:
Lord Goodhartmoved Amendment No. 118:
Page 31. line 17, leave out "disallow or alter" and insert "or disallow"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall speak slowly for the first minute or two to allow noble Lords to make their exit before we get on to this fascinating amendment. I move the amendment only in order to enable myself to speak to it because I am satisfied with the government amendments grouped with it and which render the amendments standing in our names unnecessary.
This group of amendments deals with an issue that caused us some concern at earlier stages of the Bill. For a long time, there has been a Civil Procedure Rules Committee, which drafts the rules of court that the Lord Chancellor may approve or disapprove. The Lord Chancellor cannot at present make rules or alter draft rules submitted by the Civil Procedure Rules Committee. If the Lord Chancellor does not like the draft, he can send it back to the committee for further consideration but he cannot substitute his own version.
I should add that in the past the Lord Chancellor had the power to alter rules that were submitted to him for approval in the case of the county court rules, but there is no longer a separate body of county court rules; that power has not existed for some years.
In addition to the Civil Procedure Rules Committee, which has existed for many years, the Bill provides for a new criminal procedure rule committee and a new family procedure rule committee. That is undoubtedly a sensible step which we wholly endorse, but in all three of those committees the Lord Chancellor is now given power to alter draft rules put to him by the procedure committee. He is required to consult the committee before altering those rules, but the committee has no veto.
It is of course a limited power. The Lord Chancellor can alter only drafts put by the committee; he cannot, under the guise of claiming to do so, rewrite the rule book. The power is therefore to some extent constrained. But we are concerned that in respect of the High Court and the Crown Court. the Lord

13
Chancellor is for the first time being given power to override the committee. We therefore tabled amendments in Committee to remove the Lord Chancellor's power to alter draft rules submitted to him for approval by the three procedure committees.
The Government have come forward with a compromise solution. It is that where the Lord Chancellor exercises the power to alter rules, as opposed merely to approving rules submitted by the committees, those new rules will require the use of the affirmative resolution procedure for approval by each House of Parliament. That compromise was originally floated by me in Committee. So, not surprisingly, I welcome it and will be happy to support it.
The amendment has come forward at a late stage and the Lord Chancellor's Department sent me a suitably apologetic letter. References to the department being extremely sorry were in bold and underlined. All I can say is, "Better late than never". We are satisfied with the Government's compromise, so I shall not press the amendments in my name. However, for the purposes of debate, I beg to move.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, I should point out that if the amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 120A or 121A.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, I do not believe that the Chairman of Committees will face that dilemma because I join the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, in welcoming the government amendment. I never regret the lateness of amendments if they are in the right direction, which these clearly are. I also recognise that the Bill team will have been sorely pressed on a number of fronts. Indeed, there has been a tremendous amount of activity on the Bill, probably far more than originally envisaged, and I greatly welcome the fact that the Minister has brought these amendments forward in good time for the debate. Although we received them only last week, we have had more than sufficient time to scrutinise them.
Perhaps I may remind the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, that the two of us were the architects of this compromise through a series of nods and winks. We eventually reached the solution which is now brought forward by the Government and I welcome that. I shared the noble Lord's disquiet about the Lord Chancellor having the power to alter rules and that disquiet remains over these three committees. However, the safeguards now built in come a considerable way to allay that disquiet and therefore it will not be necessary for me to move Amendments Nos. 121, 128 and 133. They are matched by government amendments which have the same or similar effect. I thank the Government once again.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I, too, thank the Government for listening. All too often we complain that governments of all kinds are utterly deaf. This Government have not been. It does not matter that the amendments have been tabled late; the important
14
point is that they have been tabled. I thank my noble friend for the path that she and those advising her have taken.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for those kind remarks and the helpful comments made by the noble Lords, Lord Goodhart and Lord Hunt of Wirral. I am pleased to say that in Committee on 11th February the Government listened carefully to the debate on the Lord Chancellor's power to alter rules and these government amendments are in response to your Lordships' concerns. I said on a number of occasions that one of the good things about the debates, especially in Committee, is that on all sides we have sought to listen to one another so that we can fashion measures which are fit for the purpose.
I am extremely sorry that the Government were not able to lay these amendments earlier in order to give your Lordships more time to consider them. I had hoped—and it appears to be the case—that I would be forgiven as they are in the right direction. I assure your Lordships that we tabled these amendments as soon as we were in a position to do so. They have the effect of requiring any rules made by the criminal, family or civil procedure rule committees and subsequently altered by the Lord Chancellor to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. Those rules which are allowed by the Lord Chancellor will follow the negative resolution procedure.
As we have comity on this issue, I do not seek to trouble the House further.
Lord Renton: My Lords, the noble Baroness has, with her usual worthiness, apologised on behalf of the Government for the considerable changes being made to the Bill at the Report stage. We make amendments at Report stage, but not on the scale of the number made to this Bill.
Recently, discussion at Third Reading has dwindled because almost everything has been done at Report stage, often after mature consideration in Committee. But as so much change has been made to the Bill at Report stage, I suggest that at Third Reading there should be a greater latitude of discussion than is now the trend.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for the compromise that has been arrived at. As it has been greeted with warmth from all sides of the House, I need say nothing further about it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 119 and 120 not moved.]
Baroness Scotland of Asthalmoved Amendment No. 120A:
Page 31, line 24, at beginning insert "Subject to subsection (7),"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 121 not moved.]
Baroness Scotland of Asthalmoved Amendment No. 121A:
Page 31, line 25, at end insert—
"(7) A statutory instrument containing rules altered by the Lord Chancellor is of no effect unless approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament before the day referred to in subsection (5)(a)."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 68 [Power to amend legislation in connection with the rules]:
Baroness Scotland of Asthalmoved Amendment No. 122:
Page 31, line 28, leave out from first "amend" to "to" in line 29 and insert ", repeal or revoke any enactment"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 70 [Family Procedure Rules]:
Lord Bassam of Brightonmoved Amendment No. 123:
Page 32, line 17, leave out "means family proceedings as defined by" and insert ", in relation to a court, means proceedings in that court which are family proceedings as defined by either".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is purely technical and seeks to put beyond doubt the meaning of "family proceedings" in Clause 70. By virtue of Clause 70(1), family procedure rules may be made in relation to family proceedings in the High Court, county courts and magistrates' courts. Clause 70(3) currently defines "family proceedings" as defined by:
"(a) section 65 of the 1980 Act",
that is the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980.
"or
(b) section 32 of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984".
Section 65 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 defines "family proceedings" in relation to magistrates' courts and Section 32 of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 provides a definition in relation to county courts and the High Court. Unfortunately, these definitions are not identical. Some proceedings defined as "family proceedings" in the 1984 Act are not defined as such in the 1980 Act in magistrates' courts.
Clause 70(3) intends to clarify that family procedure rules can be made about proceedings in court which are defined in either of the two sections. So, for example, family procedure rules could be made about proceedings in the magistrates' courts which although not defined as "family proceedings" in the 1980 Act are so defined in the 1984 Act.
The amendment clarifies Clause 70(3) and removes any potential ambiguity in the current drafting. I hope that that is clear to all noble Lords. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, I understand why the Minister has tabled the amendment; that is, in order to overcome an ambiguity. But I never cease to be surprised that we do not just overcome the ambiguity by setting out a clear definition of what "family proceedings" means. He has covered the ambiguity but really by filling in the
16
cracks rather than setting out a new definition, which I would have preferred. However, on that basis I am very happy with the explanation given by the Minister.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 71 [Further Provision about scope of Family Procedure Rules]:
Lord Bassam of Brightonmoved Amendment No. 124
Page 33, line 11, at end insert—
"( ) Family Procedure Rules may, instead of providing for any matter, refer to provision made or to be made about that matter by directions."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment will ensure that the regime for rules of court and practice directions in the family justice system will be as close as possible to that in the civil justice system. I believe I should offer a moment of frankness here and freely admit that this government amendment has been tabled at this stage because it was overlooked when the Bill was drafted.
When developing the family provisions in the Bill some trouble was taken to ensure that where appropriate the model of the civil justice system was followed as closely as possible. A similar provision to this amendment is included in the Civil Procedure Act, which allows civil procedure rules to delegate matters to be dealt with by practice directions. In order to ensure parity of approach with the civil jurisdiction and to ensure that there is both flexibility and adaptability built into the family justice system, it is necessary to introduce this provision.
It may help if I give a practical example of when it may be necessary to use this power. Part 52 of the civil procedure rules contains general rules about appeals in the civil jurisdiction. As I am sure many noble Lords will appreciate, there are many different types of appeal that can reach the courts, including not only appeals from lower courts but also appeals from tribunals and other bodies. Some of those appeals are very specialised and prior to the introduction of the civil procedure rules particular provisions had to be contained within individual rules. That is no longer the case and those matters are now dealt with in the practice direction supplementing Part 52.
The family procedure rule committee will have to be convinced that the matter is suitable for delegating to practice directions before making the necessary rule amendments to bring it into effect. We have tabled the amendment in order to permit the same degree of flexibility in the family justice system as exists within the civil justice system as a whole. I believe that it is a sensible, modernising and updating addition to the way in which the system works. I beg to move.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I raise just one short point, simply because I am aware that there has been a certain amount of misunderstanding about what is intended by the amendment. The point is that some people have read this as suggesting that the reference to directions means directions made by the Lord Chancellor. As I understand it, that is not the case, and this means practice directions in the ordinary sense of

17
the word; that is, a direction given by an appropriate judicial authority. Perhaps the Minister can confirm that that is the correct understanding of the amendment.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, for raising that issue. As I understand it, the amendment has the effect of allowing family procedure rules to delegate matters which could be dealt with by rules to the President of the Family Division to be dealt with by practice direction. I hope that clarifies the point raised by the noble Lord. I am sure that it does.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 74 [Process for making Family Procedure Rules]:
[Amendments Nos. 125 to 127 not moved.]
Baroness Scotland of Asthalmoved Amendment No. 127A:
Page 34, line 40, at beginning insert "Subject to subsection (7):
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 128 not moved].
Baroness Scotland of Asthalmoved Amendment No. 128A:
Page 34, line 41, at end insert—
"(7) A statutory instrument containing rules altered by the Lord Chancellor is of no effect unless approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament before the day referred to in subsection (5)(a)."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 75 [Power to amend legislation in connection with the rules]:
Baroness Scotland of Asthalmoved Amendment No. 129:
Page 35. line 2, leave out from first "amend" to "to" in line 3 and insert ", repeal or revoke any enactment"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 80 [Process for making Civil Procedure Rules]:
[Amendments Nos. 130 to 132 not moved.]
Baroness Scotland of Asthalmoved Amendment No. 132A:
Page 37, line 6, at beginning insert "Subject to subsection (7),"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 133 not moved.]
Baroness Scotland of Asthalmoved Amendment No. 133A:
Page 37, line 7, at end insert—
"(7) A statutory instrument containing rules altered by the Lord Chancellor is of no effect unless approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament before the day referred to in subsection (5)(a).""
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 81 [Alteration of place fixed for Crown Court trial]:
Lord Bassam of Brightonmoved Amendment No. 134:
Page 37, line 14, at end insert "; and accordingly section 76(4) of the 1981 Act ceases to have effect."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 130 and 290 are technical amendments to ensure that Clause 81 is fully effective in removing an unnecessary and inconvenient procedure from the Crown Court. Until now, Section 76 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 has meant that if the defence or prosecution wish to apply to the Crown Court for a trial to take place at a different location of the Crown Court, the application has to be made in open court before a High Court judge. That applies even if there is not an objection.
Clause 81 as amended by the Government will make it clear that it is for the court to decide on the appropriate procedure to be applied in each case of an application to change the venue. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, I do, indeed. welcome the amendment. It is a matter which I had the opportunity to raise in Committee in order to seek clarification as to whether an application under this section of the 1981 Act for a variation of the place fixed for Crown Court trial is no longer required to be heard in open court by a judge of the High Court. I recall the Minister stating that Clause 81 amends some of the provisions of Section 76 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 which deals with alterations to the place of trial in the Crown Court.
The Minister stated that it had been his intention to amend Section 76(3) in the manner currently set out and to repeal subsection(4) which contains the requirement for a hearing in open court. I welcome the amendment and am grateful to the Government for tabling it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
3.30 p.m.
Clause 82 [Appeals to Court of Appeal: procedural directions]:
Baroness Scotland of Asthalmoved Amendment No. 135:
Page 37, line 18, at end insert—
"( ) In section 31A of the 1968 Act (powers of Court of Appeal under Part 1 of that Act exercisable by registrar), in subsection (2), after paragraph (c) insert—
"(d) to make orders under section 23(1)(a).",. and, at the end of paragraph (b), omit "and"."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 135, 136, 137, 193, 236, 270, 139, 140, 141., 142 and 271 have two aims: first, they to seek to enhance the role of the Registrar of Criminal Appeals, and, secondly, to assist in producing more streamlined and effective organisation and procedures in the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division).

19
Under Section 31 A of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 the Registrar of Criminal Appeals undertakes several judicial functions; for example, the variation of bail conditions, the issue of witness orders, grants or refusals of time extensions for appeal or leave to appeal and grant of representation for criminal proceedings in the Court of Appeal or House of Lords.
The extension of the powers of the registrar, coupled with the proposed extension of the powers of the single judge—as detailed in Clause 82—would produce a single route by which an application for a procedural direction can be made to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). I put the matter simply: an application for a procedural direction would be made to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). The registrar would then assess each application and assign it to the appropriate level—for example, either to himself, a single judge or to the full court.
Those applications with which the registrar is able to deal will be dealt with in accordance with directions issued by the Lord Chief Justice. Of course, if either the applicant or the prosecution are unhappy with the registrar's directions—or refusal to make a direction—the clause provides them with the ability to renew the application, if they so wish, to a single judge, who may either set aside, vary or confirm any of the procedural directions given by the registrar. In addition, should the applicant or prosecution so wish, they may seek a further review by the full court.
Equivalent provisions have been made for the Courts-Martial Appeal Court. It shares much of the procedure and administration of the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). The same individual is the registrar for both courts. An equivalent amendment for the Courts-Martial Appeal Court will enable it to benefit from the efficiencies of this new procedure.
This change should allow maximum case management flexibility and make the most efficient use of judicial time and resources. I beg to move.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I understand that Amendment No. 138 is in this group. It removes what we regard as the unfortunate distinction between the time for appeal that was allowed—
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, my list shows Amendment No. 138 to be in the next group. I think that it has been listed in two groups, which is rather confusing. At the moment, it is in the next group.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, in that case I shall not say anything further. My copy of the groupings indicates that it is only in this group.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Scotland of Asthalmoved Amendments Nos. 136 and 137:
Page 37, line 19, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
"(2) After section 31A of the 1968 Act insert—
"31B PROCEDURAL DIRECTIONS: POWERS OF SINGLE JUDGE AND REGISTRAR
(1) The power of the Court of Appeal to determine an application for procedural directions may be exercised by—

(a) a single judge, or

(b) the registrar.

(2) "Procedural directions" means directions for the efficient and effective preparation of—

(a) an application for leave to appeal, or

(b) an appeal,

to which this section applies.
(3) A single judge may give such procedural directions as he thinks fit—

(a) when acting under subsection (1);

(b) on a reference from the registrar;

(c) of his own motion, when he is exercising, or considering whether to exercise, any power of his in relation to the application or appeal.

(4) The registrar may give such procedural directions as he thinks fit—

(a) when acting under subsection (1);

(b) of his own motion.

(5) This section applies to an appeal, and an application to the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal, under—

(a) this Part,

(b) section 9 of the Criminal Justice Act 1987, or

(c) section 35 of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996.

31C APPEALS AGAINST PROCEDURAL DIRECTIONS
(1) Subsection (2) applies if a single judge gives, or refuses to give, procedural directions.
(2) The Court of Appeal may, on an application to it under subsection (5)—

(a) confirm, set aside or vary any procedural directions given by the single judge. and

(b) give such procedural directions as it thinks fit.

(3) Subsection (4) applies if the registrar gives, or refuses to give, procedural directions.
(4) A single judge may, on an application to him under subsection (5)—

(a) confirm, set aside or vary any procedural directions given by the registrar, and

(b) give such procedural directions as he thinks fit.

(5) An application under this subsection may be made by—

(a) an appellant;

(b) a respondent, if the directions—

(i) relate to an application for leave to appeal and appear to need the respondent's assistance to give effect to them,

(ii) relate to an application for leave to appeal which is to be determined by the Court of Appeal, or

(iii) relate to an appeal.

(6) In this section—
"appellant" includes a person who has given notice of application for leave to appeal under any of the provisions mentioned in section 31B(5);
"respondent" includes a person who will be a respondent if leave to appeal is granted.""
Page 38, line 25, leave out "Section 31ZA of the 1968 Act applies" and insert "Sections 31 B to 31 C of the 1968 Act apply"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 83 [Prosecution appeals from Court of. Appeal]:
Baroness Scotland of Asthalmoved Amendment No. 138:
Leave out Clause 83 and insert the following new Clause—
"EXTENSION OF TIME FOR CRIMINAL APPEALS TO HOUSE OF LORDS
(1) Amend section 2 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960 (c. 65) (applications for leave to appeal to House of Lords) as follows.
(2) In subsection (1)—

(a) for "fourteen" (in both places) substitute "28", and

(b) for "date of the decision of that court" substitute "relevant date".

(3) After subsection (I) insert—
"(1A) In subsection (I), "the relevant date" means—

(a) the date of the decision of the court below, or

(b) if later, the date on which that court gives reasons for its decision."

(4) Amend section 34 of the 1968 Act (applications for leave to appeal to the House of Lords) as follows.
(5) In subsection (1)—

(a) for "fourteen" (in both places) substitute "28", and

b) for "date of the decision of the Court" substitute "relevant date".

(6) After subsection (1) insert—
"(1A) In subsection (1), "the relevant date" means—

(a) the date of the Court of Appeal's decision, or

(b) if later, the date on which the Court gives reasons for its decision.""

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 138, 143, 158 and 305 further protect the rights of defendants. They meet the concerns of the Joint Committee on Human Rights as well as those of a number of noble Lords who questioned the compatibility of Clause 83 with the European Convention on Human Rights. I believe the amendments address the issues raised in Committee. Unless noble Lords wish me to amplify the reasons for the new clause, I beg to move.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for tabling Amendment No. 138. It deals with a point raised originally by the Joint Committee on Human Rights and by an amendment which I moved in Committee. I am entirely happy with the current amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 85 [Appeals to Courts-Martial Appeal Court: procedural directions]:
Baroness Scotland of Asthalmoved Amendments Nos. 139 to 142:
Page 39, line 33, leave out "(2)" and insert "(1)"
Page 39, line 34, at end insert—
"and at the end of paragraph (f), omit "and".
( ) In section 36A of that Act (powers of the Appeal Court tinder Part 2 of that Act exercisable by registrar), in subsection ( 1), at the end of paragraph (b) insert "and—
(c) to make orders under section 28( 1 )(a).",.
and at the end of paragraph (a), omit "and"."
Page 39. line 35, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
22
"(2) After section 36A of that Act insert—
"36B PROCEDURAL DIRECTIONS: POWERS OF SINGLE JUDGE AND REGISTRAR
(1) The power of the Appeal Court to determine an application for procedural directions may be exercised by—

(a) a judge of the Appeal Court, or

(b) the registrar.

(2) "Procedural directions" means directions for the efficient and effective preparation of—

(a) an application for leave to appeal, or

(b) an appeal,

under this Part.
(3) A judge of the Appeal Court may give such procedural directions as he thinks fit—

(a) when acting under subsection (1);

(b) on a reference from the registrar;

(c) of his own motion, when he is exercising, or considering whether to exercise. any power of his in relation to the application or appeal.

(4) The registrar may give such procedural directiors as he thinks fit—

(a) when acting under subsection (1);

(b) of his own motion.

36C APPEALS AGAINST PROCEDURAL DIRECTIONS
(1) Subsection (2) applies if a judge of the Appeal Court gives, or refuses to give, procedural directions.
(2) The Appeal Court may, on an application to its under subsection (5)—

(a) confirm, set aside or vary any procedural directions given by the judge, and

(b) give such procedural directions as it thinks fit.

(3) Subsection (4) applies if the registrar gives, or refuses to give, procedural directions.
(4) A judge of the Appeal Court may, on an application to him under subsection (5)—

(a) confirm, set aside or vary any procedural directions given by the registrar, and

(b) give such procedural directions as he thinks fit.

(5) An application under this subsection may be made by—

(a) an appellant;

(b) the Defence Council, if the directions—

(i) relate to an application for leave to appeal and appear to need the Defence Council's assistance to give effect to them,

(ii) relate to an application for leave to appeal which is to be determined by the Appeal Court. or

(iii) relate to an appeal.""

Page 40, line 30, leave out "Section 36ZA of that Act applies" and insert "Sections 36B to 36C of that Act apply"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 86 [Defence Council appeals from Courts-Martial Appeal Court]:
Baroness Scotland of Asthalmoved Amendment No. 143:
Leave out Clause 86 and insert the following new Clause—
"EXTENSION OF TIME FOR APPEALS FROM COURTS-MARTIAL APPEAL COURT
(1) Amend section 40 of the Courts-Martial (Appeals) Act 1968 (c. 20) (applications for leave to appeal to House of Lords) as follows.

23
(2) In subsection (1)—

(a) for "fourteen" (in both places) substitute "28", and

(b) for "date of the decision of the Court" substitute "relevant date".

(3) After subsection (1) insert—
"(1A) In subsection (1). "the relevant date" means—

(a) the date of the Appeal Court's decision, or

(b) if later, the date on which the Court gives reasons for its decision.""

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 87 [Fees]:
Lord Hunt of Wirralmoved Amendment No. 144:
Page 42, line 8, at end insert "and should only seek to recover the recurrent running costs of the courts"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 144 gives us an opportunity to look again at Clause 87. As the Minister knows, the clause has caused a high level of concern among those who fear its effect on access to justice. The debate will give the noble Baroness an opportunity to give the Government's view regarding the situation so far in the spirit that we have entered into on Report. I hope she will indicate the views of both herself and her colleague on how best to take forward the system with the amendments that were made in Committee.
The Minister will recall that I have always been concerned about the shadow of the Treasury hanging over this clause. Indeed, she stoutly defended her position when stating that it was her position and that she certainly was not accepting any brief from the Treasury. I was very relieved at that until I read a speech made a few days ago by Sir Hayden Phillips, Permanent Secretary at the Lord Chancellor's Department, on the 13th Denning Memorial Lecture held at International Students' House. All my fears have returned fourfold. I do not think that I am quoting Sir Hayden out of context. During the course of his speech he included the following words
"I also head a Department that is not mortgaged to the bank. but like all Government Departments, mortgaged to Her Majesty's Treasury".
Undoubtedly, that speech was made with a degree of humour. However, it reveals the appalling truth, which many of us have thought for some time, that the poor Minister is already in hock.
On the last occasion we debated the clause, I recall that I gave the Minister the opportunity to say that she or the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor would hold a meeting with the Civil Justice Council. Clause 87 has greatly exercised the council. It has given detailed consideration to the Government's policy of raising almost the full cost of the civil courts through fees levied on users and has concluded that this policy is not consistent with its aim of ensuring access to justice. The Civil Justice Council is composed of a range of very important people from all walks of life and is chaired by the Master of the Rolls. It concluded:
"The policy is both wrong in principle and unfair in practice and has resulted in significant under funding of the courts which is in serious danger of undermining the civil justice reforms.
24
"The Council calls on the Government to abandon this objective".
I hope that the Minister will come to the Civil Justice Council and give it a full exposition of how the Government intend to deal with what after all is one of their most important bodies. Although I have not yet heard that a meeting is to take place, I hope that there will he one to debate the issues raised by Clause 87. It is in that context that I speak today.
I have heard certain stories emanating from the Royal Courts of Justice in the Strand. Not long ago, I heard that, unfortunately, the franking machine had broken down and that no one had the funds to mend it. I have spoken to several people in high judicial office who spent several hours not only purchasing stamps but sticking them on envelopes to overcome that problem.
I do not know whether that was an isolated occurrence, but I am also aware of promises that have been made about implementing the full information technology system in the courts, which, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, reminded us on Second Reading, is so necessary to ensure that the civil justice reforms work. I do not know what stage we have reached in implementing that system, but I hope that it will be fully implemented soon.
So my purpose is to give the noble Baroness the opportunity to respond to those and other concerns and to reassure us about them. In that context, I have much pleasure in moving the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am happy to support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral. Historically, provision of the courts has been one of the most important and long-standing responsibilities of the government. Indeed, if one goes back in history, it dates back as far as almost anything other than the provision of Armed Forces to protect the country. It is important that the provision of an effective and accessible system of justice should be regarded as one of the prime duties of any Government. There is a real danger that if provision of court services is to be financed through court fees at a level that effectively means that they are self-financing, we will end up by denying a great many people access to justice.
Some years ago, I remember the noble and learned Lord, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, advocating in a public lecture that the courts, the judiciary, should have the power to levy a precept on the Government for what was necessary to maintain the legal system in effective working order. Although that has many attractions, that is perhaps going a step too far—even though I understand that that happens in some other jurisdictions. Nevertheless, we must accept the principle that we cannot combine an accessible judicial system with something that is wholly self-financing—even setting aside the burden of legal aid. In those circumstances, the amendment has our full support.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, there is a fine ring to the phrase, "access to justice", and I fully endorse all the sentiments advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. When it comes to the administration of justice for every level of society, the Labour government elected after the Second World War was foremost in the introduction of legal aid and advice to make real the notion that the administration of justice should be available for all. I therefore fully agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart said; I believe that I largely agree with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral.
However, perhaps I may use another phrase, which is that the administration of justice by our Royal Courts of Justice—by our senior courts in particular—is the provision of a service. Some litigants who need that service are well able to pay more than they may have in the past by way of fees, to demonstrate that while that service is available—the reputation of our judges is such that many people, including those from abroad, want that service—the taxpayers of this country should not pay all the cost of providing the service.
A distinction may therefore be made between cases, especially of high-powered commercial cases brought by well-heeled litigants in the business field who choose to come to the courts, perhaps as an alternative to arbitration where, of course, they pay the full costs of the building and of the fees of the arbitrator, as well as of their own lawyers. Insofar as it has been beneficial to UK Ltd, as it were, to attract people to our courts as well as to have their cases determined by UK arbitrators, those cases may have a much closer affinity to arbitration cases than they do to poorer members of society seeking justice against a litigant.
Such cases are certainly distinct from human rights cases, where people need the court to ensure their important human rights—with which I know that the noble Lords, Lord Goodhart and Lord Hunt, are very concerned. The Master of the Rolls and the Lord Chief Justice, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, have frequently made speeches describing the various alternatives. If the High Court is too much of a Rolls-Royce which cannot sensibly be made available to everyone, the county courts, the small claims system, arbitration, an ombudsman and mediation should at least be available as alternatives in such circumstances.
So, surely, the Lord Chancellor's Department should endeavour on behalf of the British taxpayer—it involves not just the Treasury but the British taxpayer—to receive a measure of fees back, especially from certain litigants who want to use the service that we provide in our courts. Can we not trust the Lord Chancellor's Department to distinguish between such cases and others in which, if the courts are to be available to all, only the minimum of fees should he payable?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I have much sympathy with the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, hut, if I may interpose, I think that he was referring to ordinary people being denied access to justice. If that interpretation is correct, I wholly concur. It is incumbent on my noble friend the Minister today to state whether, if the amendment is not carried, ordinary people 'will be denied access to justice. None of our courts should be a vehicle for the Government to make a profit. In many ways, our courts provide a social service, which should continue. I do not think that anything proposed by my noble friend interferes with that right, which is all-important.
I am troubled by some things that my noble friend Lord Borrie said. What he is arguing is ripe for misinterpretation. But it is a good idea that we should debate the issue outside the House of Lords. We should consider the entire issue, not in the context of the Bill, but as one of great importance. For that reason, although I agree with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has said, I do not think that there should be a Division.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I wish to say straight away to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that, to the extent that every department is responsible for the allocation of funds given to it by the Treasury, together with any other member of any government that has ever existed, live in the shadow of the Treasury. I frankly acknowledge that I have never heard of a department that would not say that, if it were given more money, it could put it to exceptionally good use. I reassure the noble Lord that, if my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer were minded to give the Lord Chancellor's Department much more money, we could put it to very good use.
However, within our current budget, we can make access to justice a reality for the people of this country. We are in communication with the Civil Justice Council (CJC). A meeting is planned for later this month. Ms Vicki Chapman, who chairs the CJC sub-committee on access to justice, will hold a meeting with our officials.
I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, says about these matters. But, with respect, what my noble friends Lord Borrie and Lord Clinton-Davis said is right to the extent that the amendments are not necessary. Amendment No. 144 would make it a statutory requirement that the Lord Chancellor have regard to the need, when prescribing fees, to recover only the recurring running costs of the courts. A statutory provision that excluded judicial salaries and accommodation costs from the current running costs would be an undesirable fetter on the Lord Chancellor's powers in exercising his ministerial responsibility to set appropriate fees. lt would be to understate the true cost of the service. It would require a significant proportion—
Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, has the noble Baroness not noticed subsection (11), which already provides:
"The Lord Chancellor may not … seek to recover judicial salaries".
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I note that that is what the noble Lord seeks.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords—
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I may have misunderstood the noble Lord. Will he make his point again?
Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, Clause 87(11) states clearly, and the House has determined, that the Lord Chancellor may not seek to recover judicial salaries.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: If I remember rightly, the provision is the result of an amendment moved by the noble Lord and successfully carried in this House. The Bill has not finished its passage. That may not be the way in which it reappears in due course.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, the noble Baroness should not use the opportunity of this exchange to respond to the House after it has reached a decision. I acknowledge that the Government were defeated, but does the noble Baroness really wish to respond by saying that the provision will probably be overturned in another place? Surely we are due a little more courtesy than that.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I do not intend to be discourteous. I am responding to the amendment proposed by noble Lords. I have been asked to argue why it is said that the amendments mooted by the noble Lords should not carry sway in your Lordships' House. I intend to develop the issue. Noble Lords will know that it was in the government formed by noble Lords opposite that, in 1992, the then Lord Chancellor agreed that it was anomalous that judicial salaries should not be included. It was under that administration that the introduction of accruals accounting across government brought in capital charges for property reflecting the true cost of the service. Again, in 1992, under another administration, accommodation costs were included. All the measures that the noble Lord now says are unjust were introduced by his own party's government. We have made those comments and argued those points in relation to the fees during debates in this House on the other amendments urged by Members opposite.
I would be the last person to seek in any way to dishonour or to be discourteous to this House. But, when asking me to respond, the noble Lord used the words "in the light or' other amendments. I never wish to mislead the House as to the Government's view or position. Let it not be said that we believe that the current situation will necessarily be to the long-term benefit of the citizens of this country.
28
I am trying to be fair and open with the noble Lord, as I hope that I have always been, so that he better understands the arguments that I put, and so that he can put them in the proper context. It would be wrong of me not to make plain our position; otherwise, I daresay that the noble Lord might subsequently be surprised. I would hate for him to be so surprised as a result of my failure to indicate how the Government are currently minded to act. That is the context in which I make those comments.
I have also made plain that, subject to subsidies to protect access to justice, the Government's policy is to recover, through fees, the cost of civil court services, including judicial salaries and accommodation costs. The approach is based on the general principle that it is reasonable to expect parties that can pay to do so. I reiterate the point made by my noble friend Lord Borrie. We are talking about people who have the means to pay, and who should properly pay, to meet the costs of that part of the civil justice system that they are using to resolve their dispute. The policy of recovering most of the costs of the courts through fees ensures the best targeting of what are, after all, scarce public resources that come from the taxpayer's pocket. They are public expenditure decisions for the Government.
In due course, I will invite the noble Lords to withdraw their amendment. But, as the noble Lord has asked me to answer the issue more fully, it is only right and proper for me to do so. Noble Lords will know that the Government have a very proud record of protecting and promoting access to justice. It is one of the Government's overarching concerns.
On 19th November 1998, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor outlined to Parliament nine principles—they can be found in Hansard at col. WA175. They include the following: fees should not prevent access to justice, and protection must be provided for litigants of modest means.
In protecting access to justice last year—2001–02—the taxpayer paid in agreed subsidies some £60 million in fees out of the total cost of civil business of £402 million. There was £40 million for legally aided litigants; £17 million for exemption from fees for those on means-tested benefits and for remission for those not receiving benefit but who suffer financial hardship; and £5.8 million subsidy towards certain family law applications—for example, adoption and domestic violence.
As long ago as 1997, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor extended the exemption criteria to include income support based on jobseeker's allowance, family credit and disability working allowance. In 1999, that was updated to include recipients of working families' tax credit and disabled person's tax credit at the same level. It has been further revised to reflect the introduction of the new working and child tax credits and the pension credit from April and October respectively. By the end of this year, over five million people will be eligible for automatic exemption from court fees.
My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor considers that an approach that closely targets those in need is a more cost-effective way of ensuring access to

29
justice than wholesale subsidy. Not everyone who comes before the courts needs the assistance of subsidised court fees, but it is, as we have demonstrated, right that those in need of assistance should obtain it. The Lord Chancellor's Department programme will cover all issues that may have an impact on fees, including how to reduce the cost of services, how best to utilise the courts estate and the number of claims currently issued in the supreme court. Any fee increases that might arise as a result of the programme will be subject to future consultation.
We think that the balance is about right. The Government have shown their commitment to ensuring that citizens can have access and enforce their rights or have their obligations determined by an independent tribunal by enshrining in the domestic Human Rights Act 1998 the European Convention on Human Rights. Last year—2001–02— the Government provided funds of £1,717 million in civil and criminal legal aid. The total cost of running the criminal and civil courts was approximately £1.1 billion. In fairness to the taxpayer, there is no reason why court users who can pay should not pay for the cost of the civil court service that they use. Those sums should properly be resorted to.
The civil courts are not being underfunded. As everywhere. budgets are tight, but they have been set to protect frontline services. Some £95 million of IT investment is planned for the next three years. The number of sitting days has increased annually over the past five years. There is sufficient judicial capacity to support continued reduction in waiting times. Noble Lords will know that two orders passed through the House relating to increases in the number of judges. Ninety-three per cent of administrative work is disposed of within five days. Staff numbers have fallen by 2 per cent since 1999 as a direct result of computerisation. The Court Service is the most successful public sector organisation in terms of the Charter Mark award—it has 86 awards, and 100 are being assessed as we speak.
Transferring the cost to the taxpayer would not automatically secure more resources but would have to share priorities in the allocation of scarce public resources. There are expenditure decisions for government. I hope that I have demonstrated that we have taken those decisions responsibly, and will continue to take them responsibly, to ensure that there is genuine access to justice for the people of our country.
4 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her comprehensive response to an amendment that is limited to ensuring that court fees seek to recover only the recurrent running costs of the courts. I am grateful to the Minister for setting out so clearly whether her department is mortgaged to the Treasury. Sir Hayden will be pleased to read afterwards how his words have been placed so clearly in context. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that.
I agree strongly with the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, about access to justice. To the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, I say that we are dealing with
30
a policy of full cost recovery. The difference between what the noble Lord spoke of and what the Treasury-imposed policy would require is that the court fees— to quote the Civil Justice Council—would fail to recognise,
"the public functions that civil law and civil litigation perform".
The council also says:
"Fees are collected only from litigants, but the civil justice system benefits many who do not become involved in proceedings".
That is why I am so pleased to hear that the subcommittee, at least, is meeting officials from the Lord Chancellor's Department. We must find a way through the difficulties that we share. To the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, I say that I will not respond to his invitation to the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, to step outside to resolve matters, but I agree with him that the debate must go on outside the House as well.
In the light of that, I want further time to reflect, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave. withdrawn.

Iraq
4.6 p.m.
The Minister for Trade (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now repeat a Statement on Iraq being made by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary in another place. The Statement is as follows:
"Last Friday, the United Kingdom, the United States and Spain informally circulated a draft resolution about Iraq's future to members of the UN Security Council. I have placed copies in the Library and the Vote Office.
"Our aim is to put Iraq in the hands of its people through an open and accountable process, in partnership with the emerging leaders of the new Iraq. The draft resolution sets out the United Nations' role in that process. It calls for the United Nations to,
'play a vital role in providing humanitarian relief, in supporting the reconstruction of Iraq, and in helping in the formation of an Iraqi Interim Authority'.
"This reflects fully the undertakings given by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and President Bush at their Hillsborough meeting on 8th April.
"I will set out for the House the main points in this draft resolution and, in the course of that, deal with a number of questions which have been raised about it. Before I do so, I should report briefly on the situation in Iraq itself.
"After almost a quarter of a century of brutal, authoritarian rule in Iraq, creating a free and secure society was always going to take time. Barely a month has passed since the regime fell. Today, the security situation varies in different parts of the country. The UN regards the south as safe enough for UN agencies to operate, albeit with significant

31
precautions. The situation is improving in the north. In other areas, including Baghdad. the situation is unsatisfactory. There are still too many cases of violence and lawlessness. Establishing security within the rule of law is the coalition's first priority.
"Let me now deal with the humanitarian situation. Supplies under the Oil for Food programme are getting through. The World Food Programme has supplies in the pipeline until September. There are no reports of widespread food shortages. We are urgently tackling the lack of access to drinking water, a problem which has blighted the lives of Iraqis for many years. Urgent efforts continue to provide adequate medical supplies and equipment to Iraq's hospitals.
"The reports of 16 cases of cholera in Basra are a matter of concern, although fortunately there have been no deaths. To put this in perspective, cholera is endemic in southern Iraq at this time of year. Work is continuing to improve water and sanitation facilities, and DfID has positioned in Kuwait cholera kits for 11,000 cases to be used by the WHO as required.
"The Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Affairs (OR HA) is there to tackle the huge task of restoring civil administration. Increasing numbers of Iraqi public servants are now returning to their jobs. However, results in the early weeks have not been as good as we would have hoped. I therefore welcome the appointment of Ambassador Bremer to OR HA. Working alongside Major General Tim Cross and 40 British secondees, he will bring fresh impetus to ORHA's effort.
"On the political front, we have already seen evidence of the exercise of the new-found religious and political freedoms in Iraq. I welcome the peaceful return to Iraq from Iran at the weekend of the Shia religious leader. Ayatollah Hakim, and of other religious and political leaders. The meetings of' Iraqi representatives in Nasiriya on 15th April and in Baghdad on 28th April mark the start of a process of bringing together a national conference in which all Iraq's regions and ethnic and religious groups are represented in order to select an Iraqi interim authority. This body, which will comprise both political figures and technocrats, will progressively take on responsibilities for the administration of Iraq as a whole.
"We hope that the national conference can be held within the next few weeks. In order to assist the process. my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has appointed a senior British diplomat—John Sawers, our ambassador in Cairo—as the Government's special representative to Iraq. His task is to work with United States representatives and a wide range of Iraqi people to ensure an open process leading to a representative interim Iraqi authority. In the few days he has been in Baghdad, Mr Sawers has already met a number of leading Iraqi political figures. I am also pleased to tell the House that last week we opened an office in
32
Baghdad—on the site of our former embassy—headed by Christopher Segar, who was deputy head of mission when the British embassy closed in 1991.
"I turn now to the draft SCR. The United Kingdom and the United States fully accept our responsibilities under the Geneva Convention and Hague regulations. This point is explicitly recognised in the draft resolution. Neither the Secretary-General nor members of the Security Council are proposing that the UN should run Iraq. But we are all concerned to ensure that the UN plays a vital role in post-conflict Iraq.
"The draft resolution gives the United Nations the full opportunity to play that role. It does not deal with every issue. It concentrates on the points which need to be settled now for the benefit of the people of Iraq. It sets out important principles for the future of Iraq, including territorial integrity and disarmament of weapons of mass destruction.
"The resolution also provides, in operative paragraph 5, for member states to prohibit trade in or transfer of looted cultural artefacts. The three key issues in the resolution are: first, the role of a UN special co-ordinator and the associated political process; secondly, the lifting of sanctions and the creation of a new Iraq assistance fund to target resources on the reconstruction of Iraq: and thirdly, arrangements for the sale of oil and the handling of oil revenues.
"Operative paragraph 8 of the resolution sets out a substantial mandate for a UN special co-ordinator to play a full part in all aspects of post-Iraq activity from humanitarian efforts through economic reconstruction. human rights, rebuilding police capacity, promoting legal and judicial reform. and, crucially, the political process.
"On the latter point, the draft provides that the special co-ordinator should work with the occupying powers and those assisting them (defined collectively in the resolution as "The Authority") for the,
"restoration and establishment of national and local institutions for representative governance".
Operative paragraph 9 states that it,
"supports the formation, by the people of Iraq with the help of the Authority and working with the Special Co-ordinator, of an Iraqi Interim Authority as a transitional administration run by Iraqis until a permanent government is established by the Iraqi people".
"Like all drafts, this one is open to improvement and we are discussing it constructively with our Security Council partners. But the mandate in this draft would give the UN the scope it needs to play its full role in all aspects of post-conflict Iraq. One of the reasons I would like to see this resolution passed quickly is to enable a UN special co-ordinator to get cracking on the ground as soon as possible.
"The second key issue is the lifting of sanctions and the creation of a new Iraqi assistance fund. Economic sanctions relate to Iraq's past and now need to be removed. Operative paragraph 10 provides that all sanctions are lifted with the sole exception of the arms embargo.

33
"Ending the economic sanctions regime requires new arrangements for dealing with Iraqi revenues. The wording in this resolution is designed to ensure that all funds from Iraqi oil revenues can be used quickly and effectively for the benefit of the Iraqi people.
"The draft resolution gives the Secretary-General authority for a period of four months from its passage to ensure the delivery of priority civilian goods under contracts already approved and for which funding has been allocated. This pipeline amounts to some 10 billion dollars.
"Remaining funds in the existing escrow account will he transferred to a new Iraqi assistance fund. This will also receive funds from two other sources; that is, revenues from the sale of oil and funds of the former regime frozen by banks outside Iraq since 1990 under successive UN resolutions.
"The IAF will therefore rapidly become the primary source of money for the development of Iraq. The funds will be disbursed by the authority in consultation with the IIA.
"The resolution is specific about the purposes for which the money can be spent. Operative paragraph 13 spells out that,
"the funds should be used to meet the humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people. for the economic reconstruction and repair of Iraq's infrastructure, for the continued disarmament of Iraq, and for the costs of indigenous civilian administration and for other purposes benefiting the people of Iraq".
The assistance fund will be subject to an international advisory board including representatives of the UN Secretary-General, the IMF and the World Bank, and will be audited by independent public accountants chosen by this board and not by the coalition.
"The third issue is the control of oil sales. Operative paragraph 18 requires that sales shall he made,
"consistent with prevailing international market practices",
that they will be audited by independent public accountants reporting to the international advisory board, and that the funds will go to the Iraqi assistance fund, except for a percentage which will go to the UN Compensation Commission for claims relating to the previous Gulf War.
"On weapons of mass destruction, a letter to the Security Council, and annexed to the resolution, stresses the importance of this objective. Dr Blix himself has recognised that the situation is not right at present for UNMOVIC to return—a point I was able to make to the House in a Statement on 28th April. Separate arrangements may therefore be needed to provide international validation. So the role of UNMOVIC in Iraq is not an issue which needs to be dealt with in this resolution, although we may need to address it in later resolutions.
"In the interests of the people of Iraq, the sponsors of the resolution will he working for its early adoption. It is not a take it or leave it text. Negotiations will be necessary. But from my discussions with Foreign Ministers of the Security
34
Council members, I find a strong political will to get the UN hack into the business of helping build a better future for Iraq. This draft resolution gives the UN that important role".
My Lords. that completes the Statement.
4.20 p.m.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, we are all extremely grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating this long and full Statement. of which many aspects will require further careful study. Perhaps I may also take the opportunity personally to express my pleasure, as have other noble Lords, at the new position of the noble Baroness, Lady Amos. Although it grieves me to say so from the Opposition Front Bench, there is no doubt that the Government now have a uniquely powerful international team. I think we all feel honoured by that.
This change of position and promotion has come at a crucial moment. Although it is neither entirely clear to us why the previous development Secretary went, nor what Clare Short understood to he the role of the United Nations in the reconstruction, it is clear that those are both entirely relevant matters. It would be interesting to learn at some stage. although perhaps not today, whether assurances about a UN mandate were or were not given to Ms Short. There appears to be a straight division of views on that point.
However, that is not the only matter which is unclear. The role of the UN, about which the Statement has much to say. at earlier stages had been said to be vital, but. after having read the details of the draft resolution, that role is still a little ambiguous. It all depends on what is meant by the word "vital". In this context, does it mean "leading", or just helping through the various agencies. with the many detailed proposals set out in the Statement?
A further aspect not touched on, although it is one which might be said not to be the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government, concerns the remarkable recent changes in the American team. Given that we and the Americans are intimate partners in this whole enterprise, why has Barbara Bodine suddenly been recalled after only three weeks? That is a very short time indeed. Were the British Government consulted about it? Were they told the true story behind that development? Furthermore, where does General Garner now fit in with the new supremo, Ambassador Bremer? How does his arrival fit in with the plan for the interim authority to he set up and encouraged to get going by the end of this month? How affected are the plans for the interim authority, which presumably are being pressed very fast despite the changes being made at the top, by the return of Mohammad Baqir al-Hakim, the ayatollah mentioned in the Statement, where he is welcomed? Will he be a part of the interim authority?
I turn now to humanitarian issues. There were full plans for civilian order and facilities to he restored, but it is clear that they are not yet in place. We were given detailed assurances that preparations were fully in place, but as the Statement candidly says,
"the results have not been as good as we would have hoped".

35
We would all admit that everything happened faster in Baghdad than the gurus and the experts said. They told us that a siege could last for months, although of course there has been no prolonged siege. As Tim Cross remarked in a newspaper article, the script has moved much more quickly than anyone had expected. But, some five weeks after the end of fighting, we are still receiving reports that the lights are not yet on, policing is not yet operative, running water systems are not working, hospitals are under-equipped, rubbish is not being collected, raw sewage runs in the streets; it was acknowledged in the Statement that cholera has broken out in Basra, while criminal gangs roam freely. However generous one's interpretation and however brilliant was the military operation, it seems a long time since the brave Hillsborough declaration to the effect that there would be rapid delivery of the necessary humanitarian assistance. While some of this may be inevitable—after a war there is always chaos—it is a pity that plans were not put in place to deal with these aspects a little more swiftly.
I turn now to the draft resolution mentioned in the Statement. Has the issue of the legal ownership of oil lifted from Iraq now been clarified? If it has, then that is very good news. However, reports still talk of vast complications surrounding the issue of lifting and the claims of Iraq's former debtors for any of the proceeds from oil revenues.
Can we also have clarification of the reports today that the weapons of mass destruction expert task force is to be withdrawn from Iraq? If those reports are true, it is very difficult to understand why that should be the case. I hope that it does not indicate that the search for weapons of mass destruction is now being given up. If it does, then some serious explanation will be needed as to why so much emphasis was put on the existence of weapons of mass destruction in justifying the campaign in the first place. It was an emphasis which I believed, and said so at the time, to be a mistake.
Lastly, have the Government remembered that modern states work in partnership not only at governmental level, but in a thousand other ways through non-governmental organisations, educational exchanges and many other voluntary and independent efforts? Are plans being laid to open up co-operation on the rebuilding of Iraq not only between the United States and the United Kingdom, but also with other nations such as, for instance, Japan, which stands in readiness and which has vast experience of overseas development that it is willing to share? I mention also, of course, the neighbouring Arab states, as well as the Iraqi people themselves, who must he involved in the rebuilding of their damaged nation. I would greatly value the Minister's response to some of those questions.
4.26 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, for repeating the Statement made in another place. I wish also to echo the congratulations expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, on the promotion of the
36
noble Baroness, Lady Amos. She has been a marvellous Minister in this House and has built a sound reputation in those parts of the world in which she has worked so extensively and with such success. We are all delighted to see her promotion.
I shall start, as did the noble Lord, Lord Howell, by saying that the Statement leaves a great many questions to be put to the Government. For reasons of time I shall seek to be as concise as possible. Perhaps I may say, first, that there must be real concerns about the role of the United Nations as set out in the Statement. For example, we understand that a special representative is to be appointed by the Secretary-General of the United Nations, but it is not clear what powers that gentleman or lady will have. References in the draft resolution almost all refer to "co-ordinating", "bringing together" and so forth. But the general impression is that the powers will be substantially less than those conferred on Mr Lakhdar Brahimi, the UN Special Representative in Afghanistan. Will the Minister be kind enough to tell us in what ways the powers of the Iraq special representative will be different from those of Mr Brahimi? It does not look as though he or she will have a central role.
Further in regard to the United Nations and weapons of mass destruction, to which the noble Lord, Lord Howell, referred, I share his profound concerns. We understand that the US team is to withdraw within the next couple of weeks, while the Statement says rather vaguely that there is no particular point in talking about the role of UNMOVIC, despite the fact that only two weeks ago, the chief inspector, Dr Hans Blix, said that:
"We could return within two weeks, if asked".
Is the real problem here that the security of the inspectors is in doubt? If that is the case, why cannot steps be taken to protect them along the lines suggested, for example, by the Carnegie Endowment? However, if that is not the case, then why are not the inspectors being brought back to Iraq to confirm the discoveries that so far have not been made with regard to weapons of mass destruction? This point needs to be made loud and clear: without such validation by internationally respected inspectors, the world will simply not believe any claims that may be made by the coalition, however justified those claims may be. That is even more the case given that Dr Blix himself has cast doubt on some of the intelligence reported over the course of the war which subsequently has been found to be, to say the least, very unstable as a basis for the resulting declarations.
I share the deep concern expressed by the noble Lord. Lord Howell, about the present situation of civilians in Iraq. While I do not wish to go over all the Statements that have been made—although the noble Lord was right to point out that we have been told repeatedly that provisions and the basis on which the peace could be won had been put in place—I wish to put a further question. Now that we know how serious is the situation, why does there appear to be no way, for example, to send in emergency teams of engineers—as was mentioned earlier at Question Time—and why cannot the police force be asked to second people to

37
Iraq in the same way as was done long ago for Anguilla, Grenada and other parts of the world? It also took place to a great extent in Sierra Leone—and for that I pay full tribute to the troops involved—where lawlessness was quickly dealt with by the British Army and guerrilla forces brought under control. Are steps being taken to deal with this extremely unfortunate situation as quickly as possible? Today's International Herald Tribune states that "Lawlessness is pervasive" and refers, in particular, to the serious situation in Baghdad where large parts of the city are in a state of anarchy.
It is difficult to envisage the Iraq interim authority having the powers it should have unless there is some kind of United Nations validation. Having looked quickly through the resolution, I cannot see any position given to the UN to validate the Iraq interim authority. To put it bluntly—I returned from the United States only last night—that interim authority is now the subject of extreme divisions between the different departments of government in the United States. It is widely speculated there that divisions between the State Department and the Pentagon have already shown up in some of the changes referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, in regard to the administration of a peace-making system in Iraq.
The Statement refers to the Iraq assistance fund and the way in which the revenues of Iraq's oil industry will he put into that fund. What then is the role of Halliburton, which received a contract for dealing with oil well fires, of which there are almost none, and oil well break-downs, of which there appear to be few. and which has subsequently moved on to obtaining a substantial contract for the pumping and distribution of Iraqi oil? How is this compatible with the Prime Minister's statement that oil revenues will be put in trust for the Iraqi people. What exactly is the relationship of Halliburton to the Iraq assistance fund and to the Iraq interim authority? Will its contract come under the control of the interim authority once it is recognised?
Extremely serious questions are raised by the Statement. I have no doubt that the Government are doing their best but some of the issues about who is responsible, who is accountable—and to whom—have not been answered. They raise extremely serious questions about how the peace is to be sustained in Iraq.
4.32 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for the way in which they have dealt with the Statement. I join with them in rejoicing at the new position of my noble friend Lady Amos. She is uniquely well prepared for this excellent new appointment. I rejoice not only for my noble friend but for the House. It is a very good thing that there is a Secretary of State from your Lordships' House. She is much to be congratulated on that.
Both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness raised questions about the vital role of the UN which was referred to in the Statement made by my right
38
honourable friend in another place. In paragraph l 1 of the Statement my right honourable friend points out that,
"Neither the Secretary-General nor members of the Security Council are proposing that the UN should run Iraq. But we are all concerned to ensure that the UN plays a vital role in post-conflict Iraq".
We have discussed this issue on a number of previous occasions but it is important to note that at no point has it been suggested that the United Nations itself could run post-conflict Iraq—an agency will carry out that task—but it should be the authority under 'which such activities take place.
Three key issues in the draft resolution are debated in paragraph 13 of my right honourable friend's Statement. First, the role of the UN special coordinator, about which further points have been raised and to which I shall return; secondly, the lifting of sanctions; and, thirdly, the arrangements for the sale of oil. Your Lordships have concentrated on all of those issues during previous questions.
Not all noble Lords will have a copy of the draft resolution but it is spelt out in operative paragraph 8 that the Secretary-General's special co-ordinator's responsibilities will involve co-ordinating activities of the United Nations in post-conflict processes in Iraq, co-ordinating among UN and international agencies engaged in humanitarian assistance and reconstruction activities. It then lists nine different areas, including coordination of humanitarian and reconstruction assistance; support for the safe, orderly and voluntary return of refugees and displaced persons; working with the authority and the people of Iraq with respect to the restoration and establishment of national and local institutions. There are nine specified points of coordination which go a substantial way to answering the noble Baroness's pertinent points on that issue.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, asked what was happening on the United States side and about the recall—as it has been described in the press—of Ambassador Bodine. As the noble Lord will appreciate, that is a matter for the United States Government. I have no further details of the circumstances in which the decision was taken.
Jay Garner's role as the head of ORHA continues. His role on the political side is mirrored by Zalmay Khalilzad. The role of Ambassador Bremer is to bring together the political side and the reconstruction side of American activities and, as I understand it, in doing so he will report to Mr Rumsfeld and not to General Franks. I hope that adds a little more substance to what is happening on the American side.
I remind your Lordships that we now have the valuable presence of our, until very recently, ambassador in Cairo, John Sawers, an Arab expert who will bring valuable advice and expertise to the situation.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, asked me about the assurances given to Clare Short. As your Lordships can imagine, I was not party to any conversations. However, I can tell the House that every action taken in Iraq is consistent with what we have said about the

39
role of the United Nations and in accordance with legal advice. That is the basis on which we have operated in discussing the United Nations Security Council resolution. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has expressed his thanks to Clare Short for the valuable work she carried out in the Department for International Development. We can safely say that she raised the profile of aid on the international agenda. She has been a recognisable and very formidable figure on the international scene in relation to aid.
It is quite true—the Statement is unequivocal—that matters on the ground in Iraq have not worked out as well as we had hoped. However, we should look on the positive side of the Statement made by my right honourable friend. There is now access to power and water in 80 per cent of Iraq. Although there are still security problems—about which we have made no secret— they are largely problems of crime and looting. I do not say that those are not serious problems, but they are not so much on the military side.
The noble Baroness made an important point about getting reinforcements to deal with these issues and I agree that we should try to improve expertise. With the additional personnel we are sending to ORHA, which will bring the United Kingdom strength there up to some 40 civil servants collected from around Whitehall, and with the presence of Mr Sawers, we should be able to better target the real needs of the Iraqi people and decide where we can best get added value, whether bilaterally or through EU agencies or United Nations agencies. The noble Baroness has made a valid point which goes to the heart of the advice we expect to receive from Mr Sawers.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, raised the question of the legal ownership of the oil in Iraq. Again, that issue is addressed in the United Nations draft resolution. As did my right honourable friend in another place, I stress that the resolution is a matter for discussion. As he says, no draft resolution has ever been brought to the table that cannot be improved with negotiation. But with paragraph 9 supporting the formation, with the help of the authority and working with the special co-ordinator, of an Iraqi interim authority as a transitional administration, we see the beginnings of moving towards ensuring that Iraqi oil is not only owned by but administered by an Iraqi authority.
Of course it is terribly important that these questions continue to be addressed. We are in an evolving situation and I hope your Lordships will agree that my right honourable friend has been assiduous in bringing forward Statements as and when each new step is taken. No doubt we shall hear more on that in relation to operative paragraph 9.
I understand that the reports of the weapons of mass destruction taskforce are misleading. It is not being run down and those statements have not had any real basis in what is happening on the ground. I hope that we will be able to give your Lordships more information about that. I think the Statement addresses the point about the weapons of mass destruction inspectorate. The noble Baroness felt that it could have been more forthcoming in this respect, but the Statement is
40
specifically about the draft resolution in front of the Security Council now. That matter is not addressed here, although, as my right honourable friend's Statement makes clear, it may be covered by future resolutions.
I am always rather afraid when the noble Baroness returns from one of her visits to Washington; she comes back armed with all sort of information and points she wants to raise. It is no secret that there has been a difference in emphasis between the Pentagon and the State Department. We all find, whatever part of government we come from, that different emphases arise. The point is that government should co-ordinate properly across the hoard. In the changes to ORHA and the arrival of Ambassador Bremer, we have seen the coming together of the two sides, if I can put it that way, from the United States. The points made by the noble Lord about international co-operation being crucial are very well taken.
The only other point is to do with the question raised by the role of Halliburton. I am afraid I shall have to write to the noble Baroness about its role. As I understand it, the oil revenues are not being administered by Halliburton; it is looking at the mechanics of getting the oil out of the ground and not at the issues of the dispersal of funds which arise from the oil revenues. However, the noble Baroness has raised a question which is causing a bit of concern. 1 shall write to her with any further information that I can raise and put a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.
4.43 p.m.
Lord Jopling: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that, in all honesty, to tell us that the internal situation in Iraq is not as good as we would have hoped is a gross understatement? Despite repeated warnings over many months that the post-military phase would be a good deal more difficult, it becomes more and more apparent that there has been far too little thought and preparation given to this phase by the alliance. As my noble friend on the Front Bench summed up very clearly, we are faced with a lawless mess, with Barbara Bodine recalled after three weeks and General Garner downgraded after such a short time. Surely Mr. David Kay, the former chief inspector of nuclear weapons in Iraq, was right in refusing to take the job which General Garner subsequently took. He complained that the organisation was not sufficiently interested in promoting democracy and that it was under-financed and poorly staffed. Are not the chickens coming home to roost?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I was with the Foreign Secretary while he was drafting the Statement, and he chose his words very carefully. He is at pains to be as accurate as possible about the situation in Iraq. The fact is that the situation is very different in different parts of the country. There has been less difficulty recently in Basra and probably more in Baghdad. There has been less difficulty in the south of the country and in some parts of the north of the country, but we know that there are pockets where

41
law and order, and the writ of law and order, does not run. I do riot think, therefore, that I can agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, that this is a gross understatement. I think he has exaggerated, although the situation is serious in some parts of the country. I think my right honourable friend has been as accurate as he can be in putting forward the Statement.
The noble Lord, Lord Jopling, is quite right: we always knew that post-conflict Iraq would be extremely difficult. I am not sure whether his criticism is directed at both the British and American governments or just the American Government. However, we gave this a great deal of thought. He will be aware, given his excellent contacts with the military, of the care that our military have taken in the way they have conducted themselves in Basra, with their emphasis on getting out of their helmets and into their berets or tam o'shanters as quickly as possible and the sympathetic policing they have carried out in the British sphere of operations. So although a great deal of care has been taken, this has been an honest Statement. Things have not worked out as well as we wished. The Statement puts forward ways in which we hope these issues will be addressed not only by ourselves but through changes the Americans have made in the last few days—changes which I hope and believe will bring rather better results.
Lord Richard: My Lords, the present state of Iraq and the success, or otherwise, of the occupying powers is perhaps a rather larger matter which the House should debate and not solely on a Statement.
My noble friend said that the United Nations should be the authority. I am not quite sure what she meant by that, and I would he grateful if she could expand on it. Secondly, on the actual role that the UN co-ordinator is supposed to play, is the UN meant to be part of a triumvirate—a partnership of equals between the two occupying powers and the United Nations? Or is the UN merely there to sit and listen and then gently advise and assist, as the occupying powers might think that it could be of some assistance?
It is no secret that many people—I am one of them—believe that the UN is being pushed to the margins on this issue. If my noble friend can breathe some vitality into the role that the United Nations is supposed to be playing, I would be very grateful. But she and the Government have to do it in severely practical terms. We want to know exactly what it is proposed the UN co-ordinator should do. Merely to say that there are nine points upon which he could co-ordinate does not take us very much further.
Finally, what reaction are the Government getting to these proposals from the Secretary-General and the UN Secretariat? Does Kofi Annan welcome the proposed role of UN co-ordinator, or would he be reluctantly prepared to do it if he were pushed into it?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, may I pick up that last point first? As I understand it, the Secretary-General has made it clear that he does not believe that the Security Council should run Iraq. I hope I made that point explicitly in answering the previous questions. Indeed, it was made explicitly in
42
my right honourable friend's Statement. The Secretary-General, I understand, is discussing the draft not only with our friends in the United States and ourselves but with all members of the Security Council to whom it was circulated towards the end of last week. I cannot recall whether it was late Thursday or early Friday. However, it has been discussed in a number of capitals by British diplomats as well as United States diplomats.
Let me turn to the point that my noble friend raised about the co-ordinator. I did not go through all nine points because I did not wish to try the patience of the House and I know that a number of your Lordships will want to raise individual questions. However, I hope that I read out enough of the draft resolution to make it clear that the role suggested for the coordinator is substantial.
I read out three of the nine points. The remaining are as follows:
"facilitating the reconstruction of key infrastructure, in cooperation with other international organisations …promoting economic reconstruction and the conditions for sustainable development, including through co-ordination with national and regional organisations …civil society, donors and the international financial institutions…encouraging international efforts to contribute to basic civilian administration functions".
and "promoting human rights".
The resolution also refers to,
"encouraging international efforts to rebuild the capacity of the Iraqi civilian police force—
a very important point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams—and,
"supporting international efforts to promote legal and judicial reform".
The role being discussed for the special co-ordinator is very substantial. As my noble friend may recall, my right honourable friends were concerned that so far Kofi Annan only has an adviser, and not a particular representative or co-ordinator. It was felt that the role of the person particularly responding to the Secretary-General needed beefing up. There is a substantial response to that in the draft resolution.
As regards the authority, we are trying to spell out the vital role referred to in the Hillsborough declaration. We are talking about the authority to lift sanctions and create a new Iraqi assistance fund to target resources, as well as to make arrangements for the sale of oil and handling oil revenues. Your Lordships have been clear that the authority, particularly for those matters, should come through the United Nations. That is clearly recognised in the draft resolution.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, in giving evidence to the International Development Select Committee just before hostilities commenced, Miss Clare Short predicted that as many as 8 million people could become refugees as a result of the hostilities. It is a great mercy that such apocalyptic scenarios have not come to pass and that the kind of problems outlined in her Statement today are the ones with which we are actually having to deal.

43
Does the Minister agree that the support given her and to the Government from many sides of your Lordships' House was predicated on the basis that we would work, in the aftermath of the hostilities, for a civil society and the creation of a democratic Islamic country in Iraq? Resources now must be piled into that objective, because it will be on the basis of our success or failure in creating an alternative for the 30 years of tyranny that preceded it that our actions in Iraq will finally be judged.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, that is an entirely right and sensible statement from the noble Lord, Lord Alton. The fact is that there were predictions of some pretty appalling outcomes flowing from any military action in Iraq. I do not for one moment underestimate the grief and suffering of many people in relation to the military action, but it has been nothing like as widespread or long-lasting as many feared. They really believed that such terrible consequences would flow from military action, and it is an enormous mercy that that has not been the case.
We have always said that the tests that would be applied by history to the outcome of the conflict would relate to the sort of Iraq that emerged. It should be a democratic Islamic country, as the noble Lord said. A country under the rule of recognised law, living in peace and harmony with its neighbours, would be very much welcomed.
Lord Sandberg: My Lords, we had much publicity before the war started about co-ordination between Britain and the United States. We saw a lot of meetings between the Prime Minister and President Bush, all of which made the prosecution of the war very successful. Since the war, however, there seems to have been very much less co-ordination between this country and America. Given our experience of looking after countries that have been under despotic rule—in Malaysia, to mention only one example —are we having much dialogue with the United States? If we are, it seems to be less publicised.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, a great deal of dialogue is indeed taking place with the United States. The noble Lord is right in saying that there was a great deal of co-ordination before military action, for a very long time. Efforts were made to resolve the issue through diplomatic means, principally through the United Nations. A good deal of discussion took place about military action. However, I do not believe that he is right in saying that there is less coordination. I remind him of the declaration at Hillsborough, which was extraordinarily important.
Although it is a separate issue, hand-in-glove with trying to resolve the future of Iraq, there has also been a good deal of discussion between this country and the United States about the Middle East peace process. Your Lordships will acknowledge that that is a separate and different issue, but none the less it is related in the minds of many people to the regional unrest.
44
There is continuing dialogue, such as on the running of ORHA. My right honourable friend Patricia Hewitt has had discussions about that. My honourable friend Mike O'Brien, who is the Minister with responsibilities for the Middle East, has also been co-ordinating. Your Lordships may also be interested to know that I, too, have played a small role in these matters. I am hoping to go to Washington towards the end of this week to discuss some matters in my portfolio that have a bearing on the situation.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, 1 hope that the noble Baroness can help us a little. It appears that the administration in Baghdad is all over the place. One cannot have a mayor who is here today and gone tomorrow. The rumours that Jay Garner is going to be replaced by somebody else does not look like joined-up government.
Can the Minister give us an undertaking that the Americans really are thinking about joined-up government, given that this is an imperial situation, faute de mieux? We cannot get round that. If we are going to do imperialism, let us do it properly.
Secondly, it is essential, as the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said, to have a proper police force. What steps are being taken to raise, recruit and officer a proper new Iraqi police force? We could surely get assistance from the Pakistanis and the Arabs. There are lots of people other than PC Plod from Scunthorpe who could go and do it. We need a proper police force that can be new and separate from the old police force. That is the first essence of governing a country—that its citizens can go from A to B without being kiboshed, ambushed, or anything else. Police force, police force, police force—what steps are being taken towards that?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the noble Earl struck an interesting note when he said that if we were going to do imperialism we should do it properly. Rather than spend a happy moment or two debating that point, which I am sure we shall have an interesting time discussing later, let me put him straight on a couple of points.
The fact is that Jay Garner is not being replaced. As I understand it, he remains at the head of OR HA, and therefore at the head of the organisation dealing with reconstruction. His role is mirrored by Zalmay Khalilzad, who is looking at the political side. The Americans have brought the two together under the lead of ambassador Bremer who, as I told the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, will report directly to Mr Rumsfeld in the Pentagon. Nobody has been dismissed, got rid of or put on one side. Nobody is here today and gone tomorrow—or whatever phraseology pleases the noble Earl, Lord Onslow. That is not what has happened. A more senior figure has been brought in to co-ordinate the reconstruction and political side of American activity.
I agree with the noble Earl that the issue of the police force is enormously important. I think that the points made by the noble Baroness were well taken. When we discussed the issue before, I was able to report to your Lordships that some of the Iraqi police force are

45
returning to their posts. I hear what the noble Earl says—that he does not think that that is quite what is needed and that he wants to start all over gain. However, I think that it is actually rather important to use indigenous police where they can be trusted. It is enormously important not simply to put in outsiders, but to use those parts of the police force who are willing to work for a new order in Iraq.
The 40 people from around Whitehall whom we have sent into Baghdad have a whole range of expertise. They have not all come out of DfID or the Foreign Office. What we have sought from right across Whitehall is real expertise in the areas that we think need particular attention in the Iraqi administration, particularly in Baghdad.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend to elaborate a little further on one aspect of the draft resolution, the text of which has very kindly been provided for us in the Printed Paper Office? When she spoke on the central commercial and, indeed, legal issue of the moment—namely, who is to make title to Iraqi oil when sales recommence—she referred to paragraph 9 of the draft resolution. As I understand it, that refers to the role of the interim Iraqi authority in administration. The question of who can make title is, of course, not a question of administration; it is now a delicate matter of international and domestic law.
Can my noble friend tell us what the draft resolution means as it stands at the moment? Paragraph 18 refers to the,
"export sales of petroleum …and natural gas",
which will be,
"consistent with prevailing international market practices".
As I understand it, that is as far as it goes. Do the Government envisage that the resolution should be a little more specific about what those "market practices" would entail in terms of who can make title on the market? That is doubly important for us in view of paragraph 20, with which—unless I missed it; I apologise if I did—I do not think my noble friend dealt. In substance, paragraph 20 states that all member states are to take steps to amend their domestic legal systems.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord, but we are nearly out of time.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, I am very sorry if we are out of time, but it seems vital that we have further information on this matter. We are to amend our legal system in all respects necessary to ensure that the sales of petroleum products and natural gas products originating in Iraq, and the proceeds of sale thereof, are,
"immune from judicial, administrative, arbitration or any other proceedings (including …attachment, garnishment, or execution or other action".
The Government must have some idea of what changes in our law, both statutory and at common law, that would need. So can my noble friend say more on those
46
changes which the Government now see as necessary? If not, what amendment will the Government make to paragraph 20? If none, who can make title to Iraqi oil?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, if I may, I shall be as brief as I can on this. I think that the noble Lord will find that part of the answer to his question is in paragraph 13 of my right honourable friend's Statement, which refers to "the lifting of sanctions" and, crucially,
"the creation of a new Iraq Assistance Fund to target resources on the reconstruction of Iraq".
The authority has passed to that new assistance fund. If the noble Lord looks at paragraphs 17 and 18 of the draft resolution, I think he will find more information on the role of the Iraqi assistance fund in providing for the urgent needs of the Iraqi people.

Courts Bill [H.L.]
5.4 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 87.
Lord Hunt of Wirralmoved Amendment No. 145:
Page 42, line 8, at end insert—
"( ) An order under subsection (1) above shall not be made until a draft has been laid before both Houses of Parliament and approved by resolution of each House."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope that the Minister can reassure me that there is a provision somewhere which I may well have missed. When the Lord Chancellor, under Clause 87, prescribes fees payable in respect of anything dealt with by the courts listed, will his order come before this House and another place? The current arrangement is that, before a fee change, the usual statutory instrument is laid before the House. Indeed, such instruments are currently available in the Printed Paper Office in respect of the latest increase. That has been done under the old procedure, involving the 12 per cent increase to which I believe the Minister referred in an earlier debate. She acknowledged that that increase is the first for a while. She explained the position, and as a result I have not sought to pray against those statutory instruments which have been through all the normal procedures. Amendment No. 145 seeks to clarify how the new procedure provided for in Clause 87 will operate. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I warmly support this amendment. It seems to me to be absolutely fundamental. To the extent that Parliament is the sovereign body laying down the foundations of our system of justice, if an important order such as that to which the amendment refers—prescribing that the Lord Chancellor,
"may with the consent of the Treasury by order prescribe fees payable",
in the Supreme Court, the county courts and the magistrates' courts—is not laid before and approved by both Houses of Parliament, it would mean that

47
Parliament has surrendered the power that it should have to approve the whole system of charging people under our system of justice. I really do hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, will find this a sympathetic and useful amendment.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I thank both noble Lords who spoke to the amendment. I hope that I can clarify exactly what we intend and give the noble Lord a full answer.
The effect of the amendment would be to make Clause 87 subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. Previously, over the past 125 years, in none of the three Acts of the Supreme Court—Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1875, the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act 1925 and the Supreme Court Act 1981—and four Acts on county courts (the County Courts Acts of 1888, 1934, 1959 and 1984) has Parliament decided that it was necessary for instruments setting court fees to be subject to the negative or the affirmative resolution procedure. As such, the convention adopted by both Houses of Parliament in respect of fees orders issued under these current powers, is that they are laid before Parliament and are not subject to affirmative or negative resolution. The current draft of Clause 98 maintains that convention.
While the Government already consult widely on proposed fees orders, Clause 87 introduces a specific statutory requirement for wider consultation with the heads of division and, for the first time, the head and deputy head of civil justice and, for civil proceedings, the Civil Justice Council—which I believe the noble Lord has already rightly praised today. This, therefore, provides for much wider consultation than is currently required.
The Lord Chancellor has also carefully considered the views of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform and the points made in particular by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, at Second Reading and considers that it would be appropriate for this clause also to be subject to the negative resolution procedure. That will be introduced by way of a government amendment which will be considered later in this debate.
That would provide for the first time for parliamentary scrutiny of fees orders and would bring the new power in line with other of the Lord Chancellor's powers to set fees; for example, fees charged by the Court of Protection under Section 106(5) of the Mental Health Act 1983. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor is satisfied that this will provide an effective oversight of court fees. I therefore invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Renton and thank him for his strong support. He made some telling points about the need for effective scrutiny. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. I was checking a point with him and I believe that he was about to intervene. I regard him
48
as a great authority on these matters. The noble Lord correctly forecast exactly what the Minister was about to say and outlined it to me just as the Minister rose thus depriving himself of the opportunity of explaining the position. I apologise to him for that.
I should like to reflect on the points made by the Minister. I am reassured by her reference to a later amendment which I hope we shall reach shortly. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 88 [Award of costs against third parties]:
Lord Hunt of Wirralmoved Amendment No. 145A:
Page 42, line 22, at end insert—
"( ) Any regulations made under subsection (1) must make provision for independent scrutiny of any decision by a court that there has been serious misconduct."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we now come to Clause 88. I have consulted with a number of organisations and understand that there are still considerable concerns about the clause. As noble Lords will recall, the clause entitled "Award of costs against third parties" is viewed with particular concern by the national newspaper industry and a range of broadcasters and especially by regional newspapers which perform a very important local community service in reporting the proceedings of local magistrates' courts and other courts.
I understand that the various bodies to which I have referred fear that the potential use of this new power by magistrates and trial judges to penalise media organisations could well trespass upon their ability lawfully to report local proceedings or even merely to make representations against court reporting restrictions.
As the Minister must concede, "serious misconduct" is a rather uncertain legal concept. Hence, no one can simply rely on reassurances about courts' past practice, for instance, in contempt cases, as the Minister suggested in a previous debate. Nor are there the safeguards of requiring the consent of the Law Officers, or, indeed, independent scrutiny and full hearing by another court of the alleged wrongdoing, as there are in the cases of proceedings for contempt against the media and prosecution for breach of reporting restrictions. I press the Minister to give reassurance on the following. There ought at least to be equivalent safeguards before third party costs orders can be made.
It would be very interesting to know whether media organisations will be consulted on Clause 88 and, if they have already been consulted, the extent of those consultations given the concern that I express on behalf of a number of them. Will they also be consulted on the regulations to be made under Clause 88 with a view to ensuring that there will be proper statutory safeguards against what could be its chilling effect on lawful court reporting?
Is it proposed that there will be guidance and training of magistrates, their clerks, the Crown Prosecution Service and Crown Court judges to stress that the enactment of these provisions should not in any way be used to curb lawful reporting of cases and the public scrutiny of the criminal courts?
5.15 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, the noble Lord moved a specific amendment. Is there a precedent for that kind of amendment anywhere in the law?
Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, I indicated that there was independent scrutiny but by another court, for instance where cases of contempt are brought against a newspaper or a media organisation. I am not aware that the amendment is to be found anywhere else in the statute book. Any similarity will be only an accident of drafting. I hope that noble Lords will recognise that the amendment is a genuine attempt to introduce independent scrutiny of a court's decision that there has been serious misconduct. That is strictly necessary as we move down the new road proposed in Clause 88. I beg to move.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I support the principle behind what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, said in moving his amendment. It is important that there should be adequate provision to appeal from an order of this kind against a third party for payment of costs. I assume that the Minister will say that there is such a right of appeal. However, it is absolutely essential to spell that out. I am aware that there are somewhat more rigid restrictions on the right to appeal against orders relating to costs than to appeal against the subject matter of the decision itself. I certainly hope that the Government will assure us that there will be proper and full rights of appeal against a third party costs order. In that case the third party costs order, so far as the third party is concerned, is the substance of the decision against it.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend Lord Hunt. I say to the noble Lord. Lord Clinton-Davis, that it seems to me that his parallel with the law of contempt is apt. It will be our common experience that from time to time judges, be they magistrates or others, will suffer the problem of the red mist coming over their thinking when confronted by activity that they regard as contemptuous of their court. In those circumstances the law has developed to allow for an independent scrutiny of that conduct by someone who does not share the same anger or irritation about what they have been subjected to in court. It seems to me that the form of independent scrutiny that my noble friend seeks is desirable as the parallel is very precise. The Minister may be able to reassure us that such independent scrutiny will be allowed for. Whether it needs to be in the legislation or not I know not, but the desirability of independent, separate scrutiny would appear to be there.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, made it clear that the amendment seeks to set out in any regulations made under subsection (1) of the new section inserted by Clause 88 that where a court makes a finding of "serious misconduct", that finding must be subject to independent scrutiny. "Serious misconduct" may not
50
be 100 per cent precise but "serious" is enough and should not interfere with lawful reporting, which could not amount to serious misconduct. The provision is not meant in any way to limit the proper reporting and conduct of the media in relation to our criminal courts.
The noble Lord is right to seek to ensure that the findings of the courts are open to independent scrutiny. I hope therefore that he and other noble Lords, including the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, and the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, will be assured by the knowledge that new Section 19B(5) and (6), which will be inserted by Clause 88, already allows for third party costs orders made in the magistrates' courts to be appealed in the Crown Court and for those made in the Crown Court to be appealed to the Court of Appeal. The provisions in new Section 19B follow the provisions already existing in Section 19A of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, which deals with wasted costs orders made against legal representatives. That section requires regulations to provide for appeals to be made from the magistrates' court to the Crown Court and from the Crown Court to the Court of Appeal. Appeal courts provide the independent scrutiny necessary to ensure that costs orders are properly and fairly made, and if they are not, the appeal court can remedy them. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, need not worry too much about the red mist. That can be dispelled elsewhere. In the light of that assurance I hope that the noble Lord will feel content.
I turn to the precise questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. The media were informed about proposals in the spring 2002. There have not been any formal consultations because the provision does no more than extend to criminal courts the powers that civil courts already have. It is an obvious lacuna in their powers. We intend the right of appeal to be absolute with no permission requirement. With those safeguards, I hope that all noble Lords will agree that we have the right level of protection to enable proper challenge to be made where the orders are made against third parties. I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister, my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser of Carmyllie and the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. We were still concerned until, at the last moment. the Minister made it clear that it would not be necessary to appeal in the red mist atmosphere to the court that had just made the order for a right to appeal. The fact that that is not required would enable the sort of independent scrutiny to take place on another day. I was seeking such an assurance.
I thank the Minister for having made it clear that there will be careful consultation on the regulations. I hope that that will include the organisations to which I referred. It is important that the necessary training takes place to ensure that the red mist—or however one describes it—does not descend on the court. Feelings can run very high over reporting but it is generally in the public interest that there should be an unfettered right to report.

51
I am a little concerned about the definition of "serious". I know that the noble Baroness said that the matter is either serious or it is not. She acknowledged that that is not being 100 per cent precise. I am rather troubled by that, would like to think further about it and may wish to return to it at Third Reading. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Goodhartmoved Amendment No. 146:
Page 42, line 26, at end insert—
"( ) make provision for ordering third party costs against the prison service or any security firm for failure to deliver prisoners to the court on time, or at all"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment was moved in Committee by my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford, who, unfortunately, is unable to be here today because of an important commitment in the courts. I should have preferred him to speak rather than me because he has personal knowledge of the problems that are raised by the amendment. I, as one whose practice has wholly been in the civil courts, do not. However, I am convinced by what he said.
The failure of the Court Service and of private security firms to deliver prisoners to court on time—or, sometimes, to deliver them at all—is a major cause of cost and delay. That is unfair to all concerned: to victims, witnesses, prisoners, the judge, court staff and lawyers. There should clearly be financial penalties for culpable failure.
My noble friend drew attention to a series of problems: the lack of co-operation between the Prison Service and private security firms; the failure of private security firms to employ enough staff to make it possible to do what they should be doing; delays that occur after the arrival of the prisoner at the court building; and failure to have enough staff to open all available interview rooms. The Government's steps to deal with those problems have been inadequate and more should be done. The amendment is a way of putting pressure on those involved to ensure that more is done. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before the noble Lord concludes moving the amendment, could he explain whether the prisoner—
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): My Lords, may I put the Question? Amendment proposed, page 42, line 26, at end insert the words as printed on the Marshalled List.
Lord Renton: My Lords, now the noble Lord will have to wait until he comes to reply before answering my point, which I raised earlier.
If a third party organisation fails to deliver the prisoner in time, the prisoner could suffer with regard to the settlement of his case; perhaps "settlement" is the wrong word and I should refer to the "decisions" in his case. He would be the person who most of all deserved a bit of compensation. When the noble Lord
52
replies—or, if I may dare say so, and better still, when the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, replies—could he or she say how the prisoner will he compensated for being treated in that way?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, suggested, this is a repeat of a debate we had in Committee. I compliment the noble Lord on picking up the baton left him by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. They are right in identifying this as an important issue.
I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, was on the verge of suggesting that there should be time off for bad behaviour on the part of those who fail to deliver prisoners on time. However, perhaps he was not getting quite as close to that, as I was rather facetiously suggesting.
The effect of the noble Lord's amendment would be to make those who default in failing to deliver the prisoners on time subject to a cost order. The Government's view is that the amendment is unnecessary and, although well meant, is potentially undesirable.
Clause 88 as it stands would allow the court to deal with the late delivery of prisoners as a result of serious misconduct—and we have debated that matter today. If costs are wasted because of late delivery, the court can look behind the issues and at the circumstances that caused the lateness. If the lateness was the result of serious misconduct, appropriate action can be taken.
I cannot see that the noble Lord's amendment would add to that, particularly with no knowledge of what the regulations arising from the amendment might state. Putting unnecessary detail of this kind into regulations can be unhelpful. It might, for instance, encourage people to suggest that one particular type of serious misconduct is more important, and perhaps more appropriate, for the making of an order than another. While we share the noble Lord's concerns about the timely delivery of prisoners, it is right that the court, through this clause, should be able to deal with the costs wasted as a result of late delivery caused by a specific instance of serious misconduct.
However, in our view, it would not be practical or appropriate to extend the scope of the clause beyond clearly identifiable misconduct in a particular case. It is not and could not be the role of the court to oversee the general level of performance of those contracted to deliver prisoners. That seems to be part of the problem with the amendment, as it takes us in that direction.
In so far as the noble Lord's concerns relate to that issue, it is necessary to look to the terms of the contracts under which the prisoner escort services operate. My understanding is that under the contracts all prisoners should be delivered on time for courts; that is, delivered to the courts a minimum of half an hour before courts begin.
The figures on that are helpful and suggest the scope of the problem. At national level for 2002–03, figures indicate that of the 1.25 million prisoners handled during that year, 76 per cent were delivered on time. Of the 24 per cent delivered late under the terms of the

53
contract, 10 per cent were none the less delivered during the half hour before the court started, leaving 14 per cent delivered after the court had started.
Under the terms of the contracts, prisoner escort contractors may be penalised for the late delivery of prisoners to courts where they are found to be at fault. Points applied against a contractor accrue during the year and should they exceed a set baseline, the excess points are converted to a financial remedy.
New contracts are due to be let in 2004. The Prison Service is considering with other criminal justice partners what changes should be made to the terms of the contracts, including more flexible ways of working and financial remedies, to ensure that prisoner delivery is as efficient and cost-effective as possible.
We have listened carefully to the argument and we can agree on the seriousness and importance of the issue. But we are not persuaded that anything can be gained by the amendment and this way of approaching the problem.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the Minister. Will he address the point effectively raised by my noble friend Lord Renton on compensation?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, there are no proposals to provide compensation. I return to the point that if the courts believe that there is an issue of serious misconduct, it is for them to deal with it in that way. The financial impact on the contractors delivering prisoners late exists and is subject to the conditions of the contract. That is common in all contractual relationships.
As regards whether prisoners can be compensated, the amendment relates only to costs incurred as a result of lateness. I therefore believe that the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, falls outside it. There are no proposals to compensate prisoners in the way suggested.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, first, the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, is important and should receive consideration. I understand that there would not normally be grounds for compensating a prisoner who is convicted and subsequently receives a sentence of imprisonment. Given that time spent on remand—and by definition these people will be on remand—is set off against the term imposed, nothing will be suffered by the prisoner other than the irritation of the failure to deal with the proceedings in time.
However, possibly in cases where the prisoner is not ultimately given a custodial sentence, and clearly in cases where the prisoner is acquitted, it seems that there should be some form of compensation—
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, surely, in those more severe circumstances the prisoner would have a civil remedy.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, there would be a question surrounding how far the prisoner would have a remedy and it could not be ordered by the court hearing the trial. The prisoner would have to go to the civil courts to fight a separate action. Be that as it may, as the noble Lord, Lord Renton, appreciates, the matter is outside the scope of my amendment, but I am grateful to him for having raised the issue.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. The suggestion made by the Minister that civil proceedings should take place as a solution to these problems will cause additional expense and delay. Furthermore, it would be more elaborate and difficult than simply enabling the matter to be dealt with under this provision.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I turn to the substance of the amendment. The Minister's reply was reasonably encouraging because he pointed to the possibility of treating costs incurred in this way as third-party costs. However, the Government were not prepared to commit themselves to put the provision on the face of the regulations, let alone on the face of the Bill. In those circumstances, I am not minded to press the amendment today and must leave it to my noble friend to decide whether it is appropriate to bring it back at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Bassam of Brightonmoved Amendment No. 147:
After Clause 88, insert the following new clause—
"AWARD OF COSTS IN APPEALS UNDER PROCEEDS OF CRIME ACT 2002
(1) Amend the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (c. 29) as follows.
(2) In section 89 (procedure on appeal to the Court of Appeal). after subsection (3) insert—
"(4) Subject to any rules made under section 91. the costs of and incidental to all proceedings on an appeal to the criminal division of the Court of Appeal under—

(a) section 43(1) or (2) (appeals against orders made in restraint proceedings), or

(b) section 65 (appeals against, or relating to, the making of receivership orders),

are in the discretion of the court.
(5) Such rules may in particular make provision for regulating matters relating to the costs of those proceedings, including prescribing scales of costs to be paid to legal or other representatives.
(6) The court shall have full power to determine by whom and to what extent the costs are to be paid.
(7) In any proceedings mentioned in subsection (4), the court may—

(a) disallow, or

(b) (as the case may be) order the legal or other representative concerned to meet,

the whole of any wasted costs or such part of them as may he determined in accordance with rules under section 91.

55
(8) In subsection (7) "wasted costs" means any costs incurred by a party—

(a) as a result of any improper, unreasonable or negligent act or omission on the part of any legal or other representative or any employee of such a representative, or

(b) which, in the light of any such act or omission occurring after they were incurred, the court considers it is unreasonable to expect that party to pay.

(9) "Legal or other representative", in relation to a party to proceedings means any person exercising a right of audience or right to conduct litigation on his behalf."
(3) Subsection (2) applies in relation to proceedings on appeals in respect of offences committed or alleged to have been committed on or after 24th March 2003.
(4) In section 91 (Crown Court Rules) after "Crown Court Rules" insert "or (as the case may be) Criminal Appeal Rules"."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall be brief because the amendments are non-controversial. Amendment No. 147 would insert a new clause which closes a gap in the existing law. It would make clear that the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal has the power to award costs in appeals relating to the making of a restraint order or the appointment of a receiver under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. Amendments Nos. 261 and 304 are consequential on Amendment No. 147.
Part 2 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 provides a single consolidated scheme for the confiscation of benefit from all criminal conduct. That includes power to make a restraint order, freezing assets which might be used to satisfy a confiscation order and a power to appoint a receiver to manage or realise such assets. All restraint and receivership proceedings under the Act will take place in the Crown Court, which also has the power to make the confiscation order. That is a major change designed to improve efficiency. Under previous legislation. restraint and receivership proceedings were heard by the High Court. Consequently, appeals against restraint and receivership will now go to the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal.
The Criminal Division has power to award costs in criminal cases, but not civil cases. It is unclear as a matter of law whether restraint and receivership proceedings are criminal or civil in nature. Therefore, it is not clear whether the Criminal Division can currently award costs in relation to the appeals which it hears. Amendment No. 27 would insert a new clause, which would put the position beyond doubt by amending the Proceeds of Crime Act so that there is explicit provision for the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal to award costs in restraint and receivership appeals.
The new clause will be retrospective to the date of the commencement of the relevant part of the Proceeds of Crime Act, which was 24th March 2003. That will ensure that people whose cases are heard before the commencement of this clause will not be disadvantaged. Rules of court will he drafted to make provision for paying costs. Amendments Nos. 314 and 261 are consequential on Amendment No. 304.
I apologise to your Lordships' House for the omission in the original legislation but I am sure that your Lordships will agree that this new clause is necessary and just in the circumstances. I beg to move.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I raise just one query. The Proceeds of Crime Act had separate parts relating to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. I appreciate that this Bill relates only to England. What arrangements are being made to include equivalent provisions in Scottish or Northern Ireland legislation?
5.45 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I think that we are in a position to ensure that there is a follow through or read across to other pieces of legislation. However, the noble Lord has asked for an important point of clarification. Although I cannot give it from the Dispatch Box now, I am happy to clarify that later in correspondence and to share the fruit of that with others involved in the debate today.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 92 [Periodical payments]:
Lord Goodhartmoved Amendment No.148:
Page 44, line 21, at end insert—
"( ) Periodical payments shall. unless the court otherwise directs, be increased or decreased in accordance with the Retail Price Index."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is the first group of amendments—it forms part of a series of groups—to deal with questions arising from the Government's decision to confer on courts the power to make orders for periodical payments in actions for civil damages. We on these Benches strongly welcome as. indeed, I think does the Conservative Party, the principle of periodic payments as an alternative to fixed sum damages. However, there are a number of issues to be considered.
Amendment No.148 is similar although not identical to an amendment which we tabled in Committee. The earlier amendment made the inflation proofing of orders for periodical payments an absolute requirement. This amendment states that inflation proofing is to apply unless the court directs otherwise.
I believe that the need to inflation proof periodical payments is obvious. It is not clear on the face of the Bill that Clause 92 gives a power to order periodical payments of variable amounts which are uncertain at the time of the order because they are dependent on something which will happen later; namely, the rate of increase in the retail prices index. So, it seems to me that that needs clarification.
Amendment No. 149 raises a new issue. This would have been more appropriate for debate in Committee but I was not then aware of it. I raise it because the problem has been brought to my attention by Mr David Kemp QC. who is the editor of Kemp on Damages and therefore unquestionably one of the country's leading experts on the subject of damages. He feels very strongly about this particular problem.

57
The problem concerns claimants who have suffered particularly serious injuries which mean that they will require long-term care and medical treatment. The costs of care and treatment have risen faster than the retail prices index and are likely to continue to do so. Therefore, it is not enough to order periodical payments of an amount sufficient to provide care and treatment today and simply index link them. Sadly, in a few years' time, even though index linked, those payments are likely to be inadequate to secure what are then regarded as the appropriate current standards of care and treatment.
This is undoubtedly a serious problem with the law of damages. I also recognise that it is a problem with which it is extremely difficult to deal. After all, periodical payments are similar to a form of annuity. Index-linked annuities are standard nowadays. They are available because the liability to pay the annuity can be met by index-linked government securities.
I believe it would be extremely difficult to produce a corresponding financial instrument which could be linked to the costs of care. It may well be that the only practicable way in which a periodical payments order could be linked to care costs would be for the Government to accept liability to cover the amount by which the increases in care costs exceed the increases in the RPI.
I accept that that would be a major step which would need careful prior consideration and would not be suitable for inclusion in the Bill. Therefore, I have no intention of pressing Amendment No. 149 today. However, at the same time it is an important issue and I should he interested to hear the Government's response. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, pointed out, in this group is not only Amendment No.148 but also Amendment No.149. Although I have the greatest respect for Mr David Kemp QC and those who would argue this case, perhaps I may point out to the Minister that I have considerable sympathy with what, undoubtedly, will be her response. The argument for higher indexation of future loss claims is currently being run in a number of claims for lump sum payments. The effect in one case I have seen is to reduce the discount rate which is used to calculate the effect of accelerated receipt in lump sum payments for future loss and was fixed by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in 2001 at 2.5 per cent.
In the one case I have seen the effect would be to take that 2.5 per cent figure down to nil or close to it. One can well imagine the drastic effect of such an increase in future loss payments, not only for the insurance industry but especially for the National Health Service.
The noble Baroness will recall that she came to the Dispatch Box when a Motion to annul the order for 2.5 per cent was debated in November 2001. If claimants now seek another route to try to erode the discount rate by other means, that certainty which I believe the Baroness stressed on that occasion—there is a need for certainty for all parties to litigation—
58
would be removed for the practitioners and the courts. I should explain that the discount rate already assumes the application of the retail prices index. Therefore, the courts and the Lord Chancellor are familiar with that.
A problem highlighted by the rising care costs returns us to a debate we had in Committee about the fact that at present courts are forbidden from considering what treatment will be available under the National Health Service. The Minister reminded us that we await the report of the Chief Medical Officer. I am not aware that it has yet been published.
However, when it is I hope that it will deal with this difficult anomaly whereby certain individuals are encouraged by those advising them to set up at home 24-hour nursing care just around themselves. That sometimes costs the National Health Service as much as it would to service and look after, say, six people in a private hospital ward. That is the extent of the money which is being spent to set up what are virtually private care hospitals. Further, because they are manned so as to produce 24-hour nursing care, the costs index looks seriously disadvantageous for the claimant. However, there is in reality always the National Health Service. But, at the moment, the courts are specifically forbidden from taking it into account. So we return to the periodical payments debate, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart.
The Master of the Rolls' working party report Structured Settlements last year called for a broadening of the investments available. That needs to be looked at independently of this legislation. It is a far from simple process and one which will need to involve the insurance industry and its regulators at the Financial Services Authority as well as of course—and we have already mentioned it—the Treasury.
The debate as to indexation masks the fact that this legislation is about introducing a fairer system in order to avoid as far as is practicable either over or under compensation. As the Lord Chancellor concluded in 2001 in the order that set the 2.5 per cent rate. that is a balancing act. The noble and learned Lord was then criticised by those who sought to put forward a similar amendment. I think that this is effectively a further round of that kind of criticism, although I thank the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, for giving us the opportunity to debate the matter.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I add my thanks to those of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. The noble Lord is absolutely right: we aim to create a fairer system; and we seek to create balance in order to avoid over or under compensation. Complex and important issues surround both these matters.
Before I respond to this group of amendments, perhaps I may raise one issue on the previous group. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, raised a very important point. I fear that there may have been an oversight in relation to whether we have similar provisions for Scotland and Northern Ireland. We shall look into the matter. If there has been an oversight we shall take steps to ensure that that lacuna is also addressed. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, very much for that point.

59
I turn to this group of amendments. As I said in Committee, we agree that it is important that the real value of periodical payments is preserved over the whole period for which they are payable. I expressed concern that, although at present it is common practice to link payments to the retail prices index—and it is likely that this will continue to be the case—it would not be appropriate to prescribe this as a blanket index to which all payments must be linked.
Amendment No.148 addresses these concerns and preserves the court's flexibility to link periodical payments to other indices where appropriate. We do not consider that the amendment is necessary as the need to allow for inflation is an inherent part of assessing the quantum of damages, which is already within the court's discretion. The calculation of lump sums allows for inflation, as do structured settlements.
Nevertheless, we recognise that periodical payments ordered under these proposals will differ from structured settlements as they are now—for example, they will not require the consent of the claimant. Given the importance of inflation-proofing damages against future loss, we agree that there could be I repeat, could be—some merit in removing any doubt that the court has power to index-link periodical payments. Therefore, if the House considers that it will act as a useful guide to the courts and parties, we are willing to consider bringing forward an amendment to make this power explicit, provided that and I must emphasise this—a provision can be drafted in a way which is workable.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, correctly identified the difficulties that we have had historically with setting the discount rate. Furthermore, on previous occasions, I and others before me—have emphasised the need for certainty for claimants in this very difficult time. If we are moving to a more settled arrangement for them, we obviously want to limit the opportunity for added insecurity to be built in. Therefore, I add that caveat.
There are several issues which we will need to consider—for example, when and how adjustments for inflation should be calculated and the most suitable definition of the retail prices index. It will also be necessary to ensure that any amendment does not affect out-of-court settlements where, of course, the parties should be able to settle on whatever terms they choose.
So although I am making a clear commitment to look at the matter, I should tell the House that I can by no means guarantee that we will be able to make any movement on the issue. However, I think it is right that we should have a vigorous look to see whether anything may be possible.
Amendment No. 149 provides that a court may order that periodical payments for medicinal care and treatment costs are increased in line with care costs inflation, but should not exceed it. It goes on to provide that if, as a result of those increases, the amount of a payment exceeds that which would have been paid had payments been linked to the retail prices index, then the excess should be defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament. I do hear what the
60
noble Lord, Lord Hunt, says in relation to the similarity of that provision with earlier provisions, with which we were not able to find favour.
In these cases, the uplifted payments would seek to reflect the true cost of compensation. It is an important point of principle that the negligent party should pay for the costs of his or her negligence. There is no reason why the taxpayer should have to meet those costs. The operation of such a scheme would he complex and would itself create additional costs. Of course we are aware of concerns that there are no suitable investments that would allow life insurers, who are subject to close matching regulations, to offer annuities that would match care and earnings-based indices exactly.
However, it would currently be possible for insurers to provide annuities linked to the retail prices index plus a certain percentage. So it would be open to the court, if it thought that was the most appropriate way to quantify certain future losses, to order that they be linked to the retail prices index plus a percentage as a proxy for some other index. We should also keep in mind that not all periodical payments will be backed by insurance products and that the same regulatory considerations will not apply where payments are funded by other means.
As I explained, the court already has the power to order payments linked to whatever index it considers suitable. A provision allowing it to order payments linked to care costs inflation is therefore unnecessary. It is important that the courts are able to take a flexible approach, so that where the circumstances of the case make it appropriate—if a defendant is unable to meet the terms of the proposed order because funding could not be adequately secured—he or she can inform the court and a different order can be made.
I hope that I have given the noble Lord a comprehensive answer. I therefore invite him to withdraw the amendment.
6 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for what she said about Amendment No. 148. Although I recognise that she has given no undertaking to act, I am grateful that the Government will at least consider whether something can be done to make clear beyond any doubt that Clause 92 permits payments that are linked to an index—and therefore not ascertainable at the time of the order, which was my concern.
On Amendment No. 149, I am most grateful to both the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, and the Minister. The matter thoroughly deserves debate although, as I said, I recognise that it cannot be decided during the course of debate on the Bill. The noble Baroness implied that the Government would keep it in mind. There is plainly nothing that I can do to take Amendment No. 149 further at this stage. Returning to Amendment No. 148, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 149 not moved.]
The Deputy Speaker (Viscount Allenby of Megiddo): My Lords, before I call Amendment No. 150, I must inform the House that if it is agreed to, I shall be unable to call Amendments Nos. 151 to 156 inclusive because of pre-emption.
Lord Hunt of Wirralmoved Amendment No. 150:
Page 46, line 16, leave out from beginning to end of line 13 on page 47.
The noble Lord said: I immediately point out to the noble Baroness that I do not intend to press the amendment, but it gives the House a further opportunity to consider the whole question of variability or reviewability of the periodic payment provisions. The noble Baroness will be aware that there is ongoing concern about the detail of their implementation. I hope that she will take this opportunity again to address those concerns. There is grave concern about the scope of the review and its operation. It may introduce unwelcome uncertainty into the setting of reserves.
The noble Baroness made clear that the power to vary will be tightly drafted and carefully controlled. Indeed, in Committee, she said:
"Such a restricted system of variation should not require additional compensation over and above that already payable. Insurers are already providing for such eventualities".—[Official Report, 27/3/03; col. 1006.]
That came as considerable reassurance, but the detail has yet to be set out. The noble Baroness would do a great deal to reassure those outside the House if she were now able to enlighten us about the timetable that will operate; the drafting of the regulations; or the extent of the consultation.
Obviously, these are early days, but the noble Baroness will recognise that there has been a desire to write much more of the detail into the primary legislation. She has rightly resisted including too much detail on the assurance that there will be widespread consultation and time during the drafting of the regulations to consider the range of opinion advanced. However, it would reassure a number of people if she were able to provide more detail about the timetable.
She may also be able to assure us that within the draft regulations there will be sufficient control on the use of the power to vary to avoid what could otherwise be endless satellite litigation. When we debated conditional fee agreements, I strongly urged that there should at least be a pilot scheme from which we could learn lessons and that more safeguards should be included.
I suppose that in many ways I have benefited from that. Noble Lords will be aware that I am senior partner of Beachcroft Wansbroughs, which is one litigation firm involved in some of the satellite litigation. But I do not think that anyone has welcomed the extent of that satellite litigation—certainly not those involved in it—as we seek to clarify the extent of the conditional fee agreements. I am indeed pleased to hear the
62
announcement from the Lord Chancellor's Department that the whole matter of conditional fee agreements will be reconsidered.
I should not want us to go further down the road of periodic payments only to discover that a massive amount of satellite litigation again arises as the parties seek to explore the meaning of and intention behind particular words and phrases. Perhaps the noble Baroness can take this opportunity to reassure us all that that is most unlikely to happen. Bearing in mind that the provisions must work, we should like some assurance as to when we may see the draft order and rules of the court and exactly when the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will consult.
Finally, grave concerns remain about how reviewability may operate. An early view of the draft order might do a great deal to alleviate those concerns. We approach Third Reading, with all the proceedings still to follow in another place. I hope that before the Bill finishes its passage through Parliament we may see at least something of the draft order so that we can turn our minds to it during the Bill's final stages.
There is a genuine wish on all sides of the House for periodic payments to be made into a workable alternative. I recall that I, the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, and others spoke at reasonable length on a previous occasion about the need for legislation similar to the periodic payments provisions in Clause 92— although we did not then refer to reviewability—as being a much better system than the rather distasteful practice of producing a lump sum that is then imposed on families least able to cope with it. The guarantee of receiving payments for as long as one may live has enormous attractions when trying to break through the existing straitjacket of difficult and complicated calculations.
We would not want a system to be set up that is even more complicated and difficult to administer than the current one. I hope that the noble Baroness will give us some reassurance about that. I beg to move.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. He is right when he says that there has been a genuine attempt by all involved in the process to make periodic payments a workable alternative. He is also right to highlight the distasteful, and sometimes painful, assessment that must be made of how long a claimant might reasonably be expected to live. That does not come easily at all. I agree wholeheartedly with him that periodical payments are a consummation devoutly to be wished, and for which many people in this field have longed for a long time.
The amendment would remove Section 2B to prevent any variation of periodical payments. I understand the basis on which the noble Lord tabled it. We recognise that, in the majority of cases, a non-variable award is likely to be appropriate. Many foreseeable changes can be built into an annuity, and some are already. But, in cases where there is real difficulty in assessing the likelihood of a claimant developing a particular medical condition or overcoming a particular medical disability when the periodical payments order is made, the present method of compensation is unsatisfactory.

63
Defendants and insurers usually provide for those eventualities by way of contingency payments. However, those payments often compensate for the chance that a future need may arise, rather than the need itself. If, for example, there is a 20 per cent chance of serious loss but the need never arises, the defendant or insurer would have made a payment unnecessarily. If the need arises, the claimant will be seriously under-compensated. In such cases, we believe that a variable order can provide the best solution. Defendants and insurers will not have to make payments for events that do not occur, but, if they do, claimants will receive the full compensation to which they are entitled.
During our debates on this clause, we have all agreed that rehabilitation is of central importance. We believe that the provisions for variation may help to support a programme of rehabilitation. Some specific improvements in the claimant's medical condition could result in a need, for example, to aid mobility. In those instances, our proposals for variation will be able to improve claimants' prospects of rehabilitation by providing the additional support needed to sustain improvement. In other circumstances, improvements may reduce the level of payments needed. We believe that the power to allow scope for variation in defined circumstances provides the fairest system of compensation for both claimants and defendants.
The noble Lord rightly asked about the timetable. I know that it is a matter of anxiety. I can give only my best estimate—I do not say "guesstimate". We will consult on the regulatory impact assessment of the proposed variation order in the autumn. We do not expect to implement the new powers before April 2004. We hope to have drafts of the order and the rules available at about the same time in the autumn. I do not know the precise timetable of when the Bill will go to another place and when it will come back, but we hope that the timing will be relatively robust.
We are currently consulting stakeholders on the content of the rules. Noble Lords will know that the stakeholders have been of great importance in their contributions. They have been able to help us with the practical consequences of how the system will work. We, too, very much want the periodical payment arrangements to work in a way that will benefit claimants overall.
I hope that that helps to clarify issues for the noble Lord. I understand why there is anxiety about the matter. I concur with the noble Lord that the last thing we wish to create is a system of satellite litigation, which would not be to the benefit of any of the parties, and that will involve the parties engaged in the process in expenditure that they could better use to do other things. I therefore invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister. I recognise that the timetable is not solely in her hands, but I am grateful to her for giving a reasonable indication. For me, autumn occurs around
64
September. If it were around September. that would be a very good month in which to scrutinise the drafts. Were the noble Baroness able to conjure the drafts earlier for those of us who have taken a particular interest in the Bill, we could not be more delighted. We would never hold the noble Baroness to the wording of the drafts. Therefore, even if the drafts were quite crude, it is their delivery that is important, not the precise detail. We would assist, one would hope, in ensuring that they were grammatically correct, but they do not have to be exact. I know that officials may take that as an indication that perhaps we might have them a few weeks earlier than we might otherwise have done.
I warmly applaud the Minister's reference to rehabilitation. When the Chief Medical Officer's report is published, I very much hope that it will be right at the heart of the process. As the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, other noble Lords and I know well, there is an inherent injustice in the damages system. A range of people who are just as seriously injured are not entitled to any additional compensation. The rehabilitation of all those who are injured or suffer disease must be at the heart of the National Health Service. Where appropriate, getting them back to work and into the community must be at the heart of any process. I look forward to the publication of the Chief Medical Officer's report, when, no doubt, we will further discuss the matter. In the mean time, I seek leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Goodhartmoved Amendment No. 151:
Page 46, line 19, at end insert—
"( ) But no order may he made under subsection (1) authorising an increase of periodical payments unless in the proceedings in which the payments were originally ordered—

(a) it was proved or admitted that there was a chance that at some definite or indefinite time in the future the injured person would, as result of the act or omission which gave rise to the case of action, develop some serious disease or suffer some serious deterioration in his physical or mental condition; and

(b) the court assessed the periodical payments on the assumption that the injured person would not develop the disease or suffer the deterioration in his condition."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 156. The amendments raise issues that, in many ways, overlap with those raised by the amendment that we have just debated. For some reason. they were de-grouped. I am not entirely sure why.
We accept the principle that there should be a power to vary an order for periodical payments after payment has begun. But Amendment No. 151 restricts that power by allowing variation only on the same basis as that which applies to the variation of lump-sum damages orders, which can be made under Section 32A of the Supreme Court Act 1981.
The closure of a damages claim without undue delay is very important. It is important for the defendants and their insurers. All professionals make mistakes; I certainly have done. The problem applies particularly

65
to doctors, as their errors may lead to the severe physical disability of a patient; therefore, they fall within the category where variations are most likely to be made. Obviously, doctors who have made mistakes should be liable to pay damages. Once the case has been decided, its reopening should not hang over a defendant's head for life, without very strong reason. There are practical drawbacks, such as the need to keep medical records for the life of the claimant. Above all, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, said in Committee, closure is plainly in the interests of claimants. It is of enormous psychological importance for claimants to put the trauma of an accident behind them and to get on with their lives.
Having said that, I recognise that there are exceptional cases. In some cases, it is extremely difficult to make a prognosis at the time of the court hearing; for example, where, if damages are awarded on the basis of the claimant's present condition, they may be too small, but, if it is assumed that the condition will worsen, and then it does not, the claimant could be overcompensated. In such exceptional cases, the best course may be to award damages on the basis of the claimant's present condition but to give leave to return to court for an increase.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is there any reason why something of that kind should not be dealt with in regulations, rather than in the statute?
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, there is a case for dealing with it in regulations. However, in this case, certainty is of considerable importance with regard to the financial consequences, particularly from the point of view of insurance cover and the role of professional groups, such as the Medical Protection Society.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, would that not be equally the case if regulations, rather than the original statute, applied?
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I accept that there would be some value in putting the matter into regulation. However, in this case, the requirement for certainty is sufficiently great and the need to give assurances to the people who are financially involved sufficiently important to make it desirable to have it in primary legislation and not in regulations, which can be changed at short notice and with relatively little debate.
To get the right balance, we should select a formula and give parties confidence that it will not be altered without good reason. The formula that now applies to provisional damages is correct and should be retained for periodical payments. The Bill simply allows an order for periodical payments to be varied in circumstances specified by the Lord Chancellor, although the fact that the affirmative resolution procedure will he required is welcome.
The intentions of the present Lord Chancellor, as outlined by the noble Baroness, are reasonable, but they are not binding on a future Lord Chancellor. Therefore, Amendment No. 151 would apply to the variation of periodical payments the same formula
66
that applies to provisional damages and would exclude the power to vary the formula otherwise than by primary legislation.
Amendment No. 156 is the corollary of that. New Section 2B(4) of the Damages Act 1996 will allow the Lord Chancellor to make an order varying existing legislation on provisional damages. That would enable the power to award provisional damages to be widened. In the absence of any evidence that the system is working badly, it would be inappropriate to give a power to alter it by statutory instrument. I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I am sorry to say that I heard nothing from the noble Lord that indicated that the matter—or something like it—could not be dealt with by order, although the Government ought to have regard to the principles outlined by the noble Lord. I want to consider the matter more than I have done, but I do not think that anything that has been said so far makes it appropriate to amend the Bill. I go a long way with the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, on the issue but not as far as he wants me to.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, I follow the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, in a debate that is similar to one that we had in Committee. I have already spoken to the matter in general terms in connection with the previous amendment, but. as Amendment No. 153 is included in the group, I thought that I ought to explain why I tabled it.
The amendment would insert the word "only" into Section 2B(3), so that the list of circumstances in which the Lord Chancellor may make an order is restricted to the list set out in that subsection. That would clarify the Government's acceptance of the previous amendment, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, which took out the Lord Chancellor's power to make an order that operated irrespective of the terms of any court order or agreement.
I want to give the Minister the opportunity to satisfy the House that the Government accept that the section, as now drafted, will permit the Lord Chancellor only to make orders that are within the scope of subsection (3)—that is, orders that will only operate wholly or partly by reference to a condition in the court order or agreement. This is the proposed restriction to circumstances equivalent to provisional damages by ensuring that a court order or agreement can be varied only if the original order provides for circumstances in which that variation can take place.
Amendment No. 154 would leave out new Section 2B(3)(d), which would enable the Lord Chancellor to create rules of court in the order. We are aware that the Lord Chancellor will consult widely on the proposed secondary legislation and that such consultation will include practitioners, but we feel that the Civil Procedure Rule Committee is the best place for drafting rules of court. Rules need to work for the judiciary and for practitioners, and I am not sure that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is best placed to make those decisions.

67
Amendment No. 155 would remove new Section 2B(4), which is, in effect, a Henry VIII clause, entitling the Lord Chancellor to amend primary legislation on provisional or further damages. Can the Minister explain that? Whatever she may say about the restrictive use of such a power, it would enable the Government effectively to change the way in which damages are paid by a substantial extension of the scope of provisional damages. It is subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, but I am a little concerned that that is hardly an effective way to amend primary legislation.
Will the Minister give us some reassurance on those points? I thought that it might be helpful if I dealt with those three amendments at this stage.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis for his support on the amendments. I agree with him that they are not appropriate. In the interests of clarity on the issue, I shall go through them amendment by amendment. I accept that it is a difficult area. There has been a lot of discussion and debate about this, but we have an opportunity to see whether we can reach a modicum of agreement.
Amendment No. 151 would restrict the scope of any order that the Lord Chancellor can make allowing the upward variation of periodical payments to the circumstances in which provisional damages can currently be awarded. By preventing the making of any order allowing upward variation in any terms different from those specified, the amendment would defeat the purpose of providing for variation through an order-making power.
As I said in Committee, the Government have no plans to extend the scope of variation after the initial order. However, that should not prevent us from keeping open the option of extending or limiting further the extent of variation, for example, in the light of experience and further developments in the insurance market or making any minor adjustments, should they prove necessary. The order-making power provides the flexibility to do this. It is important that this flexibility is not undermined. In relation to the previous group, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, raised the issue of satellite litigation and the need to hone matters to ensure that they are right. There should be flexibility to change by order affirmative resolutions so that Parliament has an opportunity to look at it. That is what we are seeking to do; namely, to get the structure right but retain the flexibility if, from experience, we find that the assumptions we make now are not founded in fact.
Furthermore, by basing the restrictions to the order-making power on provisional damages legislation and by referring solely to increases in payments resulting from a deterioration in the claimant's condition, the amendment would prevent us from making the initial order in the terms which we propose. Provisional damages do not allow for an improvement in the claimant's condition, nor do they allow the defendant
68
to apply. We believe that variable payments should be available in these circumstances, not least to put claimants and defendants on a level playing field so far as is possible.
Although we recognise the noble Lord's concern that the provisions governing variation should not be too open-ended, we do not believe that restricting them in the way suggested is necessary. The need for consultation and affirmative resolution provides the necessary safeguards to ensure that the order-making power is used reasonably and responsibly.
Amendment No. 153 limits the provisions that may be included in an order to those listed on the face of the Bill. We have all previously said that this is a developing area of law; it is important that the framework for the order-making power is flexible enough to cater for future eventualities that cannot yet be foreseen. We believe that it would therefore be unhelpful to limit the provision in the way suggested.
Amendment No. 154 removes the provision in new Section 2B(3) enabling an order allowing variation to make provision of a kind which could be made by civil procedure rules. I set out the position of the Government on this issue in Committee. The provision will not enable the Government to do any more than can already be provided for under rules of court. But it may be more efficient to deal with all provisions relating to variation wholly by order rather than a mix and match of rules and orders.
As the House is aware, rules of court made by the Civil Procedure Rule Committee must first be allowed by the Lord Chancellor and are then subject to negative resolution by Parliament. However, any provision which is implemented by way of an order will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. As this provides a higher level of scrutiny than is currently provided by the rules, we do not accept that this provision should cause any concern. In fact, we suggest that it should be welcomed.
Finally, I turn to Amendments Nos. 155 and 156. These would prevent the Lord Chancellor making an order which amended legislation governing provisional damages. Amendment No. 155 would also prevent an order applying such legislation. As I said, again in Committee, to ensure that provisional damages can operate effectively alongside variable periodical payments, it may be necessary to make amendments to the legislation that governs those damages. There may be cases where both lump sums and periodical payments are needed. We believe that the best way of ensuring the combat—that was a Freudian slip, was it not?—I meant "compatibility" of the two systems is through the order-making power.
I am, of course, aware of the concerns that this power could potentially allow substantive amendments to the scope of provisional damages. However, we believe that the need for consultation and affirmative resolution provide adequate safeguards to its use. They will ensure that any future order for variation, including one that made amendments to provisional damages legislation, would be subject to rigorous scrutiny and debate. If Parliament is not satisfied that

69
the power is being used appropriately, it will be able to indicate that under the affirmative resolution procedure.
It should give noble Lords comfort that what we have in the procedure that we are now adopting, and have in practice sought to adopt over a number of years, is the practitioner, the courts and the industry working together to obtain the best solutions possible to resolve these issues of personal injury. We should congratulate the committees which have worked together on the rules and orders which have proved to be sensible and workable and have worked to the advantage of all litigants. I reasonably anticipate that this will be the case too. In the light of all that I have said, I hope that the noble Lord, first, is reassured and, secondly, is content enough to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am grateful for the comments made by the noble Baroness and I am partly persuaded. Amendment No. 151 is somewhat too rigid. The residual problem is that there should not be a reopening of the case unless at the time of the original order notice is given, in effect, to the parties that the case may be reopened. It is important that where the court hears a case and makes what it and the parties at the time believe to he a final decision, there should not be a subsequent reopening of the case—except, of course, on grounds such as fraud and so forth on which cases can now be reopened.
In the circumstances, in the rather brief time available, I shall consider whether I want to table at Third Reading a more restricted form of amendment which will not put a tight band on the kind of variations which can be made but will limit variations to cases where the court, at the original hearing, has said that variations may subsequently be applied for. Be that as it may, today I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaffmoved Amendment No. 152:
Page 46, line 19, at end insert—
"( ) An order under subsection (1) may not apply to injuries that occurred prior to the date on which sections 2, 2A and 2B came into force."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I have listened with great interest to the debate on amendments in this clause. As the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has summarised, in Committee 1 raised concerns about the impact of settlement reviews on patients. I highlighted that an ongoing adversarial relationship between the patient/claimant and the defendant might act as a powerful disincentive to recovery and may even promote ongoing worsening of the patient's overall condition physically and psychologically. It will prevent closure on an incident for both patient and clinician.
I accept that the Government have taken a firm position on the proposal to vary periodical payments and therefore seek to minimise the damaging impact of
70
this measure on those involved in clinical negligence cases by proposing an amendment which will make the legislation prospective rather than retrospective.
As currently drafted, Clause 92(2)(b) will apply to all cases settled after the Bill comes into force even if the negligent act occurred over 20 years ago. There is often a significant time lag between when a negligent act occurs, when it is reported and when a claim for compensation is finally settled. According to the Medical Protection Society, one in five claims, where the claim was valued at £500,000 or more, made against their medical members between 1996 and 1999 related to incidents which occurred 10 or more years earlier.
This is an important point for medical defence unions offering indemnity on an occurrence basis. Doctors belong to a defence union and their indemnity is occurrence-based; so provided the doctor was in membership at the time of the incident giving rise to the claim, he or she can apply for assistance even if membership ceased before the making of the claim. To ensure proper funding for claims, it is essential that in each subscription year sufficient income is secured to meet all the claims arising from incidents in that year, irrespective of when the claim is made.
As a consequence, the introduction of rules applying to new claims rather than to new injuries is retrospective, as the rules would apply to years where subscriptions have already been set and collected. Defence union organisations such as the Medical Protection Society, the Medical Defence Union and the Medical and Dental Defence Union of Scotland will not have had the opportunity to set and collect subscriptions at a level that would encompass the costs of having settlement reviews.
In contrast, the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill currently being considered in the House of Commons introduces the concept of recovery of NHS costs in clinical negligence cases. It will apply to injuries which have occurred only after the date the legislation comes into force. The Department of Health has accepted that it would be unfair on those insurance companies or riot-for-profit organisations which fund the cost of claims to be "caught" for accidents that had taken place long before the measure was even conceived.
If new Section 2B in Clause 92 of the Courts Bill is agreed without amendment, we shall have two new pieces of legislation relating to clinical negligence that take effect in completely different ways. The Courts Bill will impact on injuries that happened many years ago, while the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill will affect injuries that occur only after the Bill is enacted in 2004. The amendment I have proposed would address that inconsistency. If accepted, the proposals to introduce settlement reviews will become truly prospective and thus will reflect the stance that has been embraced by the Department of Health. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, I wish strongly to support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, and to say that I believe that

71
she has put forward a persuasive argument, in particular over the anomaly between the two Bills. It is surprising that the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill should be framed so differently from the Courts Bill. It may be that the Minister will want some time to reflect on that, but it is a curious anomaly.
I wish to add my concerns to those expressed by the noble Baroness about the element of retrospection involved in the present provisions. It makes the task of medical defence societies and insurance companies in general very difficult indeed if they are to be faced with retrospective changes to legislation which alter substantially the law on damages. As the Minister will know, it is something in respect of which many representations have been made in the past. The system should be much clearer and more precise. When changes are proposed, they should take effect only so far as the future is concerned rather than seeking to claw back what can be up to 20 years before a claim needs to be made in the first place. That is particularly true in cases involving minors. That is because there is a three-year limitation period coming on to 18 years which may or may not have elapsed in whole or in part.
I hope that the Minister will be able to respond positively to the serious concerns which have been raised.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Chan: My Lords, I support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lady Finlay. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, pointed out, it is important to ensure that there is no anomaly between this Bill and the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill. Another point should be made about retrospection. In maternity cases and those involving new-horn babies, the 20-year rule is making it extremely difficult to recruit into the relevant professions, although the need for doctors, nurses and midwives in our hospitals continues to grow.
Further anomalies could arise when we take into account the advances in medical care over a period of 20 years. It would be disastrous and bad for the morale of the medical professions and the National Health Service if old cases were to be reopened. Advances in care would mean that cases that had been adjudicated in the past would today no longer be cases with a valid claim of negligence because we have better means of treatment as well as better procedures and guidelines. I support my noble friend's amendment.
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, I, too, support this amendment. I welcome the move away from lump-sum settlements and the provision of periodic payments to patients in clinical negligence cases, but the Government must be realistic about reviews which would create a continuing uncertain liability.
The defence organisations, which are non-profit making, would need to increase their reserves to meet the possibility of an order for increased payments
72
between 10 and 40 years after the initial settlement. For many years I served on the council of the Medical Protection Society and later chaired the dental side of that organisation. It is a mutual body for which subscriptions are collected from members on an annual basis to meet the liabilities arising from that year. The provision of reviewable settlements would introduce huge uncertainty about future liabilities, leaving members either over-funded or under-funded. That burden would have to be borne by the individual doctor.
These costs already represent a tremendous burden. In certain parts of the country it is difficult to encourage doctors to work in obstetrics. Although the legislation introducing reviewable periodic payments is not intended to be retrospective, clinical negligence claims are not normally initiated, let alone decided, until years after the incident. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond positively to the amendment.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I do not have anything to add to what has already been said by noble Lords who are far more competent to speak on these issues from a professional point of view. I wish simply to endorse what has been said by all the speakers. I hope that the Government can see their way to giving some satisfaction as regards the arguments put by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, and the noble Lords, Lord Chan and Lord Colwyn; those noble Lords bring to the debate the expertise of practitioners in the field. However, obviously they also bring the attendant anxieties. I hope that I shall be able to explain why the Government have taken the view as set out in the Bill, and that I shall be able to allay some of that anxiety.
Amendment No. 152 would limit the application of an order allowing variation to injuries which occurred after the date on which new Sections 2, 2A and 2B came into force. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for making me aware of her concerns on this issue in advance of our debate. I thank her for that courtesy.
In Committee I explained that although we recognise the general concerns expressed about the "retrospective" effect of legislative change, and the fact that these cases can sometimes take several years to settle, where the court makes a variable periodical payments order, insurers and medical defence organisations should be able to reserve or reinsure against it, as they do now in regard to provisional damages orders. I want to emphasise the fact that, in introducing periodical payments, we are not seeking to change the basis of liability, but rather we seek to change the way in which people are paid. So the issue of liability rests where it is.
If the provisions relating to the court's power to vary periodical payments applied only to injuries occurring after the date of commencement, it could be several years, as the noble Baroness said, before the provisions took effect. In the meantime, in some cases where variation was appropriate, awards would continue to have to include provision for events which might never

73
occur and claimants would continue to be left significantly under-compensated or over-compensated. In other cases, the court would be forced to order a provisional damages lump sum even though periodical payments were more suitable.
I understand and recognise that the provisions of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill relating to the recovery of NHS costs will take effect differently to the provisions in the Bill relating to periodical payments. However, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, will understand that different considerations can apply when deciding the most appropriate implementation date for any legislation. For example, the introduction of the recovery of NHS costs in clinical negligence cases is a new cost which insurers and medical defence organisations have not previously had to meet, whereas the limited degree of variation that we propose will not introduce any new liability for damages. It is simply a different, and we believe fairer, method of paying for uncertain future costs.
There is agreement around the House that where periodical payments can be made it can quite often inure to the advantage of claimants, who will have the security of knowing that the lump sum will not run out. They will have a set amount of money for every month that they live. They will not have to ask horrible prognosis questions about longevity and expected life span. I am sure that noble Lords who have been directly involved in such clinical assessments know how difficult and painful it can be for the claimants involved. They will know also how complex it can be for a competent clinician to make an accurate assessment. Some people have the great advantage enjoyed by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, who gets riper and richer every year; other people, half his age, struggle—particularly on these Benches. I speak, of course, entirely for myself and not for any of my noble friends.
We know that there are such difficulties. We believe that periodical payments will assist claimants and will not impact in the negative way feared by the noble Baroness. I hope that she will be satisfied with that answer and feel able to withdraw her amendment. We understand why this issue has caused anxiety. I am pleased to be able to make this response in the hope that it may allay some of the anxieties of clinicians.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that detailed response. I continue to have anxieties, particularly in relation to possible variations that may occur and the possibility of re-opening cases. This may cause anxiety both for those who have been claimants but who have made substantial recoveries and rehabilitated well, and for clinicians who have had claims made against them and the defence unions which bear the cost.
I should like to read carefully what has been said by the Minister and other noble Lords who have contributed to the discussion. In that spirit, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave. withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 153 to 156 not moved.]
Clause 94 [Power to alter judicial titles: Northern Ireland]:
Baroness Scotland of Asthalmoved Amendment No. 157:
Page 50, line 13. leave out "or repealing any enactment (whenever passed)" and insert ", repealing or revoking any enactment"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Scotland of Asthalmoved Amendment No. 158:
After Clause 96, insert the following new clause—
"EXTENSION OF TIME FOR CRIMINAL APPEALS TO HOUSE OF LORDS: NORTHERN IRELAND
(1) Amend paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the 1978 Act (applications for leave to appeal to House of Lords in certain criminal matters) as follows.
(2) In sub-paragraph (1)—

(a) for "fourteen" (in both places) substitute "28", and

(b) for "date of the decision of that court" substitute "relevant date".

(3) After sub-paragraph (1) insert—
"(1A) In subsection (1), "the relevant date" means—

(a) the date of the decision of the court below, or

(b) if later, the date on which that court gives reasons for its decision."

(4) Amend section 32 of the Criminal Appeal (Northern Ireland) Act 1980 (c. 47) (applications for leave to appeal to the House of Lords) as follows.
(5) In subsection (1)—

(a) for "fourteen" (in both places) substitute "28", and

(b) for "date of the decision of the Court" substitute "relevant date".

(6) After subsection (1) insert—
"(1A) In subsection (1), "the relevant date" means—

(a) the date of the Court of Appeal's decision, or

(b) if later, the date on which the Court gives reasons for its decision.""

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brightonmoved Amendment No. 159:
After Clause 96, insert the following new clause—
"FEES: NORTHERN IRELAND
In section 116 of the 1978 Act (fees) after subsection (1) insert—
"(1A) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), an order under that subsection may make provision for exemptions from fees and remission of fees (in whole or in part).""
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment will help to facilitate access to justice by allowing for the exemption from, or full or partial remission of. court fees in Northern Ireland.
The new clause provides for the insertion of a new subsection (1A) into Section 116 of the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978. Section 116(1) of the 1978 Act provides for the Lord Chancellor, after consultation with the Lord Chief Justice and the Treasury, to fix the fees to be taken in the Northern Ireland courts and the Enforcement of Judgments Office.

75
The new subsection will allow for any order fixing fees to provide for the exemption from, or full or partial remission of, those fees, thereby taking account of financial hardship. No amendment can be any less controversial than this one. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 97 [Interpretation]:
Baroness Scotland of Asthalmoved Amendment No. 160:
Page 52. line 9, at end insert—
"(8) In this Act "enactment" includes subordinate legislation and, except where otherwise provided, any reference to an enactment is to an enactment whenever passed or made; and "subordinate legislation" here has the same meaning as in the Interpretation Act 1978 (c. 30).
(9) In sections 94(6) and 99(4)(b) "enactment" also includes Northern Ireland legislation (whenever passed or made); and "Northern Ireland legislation" here has the same meaning as in the Interpretation Act 1978 (c. 30)."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 98 [Rules, regulations and orders]:
Lord Bassam of Brightonmoved Amendment No. 161:
Page 52, line 13, leave out subsections (2) and (3) and insert—
"(2) None of the orders and regulations mentioned in subsection (3) may be made unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing the order or regulations has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.
(3) The orders and regulations are—

(a) the first order to be made under section 4 (areas of courts boards);

(b) regulations under section 29(5) (costs in legal proceedings);

(c) an order under section 31(6) or (8) (power to make permanent provision about collection of fines by fines officers):

(d) an order under—

(i) section 68 or 75 (powers to amend enactments in connection with Criminal Procedure Rules and Family Procedure Rules), or

(ii) section 99 (power to make consequential provision etc.),

which contains any provision (whether alone or with other provisions) amending or repealing any Act or provision of an Act;

(e) regulations under Schedule (Constitution and procedure of courts boards)."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, these amendments seek to improve the parliamentary scrutiny of secondary legislation provided for in the Bill. They are designed to meet parliamentary concerns about the delegated powers in the Bill and fulfil ministerial commitments to bring forward amendments in the light of the recommendations of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform.
Amendments Nos. 161, 165 and 166 seek to amend Clause 98 to increase the level of parliamentary scrutiny which applies to secondary legislation under the Courts Bill. As a result of these amendments, the first order establishing courts boards under Clause 4, as amended, will be subject to affirmative resolution
76
under subsection 3(a). This is in response to parliamentary concern about these areas and will ensure full scrutiny when we establish areas. Similarly, under subsection (3)(e) regulations under the new schedule on constitution and procedure of courts boards will also be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
Under subsection (3)(d) of the amendment, any orders under Clauses 68, 75 or 99 of the Bill which contain any provision which amends or repeals any Act or provision of any Act will be subject to affirmative resolution.
These amendments follow the Government's acceptance of the recommendations contained in the second report of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform and fulfils the commitments to bring forward amendments which were given by myself and my noble friend Lady Scotland on 11th and 27th March.
Amendments Nos. 165 and 166 also meet a recommendation of the Select Committee by providing that fees orders under Clause 87 should be subject to negative resolution for the first time. I undertook to bring forward a government amendment when responding to an amendment spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, on 27th March.
There are further minor amendments to clarify the scope of the power to make orders under Clause 99(3). It is likely that we shall need to use the power in this clause to make numerous amendments to subordinate legislation, particularly to change references to justices, chief executives and petty session areas. However. Clause 99 as currently drafted is too restrictive in that it limits the power to subordinate legislation made before the passing of this Bill.
These government amendments have been grouped with Amendment No. 164. That amendment. brought forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is the same as Amendment No. 145, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Kingsland and Lord Hunt, and moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, on 27th March. This amendment would make the first order made under Clause 8 setting up local justice areas subject to the negative resolution procedure. As I think I said during the debate on 27th March, if this amendment has been prompted by concerns that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will radically alter local boundaries when making the first order, the amendment is unnecessary.
Once again, I reassure noble Lords that the boundaries of local justice areas will be the same as those of petty session areas when the first order under Section 8 is made. Paragraph 29 of the Explanatory Notes makes this clear, and we gave assurances in Committee that we will spell this out in the transitional provisions of the Bill. These provisions are now to be introduced as a government amendment in another place. As noble Lords will know, we have recently tabled over 100 consequential amendments and repeals. It has not therefore been possible at this stage to bring forward the schedule of transitional

77
provisions in this House. I invite noble Lords on the Opposition. Benches not to press their amendment. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Turner of Camden): My Lords, I must inform your Lordships that if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 162 and 163 because of pre-emption.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am particularly glad about the important concession made by the Government in Amendment No. 166, which brings the question of the court fees under some parliamentary control. Speaking from these Benches, we accept, as the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee did, that the negative resolution is the appropriate procedure because, in the great majority of cases, fees orders are not controversial. However, from time to time they are; there was a fees order some two or three years ago which I would certainly have prayed against if it had been possible to do so. So this gives an opportunity for debate, and I very much welcome it.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I, too, welcome these amendments. But I feel obliged to mention again that the vast number of government amendments, some of them very complicated and far-reaching in detail, will have to be considered further and, if I may dare to say so, even more carefully when we see the Bill reprinted, with all these amendments made. It is not easy, quite frankly, to fathom the net effect of some of these amendments. We really will have to consider the matter afresh and carefully before Third Reading. I hope I am not boring your Lordships when I say yet again that I think that we must have a little more freedom at Third Reading than is normally allowed.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, if the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, had been directed at Amendments Nos. 169 to 303, it would have been more relevant. But as far as this amendment is concerned, I think it is perfectly all right. I have been able to follow, in my own inadequate way, whatever has been said, but I am very troubled by circumstances which come later. The Government may have deliberated upon the matter in a very cogent way—I am not entirely sure about that. However, as far as anything we have considered thus far is concerned, I think the Government have been totally okay.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, of course I am grateful to the Minister for saying that eventually the Government will get around to spelling out those transitional provisions as a government amendment. The problem is that "eventually" will be too late for this House.
Earlier today, my noble friend Lord Hunt made the point that he was not really over-exercised by government amendments arriving late before noble Lords when they are moving in the right direction. This may be moving in the right direction but it will be too late, on this particular occasion, for noble Lords to see what these transitional provisions are.
78
I raised the issue of local justice areas in Committee, as the Minister said. It was raised very early on, in the sense that these amendments were published back in January, so the Government have had prior warning. I am delighted that ray honourable and right honourable friends in another place will have sight of them, but we will not until they come back as amendments made in another place. I shall welcome the opportunity to see what we can do if there is anything wrong with them, although I am sure that the Government will by then have made sure they are in perfect order.
I agree with the sentiment of my noble friend Lord Renton that where amendments are made that substantially change a Bill, one has to look very carefully at how one reflects on them at Third Reading while keeping very strictly—as I look to my left at the Clerk of the Parliaments—within the rules of Third Reading to allow for clarification and for holding the Government to their commitment. I undertake that, as ever, I will keep within those bounds. We may need to table one or two amendments that probe a little further what the Government have done on Report without. I am sure, worrying the officials of the House.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful, as ever, to noble Lords who have contributed to this short discussion and for the general thanks. I suppose one can only observe that in bringing these groupings forward in the way we have, noble Lords who are slightly disturbed by the lateness of the process are almost victims of their own success in persuading us of the strength and power of their arguments at an earlier stage in our deliberations. I would not want to over-egg that point, but it is worth making. We are very grateful for the focus that we have had on some of these important issues. I am grateful for all the comments and commitments that have been made and given.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 162 to 164 not moved.]
Lord Bassam of Brightonmoved Amendments Nos. 165 to 168:
Page 52, line 21, at end insert "or".
Page 52, line 23, leave out from "officers)" to end of line 24.
Page 53, line 11, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
"(b) amend, repeal or revoke any enactment other than one contained in an Act passed in a Session after that in which this Act is passed."
Page 53, line 16, leave out subsection (6).
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 6 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
Lord Bassam of Brightonmoved Amendment No. 169:
Page 76, line 29, after "omit" insert "—

(a) "under the hand and seal", and

(b) "

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a large group of amendments. I do not think I have ever had the responsibility, awesome as it is, of moving such a large

79
group of amendments before. However, Amendments Nos. 169 to 304 are minor and consequential amendments to the Bill. They contain amendments to and repeals of existing legislation as a consequence of the main clauses of the Bill. There are a total of 72 amendments to Schedule 6 and 42 to Schedule 7.
The amendments are the result of a policy laid before Parliament during debate of the main clauses. The amendments to Schedules 6 and 7 do not put forward any new policy in their own right but are absolutely vital to allow the clauses to work with, and alongside, existing legislation.
As the amendments are rather dry, I do not believe that the House would appreciate my explaining them in any detail. Suffice to say that they are minor and consequential, as I said at the outset, arising from among other things the provisions in the Bill removing magistrates' courts committees, the post of justices' chief executive, commission areas and petty session areas. Without these amendments, existing legislation would fail alongside the Courts Bill.
The changes to long-established jurisdictions, terminology and roles have resulted in amendments to legislation dating back to the beginning of the 18th century. That vast amount of legislation had to be carefully checked and rechecked to ensure that it would operate alongside the clauses in the Bill. The amendments before the House are the consequence of that careful checking. No doubt we shall find things that we should prefer not to find at some stage, but we have done a thorough job. We hope that everything is in place so that the legislation works together with earlier legislation. I beg to move.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I do not believe that I have ever before spoken to a group containing 128 amendments. I have to say that I have no idea whether all these amendments are correct, as I have not investigated all, or indeed any, of them. I am perfectly happy to take them on trust.
What concerns me is that these are almost all amendments of routine detail, which ought to have been in the Bill when published. They should not have been incorporated into the Bill in Committee, let alone on Report. The problem may be due to excessive pressure on the parliamentary draftsman's office. Whatever the cause, it is an example of something that should not be repeated.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I confess that I have been in Parliament for nearly 58 years. Although I have often at Committee stage been asked, along with Parliament, to consider a mass of amendments to schedules that amend or repeal previous legislation, I do not recollect such a mass of amendments on Report.
For the sake of the record, I shall say what has happened here. Schedule 6 already contains 253 amendments to legislation since the year 1708, dealing with our judicial system. Schedule 7 already makes 91 repeals of legislation since 1708, but we are now being
80
asked to make a further 92 amendments, which go back to statutes starting in 1773. We are being asked to make 43 further repeals in statutes going back to 1802.
We want things to be properly done, even at a late stage, but could the Minister—if I may have his attention—give us some reason for this massive, belated collection of amendments to, and repeals of, previous legislation?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I would not have missed the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for a moment. Of course, he speaks from inordinate experience, although not for one moment do I believe that he goes back to 1708. I do not join him in his comments, but I hope that before Third Reading the Government will give a résumé of what these amendments are all about.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, I have not understood or even contemplated what the amendments mean. They are just too mind-boggling for that. However, the House is entitled to a proper résumé, and we should not be prohibited from discussing the issue on Third Reading. I am sure that the Minister's comments are right, but we are being asked to take this on trust. As a revising Chamber, I do not believe that we should do that.
I am happy to give way to my noble friend. If he says that, yes, he will do that, I shall shut up and not detain the House any longer. It is vitally important that we understand what we are doing and, frankly, I do not understand the amendments. Would my noble friend like me to give way?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, that is an invitation I cannot refuse.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, as we are at Report stage, is it the case that the Minister will say a quick "Yes" or "No" before I make my speech, or should I make my speech now?
Lord Renton: Make it now.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, after that invitation, I shall make my speech now, to keep to the rules of the Report stage.
I agree with everything said by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, my noble friend Lord Renton and the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, who summarised the situation very effectively. He said that we were the "revising Chamber", and we have been put in a position where we are unable to do our work properly.
The Bill was published at the end of last year, and one would have expected such a huge tranche of amendments to be in the Bill at that stage. In that way, not only we but those interested bodies outwith the House could have had the opportunity properly to consider these matters, as they progressed so slowly through your Lordships' House. We have a bad precedent here for such a large tranche of amendments for repeals coming through at this stage.

81
I shall not labour the point further, as other noble Lords have made it extremely well. I have tried to look through some of the amendments—although it was no more than an attempt—and one of them caught my eye. I mentioned it earlier to the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, but I am not sure whether he will he able to answer my question tonight. We may need to return to it at Third Reading.
Amendment No. 178 refers to,
"Jurisdiction over ships lying off the coasts".
That caught my eye because of my previous form in putting through your Lordships' House the National Heritage Bill, which was a Private Member's Bill. In the course of that, my noble friend Lady Carnegy made me learn more about territorial waters than I ever thought I would know or want to know.
Paragraph (a)(i) refers to,
"any ship or boat which … is on or is lying or passing off the coast of England and Wales".
What does, "lying or passing off the coast of England and Wales", mean? How far out? We are talking about our territorial waters, but I am not sure to what the amendment refers. I am sure that the point is very carefully defined somewhere, but the provision does not give the definition. Moreover, as the amendment has been tabled so late, it is not dealt with in the Explanatory Notes.
Sub-paragraph (ii) refers to any ship or boat that,
"is in or near any bay, channel, lake, river or other navigable water on which any part of England and Wales abuts or into which any part of England and Wales projects".
Bearing in mind my noble friend Lady Carnegy—who is always at the back of my mind I —have to ask, what about the Solway Firth? How will it be affected? Is there any reference in the Act we are amending to the statutory instrument which lays down the various co-ordinates? That is the type of matter about which the Scots get very correctly exercised, because of the matter of oil. The noble Lord may be able to give me a very simple answer now. If not, we may have to have the joy of that at Third Reading.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I thought that this might get more complicated, or at least that your Lordships would find more complications than perhaps there are in reality. 1 say to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, that of course we are happy to provide further information and detail. The usual way of doing that is in correspondence, in a letter placed in the Library and circulated to all noble Lords who have taken part in these discussions.
If noble Lords look at the amendments in this group, I think they will see that they are. to a degree, self-explanatory. Amendment No. 192, for example, will change and modernise the terminology. I am sure that not all noble Lords will be entirely happy with the changes being made. However, the provision will change terms such as "Crown Court rules".
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend. Of course he is at liberty to choose whatever he likes to give an explanation.
82
However, at this stage, I do not think that we ought to do that. He has indicated—and I stress this point—that he is prepared between now and Third Reading to give an explanation of all the amendments. That may be unnecessary in some instances. However, having regard to what he said, I do not think that it would be helpful to the House to give us an explanation of individual amendments at this stage.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I was simply trying to be helpful. If the noble Lord believes that I am not being helpful, then I shall happily rest with what I said earlier. We shall provide a general outline of why the amendments are necessary. This is a complex matter and we have tried to simplify it. That is essentially what this whole group of amendments seeks to achieve. If noble Lords look at the provisions, I am sure they will see that we are seeking to modernise and update the language so that there is consistency throughout the legislation. I return to a point I made earlier. In a sense, some of the amendments may well be the result of earlier arguments in which the Government were persuaded to think again. We have had to reflect that in a change.
The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, asked me a question about territoriality, I think, and coastal waters. I think that she was referring to changes that are required to the Behring Sea Award Act 1894. The issue of coastal jurisdiction is very complex. Having given it some thought, I suppose that although it is reasonably easy to draw a line in the sand. it is more complicated to draw one in the sea. I should therefore like to provide her with a written explanation containing more detail. I think that there is probably a fairly straightforward and simple explanation. I hope that she is happy with that. I think that she will be more satisfied if I can provide her with a more detailed response.
I conclude on a simple point. Although this is a large group —several noble Lords say that they have never seen so large a group at this late stage in legislation—we have tried very hard to ensure consistency in the legislation. Sometimes there are limits to what we can get right before introduction. The House has given the Bill primary consideration. In a sense, I think that this process reflects that.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I hope that he recognises that there is considerable disquiet in the House about being asked to approve a whole batch of amendments without proper explanation. I strongly support the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, on this point. Unless the Minister can satisfy us, it may well be that noble Lords will wish to press some of the amendments to a Division. I hope that we can avoid that by an undertaking that detailed explanations of each of the amendments will be supplied and that the Minister will bring them hack at Third Reading after the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, and other noble Lords have had a chance simply

83
to understand them. Without a proper explanation, it is very difficult for us to approve amendments that we do not understand.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Lord puts me in a difficult position. By picking out examples, I was attempting to describe the simplicity of what we were trying to achieve in these amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, properly made the point that we should have the opportunity to look at the meaning of the amendments. I am more than happy to provide as much detail as we possibly and reasonably can in correspondence. I gave that assurance earlier, and I thought that I had made it as clear as I could. I hope that the noble Lord will be satisfied with that. I think that he should be. As I explained, these are minor and consequential amendments. They are updating and modernising language. They are attempting to achieve consistency. I hope that that gives the noble Lord sufficient clarification.
7.27 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 169) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 88; Not-Contents, 58.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Gilbert, L.

Alli, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Amos,B.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Andrews, B.

Goudie, B.

Bach, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Berkeley, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Blackstone, B.

Haskel, L.

Bragg, L.

Hayman, B.

Brett, L.

Hogg of Cumbemauld, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Brookman, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Burlison, L.

Hoyle, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Carter, L.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Clinton-Davis, L.

Cohen of Pimlico,B.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Crawley, B.

Jones, L.

David, B.

Jordan, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Kilclooney, L.

Dixon, L.

Lockwood, B.

Dubs,L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Elder, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Evans of Parkside, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Filkin,L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Finlay of Llandaff, B.

Mitchell, L.

Gale,B.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Pitkeathley, B.

84

Plant of Highfield, L.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Puttnam, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L

Temple-Morris, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Turnberg, L.

Renwick of Clifton, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Warner, L.

Rooker, L

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord Privy Seal)

Simon, V.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addington, L.

MacGregor of Pulham Market, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Arran,E.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Avebury, L.

Maddock, B.

Blatch, B.

Mancroft, L.

Burnham, L.

Marlesford, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer. B.

Colwyn, L.

Newby, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

Newton of Braintree. L.

Courtown, E.

Noakes, B.

Dahrendorf, L.

O'Cathain. B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Palmer, L.

Elton, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Erroll, E.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Fearn, L.

Rawlings, B.

Fookes, B.

Razzall, L.

Geddes, L.

Rees, L.

Glentoran, L.

Rennard, L.

Goodhart, L.

Renton, L.

Seccombe, B. [Teller]

Hanham, B.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Harris of Peckham, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Hooper, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Steel of Aikwood, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Jopling, L.

Waddington, L.

Kirkham, L.

Walmsley. B.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Wilcox, B.

Luke, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
7.38 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendments Nos. 170 to 261:
Page 77, line 13, at end insert—
"Ordnance Survey Act 1841 (c. 30)
In section 2 (dispute as to damage caused during survey)—

(a) for "by any two or more justices in petty sessions assembled of the place in which the lands, grounds, heritages, or trees may be situate" substitute "by a magistrates' court", and

(b) for "the justices, may appeal" substitute "the magistrates' court, may appeal".

Railway Regulation Act 1842 (c. 55)
(1)In section 17 (punishment of persons employed on railways guilty of misconduct)—

(a) for "before some justice of the peace for the place within which such offence shall be committed" substitute "before a magistrates' court",

(b) for "such justice as aforesaid (who is hereby authorised and required, upon complaint to him made, without information in writing, to take cognizance thereof, and to act summarily in the premises), in the discretion of such justice," substitute "a magistrates' court,"

85

(c) omit ", in the like discretion of such justice, shall",

(d) for "as such justice shall appoint" substitute "as a magistrates' court shall appoint", and

(e) omit the words from "and every such penalty" to the end.

(2) This paragraph extends only to England and Wales.
Defence Act 1842 (c. 94)
(1) In section 24 (compensation for damage caused by temporary buildings), omit "of the county, riding, city, or place".
(2) This paragraph extends only to England and Wales."
Page 77, line 15, leave out paragraph 11 and insert—

"(1) Amend section 24 (proceedings with respect to licences on quitting service) as follows.

(2) Re-number the existing provision subsection (1).

(3) In that subsection—

(a) for "any time not exceeding" substitute "a time which, excluding any day mentioned in subsection (2), does not exceed",

(b) for "the magistrates' court for the petty sessions area in which the said proprietor shall dwell" substitute "a magistrates' court",

(c) for "at the time of applying" substitute "when applying",

(d) for "justices' chief executive for such" substitute "designated officer for the",

(e) for "twenty-four hours, exclusive of Sunday or any day on which the magistrates' court shall not sit," substitute "that time". and

(f) for "at the same magistrates' court" substitute "to a magistrates' court".

(4) After that subsection insert —

"(2)The days are—

(a) Saturday or Sunday;

(b) Christmas Day or Good Friday;

(c) a day which is a bank holiday in England and Wales under the Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971 (c. 80).""

Page 77, line 21, at end insert—
"Companies Clauses Consolidation Act 1845 (c. 16)
11A In section 3 (interpretation), omit the words from "The word "justice"" to "acting together in petty sessions".
11B In section 18 (transmission of shares by other means than transfer to be authenticated by a declaration), for the words from "before a justice" to "and such declaration" substitute "before a justice or a person authorised to administer oaths; and such declaration".
11C In section 33 (evidence as to forfeiture of shares), for the words from "before any justice" to "that the call" substitute "before any justice or a person authorised to administer oaths, that the call".
11D Paragraphs 11 A to 11C extend only to England and Wales.
Lands. Clauses Consolidation Act 1845 ( c.18)
11E (1) In section 3 (interpretation), omit the words from "The word "justices"" to "acting together".
(2) This paragraph extends only to England and Wales.
Railway Clauses Consolidation Act 1845 (c. 20)
11F In section 3 (interpretation), omit the words from "The word "justice"" to "acting together:".
11G In section 11 (limiting deviation from datum line described on sections, etc.)—

(a) for "in petty sessions assembled for that purpose, and acting for the district" substitute "acting in the local justice area". and

86

(b) for the words from "every petty sessions" to "holding of such petty sessions" substitute "every hearing before two or more justices to be held for the purpose of obtaining their consent as mentioned above shall, at least 14 days before the hearing".

11H In section 46 (crossings of roads—level crossings), omit "in petty sessions".
11I In section 59 (proceedings on application to justices to consent to level crossings over highways other than public carriage roads)—

(a) for "fourteen days at least previous to the holding of the petty sessions at which such application is intended to be made" substitute "at least 14 days before the application is intended to be made",

(b) for "acting for the district" substitute "acting in the local justice area", and

(c) omit ", and assembled in petty sessions,".

11J Paragraphs 11F to111 extend only to England and Wales.
Geological Survey Act 1845 (c.63)
11K In section I (dispute as to damage caused during survey), for "by any two or more justices of the peace, in petty sessions assembled, of the place where the lands or trees may be situate" substitute "by a magistrates' court".
11L In section 6 (interpretation), for "the word "justices" shall include all persons acting in the commission of the peace and" substitute "the words "magistrates' court" shall include".
Markets and Fairs Clauses Act 1847 (c.14)
11M (1) In section 3 (interpretation), omit the words from "The word "justice— to "acting together:".
(2) This paragraph does not extend to Northern Ireland.
Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act 1847 (c 27)
11N (1) In section 3 (interpretation), omit the words from "The word "justice"" to "acting together:",
(2) This paragraph does not extend to Northern Ireland.
Towns Improvement Clauses Act 1847 (c.34)
11O (1) In section 3 (interpretation), omit the words from "The word "justice— to "acting together:".
(2) This paragraph does not extend to Northern Ireland.
Cemeteries Clauses Act 1847 (c.65)
11P (1) In section 3 (interpretation), omit the words from "The word "justice"" to "acting together:".
(2) This paragraph does not extend to Northern Ireland.
Town Police Clauses Act 1847 (c. 89)
11Q (1) In section 3 (interpretation), omit the words from "The word "justice"" to "acting together:".
(2) This paragraph does not extend to Northern Ireland.
Hares Act 1848 (c. 29)
11R In section 2 (registration of authorisation)—

(a) for "clerk of the magistrates acting for the petty sessions area" substitute "designated officer for the local justice area", and

(b) for "clerk of the magistrates as" substitute "designated officer as".

Indictable Offences Act 1848 (c.42)
11S In section 13 (English warrants may be backed in the Isles of Man, Guernsey, Jersey, Alderney or Sark, and vice versa)—

(a) omit "any county, riding, division, liberty, city. borough, or place in" (in both places),

(b) for "and for the county or place into which such person shall escape or go, or where he shall reside or he, or he supposed or suspected to be," substitute "England and Wales",

87

(c) for "indorsing the same has jurisdiction" substitute "indorsing the same is acting or has jurisdiction",

(d) for "issued such warrant or process shall have jurisdiction" substitute "issued such warrant or process is acting or has jurisdiction", and

(e) for "had been apprehended within his jurisdiction" substitute "had been apprehended in England or Wales or (as the case may be) within his jurisdiction"."

Page 77, line 24, at end insert—
"Inclosure Act 1859 (c. 43)
12A In section 4 (how damage to be assessed), for "for the county or riding or other division or place within which" substitute "acting in the local justice area in which".
12B In section 6 (justices' warrant for distress), for "of such county or riding, or other district or place as aforesaid, shall, by warrant under their hands and seals," substitute "acting in the local justice area shall by warrant".
Ecclesiastical Courts Jurisdiction Act 1860 (c.32)
12C In section 2 (offence of making a disturbance in churches, chapels, churchyards etc)

(a) for "before two justices of the peace" substitute "by a magistrates' court",

(b) for "a penalty of not more than" substitute "a fine not exceeding", and

(c) for "for every such offence, or may, if the justices before whom he shall be convicted think fit, instead of being subjected to any pecuniary penalty, be committed to prison for any time" substitute "or to imprisonment for a term".

12D In section 3 (power to arrest offenders and take them before a justice of the peace), for "justice of the peace of the county or place where the said offence shall have been so committed," substitute "magistrates' court".
12E Paragraphs 12C and 12D do not extend to Northern Ireland.
Defence Act 1860 (c.112)
12F (1) In section 47 (interpretation), omit the words from "The word "justices"" to "acting together".
(2) This paragraph extends only to England and Wales.
Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (c.100)
12G In section 44 (if magistrates dismiss case of assault or battery, they must make out certificate to that effect), omit "under their hands".
12H In section 65 (justices may issue search warrants for explosive substances)—

(a) for "Any justice of the peace of any county or place in which" substitute "Where",

(b) after "in this Act mentioned," insert "a justice of the peace,", and

(c) omit "under his hand and seal".

12I Paragraphs 12G and 12H do not extend to Northern Ireland.
Poaching Prevention Act 1862 (c. 114)

(1) In section 1 (interpretation), omit from "; and the words "justice" and "justices"" onwards.

(2) This paragraph does not extend to Northern Ireland.

In section 2 (summons to appear before justice of the peace)—

(a) after "citing such person to appear before" insert ", in England and Wales, a magistrates' court or",

(b) omit "England and", and

(c) for "forfeit and pay any sum" substitute "be liable to a fine".

In section 3 (recovery of penalties), omit "in England in the same manner as penalties under the Game Act 1831 and"."
Page 77, line 27, at end insert—
"Dockyard Ports Regulation Act 1865 (c.125)

(1) In section 2 (interpretation), omit the words from "The term "justice"" to "arises:".

(2) This paragraph does not extend to Northern Ireland.

(1) In section 22 (jurisdiction of justice of the peace), for "Where any district" substitute—
"(1) For the purposes of this Act, where a local justice area in England and Wales abuts on the shore of the sea or other navigable water, any magistrates' court in England and Wales has jurisdiction over—

(a) any vessel which is near or passes near the shore, and

(b) every person on board the vessel or belonging to it, as if the vessel or person were in England and Wales.

(2) Where any other district".
Newspapers, Printers and Reading Rooms Repeal Act 1869(c. 24)
In Schedule 2 (which sets out enactments continued in force under section 1)—

(a) in section 29 of the Unlawful Societies Act 1799 (penalty for neglecting or refusing to produce copy), for "forfeit and lose the sum" substitute "be liable on summary conviction to a fine",

(b) in section 34 of the 1799 Act (prosecutions to be commenced within 3 months), omit "or sued" and ", or such action shall be brought,",

(c) omit section 35 of the 1799 Act (recovery of penalties),

(d) omit section 36 of the 1799 Act (application of penalties), and

(e) in section 2 of the Printers and Publishers Act 1839 (penalty upon printers for not printing their name, etc.), for "forfeit a sum not more than" substitute "be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding"."

Page 77, line 27, at end insert
"Promissory Oaths Act 1871 (c. 48)
In section 2 (persons before whom oaths to be taken), for the paragraph beginning "In England" substitute—
"In England and Wales—

(a) before the Lord Chancellor, or

(b) in open court before one or more judges of the High Court or before one or more Circuit judges.""

Page 77. line 31, at end insert—
"Fairs Act 1873 (c. 37)
The amendments of section 6 (alteration of fair day on representation of local authority) made by—

(a) paragraph 10 of Schedule 10 to the Access to Justice Act 1999 (c. 22), and

(b) paragraph 5 of Schedule 13 to that Act, shall be treated as if they had never had effect." Page 78, line 4, at end insert—

"Explosive Substances Act 1883 (c.3)
(1) In section 6(1) (inquiry into offences)—

(a) omit "for the county, borough, or place in which the crime was committed or is suspected to have been committed.",

(b) omit "sit at a petty sessional or occasional court-house, or police station in the said county, borough or place, and", and

(c) for "the next petty sessions, or" substitute "a magistrates' court".

(2) This paragraph does not extend to Northern Ireland.
In section 9(2) (application of Act to Scotland), for ""petty sessional court house"" substitute ""magistrates" court""."
Page 78, line 39, at end insert—
"Behring Sea Award Act 1894 (c.2)
The Behring Sea Award Act 1894 shall have effect in relation to England and Wales as if in Schedule 2 for section 521 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1854 (which under section 1(5) of the 1894 Act is applied to any offence or forfeiture under that Act) there were substituted—
"521 JURISDICTION OVER SHIPS LYING OFF THE COASTS
Courts in England and Wales (including magistrates' courts) have jurisdiction

(a) over any ship or boat which—

(i) is on or is lying or passing off the coast of England and Wales, or

(ii) is in or near any bay, channel, lake, river or other navigable water on which any part of England and Wales abuts or into which any part of England and Wales projects, and

(b) over all persons on board the ship or boat or for the time being belonging to it,

as if the ship, boat or persons were in England and Wales.""
Page 79, line 4, at end insert—
"Indictments Act 1915 (c. 90)
In section 2(2) (powers of rule committee), for the words preceding "shall have power" substitute "The Criminal Procedure Rule Committee"."
Page 79, line 21, at end insert—

"(1) In section 7(2) (power to make rules about proceedings under the Act), for the words from "Without prejudice" to "such rules" substitute "For the purpose of giving effect to this Act rules of court".

(2) Sub-paragraph (1) does not extend to Northern Ireland.

Criminal Justice Act 1925 (c. 86)
In section 33(4) (rules about service of documents on a corporation), omit ", except in so far as such provision may be made by rules under section 144 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980"."
Page 79, line 25, at end insert—

"(1) Amend section 25 (restrictions on persons under IS going abroad to perform for profit) as follows.

(2) In subsection (6), for "court of summary jurisdiction" substitute "relevant court".

(3) After subsection (10), insert—

"(11) In this section "the relevant court"—

(a) in relation to England and Wales, means a magistrates' court;

(b) in relation to Scotland, means a sheriff court;

(c) in relation to Northern Ireland, means a court of summary jurisdiction.""

Page 79, line 36, at end insert—
"Foreign Judgments ( Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1933 (c.13)
(1) In section 3(1) (power to make rules of court for purposes of Act), for "rules of court under section 84 of the Supreme Court Act 1981" substitute "Civil Procedure Rules".
(2) Sub-paragraph (1) extends to England and Wales only.
Public Offices (Site) Act 1947 (c.45)
Omit section 7 (correction of errors in deposited plan and book of reference).
The National Assistance Act 1948 (c. 29)
In section 43(4) (interpretation of section 43), for the words from "a court" onwards substitute "—

(a) in England and Wales, a magistrates' court acting in the local justice area where the assistance was given or applied for:

(b) in Scotland, the sheriff having jurisdiction in the place where the assistance was given or applied for."

(1) Amend section 47 (removal to suitable premises of persons in need of care and attention) as follows.

(2) In subsection (2), for "a court of summary jurisdiction having jurisdiction in the place where the premises are situated" substitute "the court".

(3) After subsection (12) insert—

"(12A) In this section, "the court"—

(a) in England and Wales, means a magistrates' court acting in the local justice area where the premises are situated;

(b) in Scotland, means the sheriff having jurisdiction in the place where the premises are situated."

Omit section 65(c) (in application of Act to Scotland, references to court of summary jurisdiction to he read as references to sheriff).
Criminal Justice Act 1948 (c. 58)
For section 37(4) (recommittal following appeal etc.) substitute—
"(4) Criminal Procedure Rules may be made for authorising the recommittal, in such cases and by such courts or justices as may be prescribed by the rules, of persons released from custody under this section.""
Page 80, line 10, at end insert
"In section 17(1)(a) (registration of maintenance orders in England), for "for the same place" substitute "acting in the same local justice area"."
Page 80, line 32, at end insert—

"(1) Amend section 25 (rules as to procedure of magistrates' courts) as follows.

(2) Omit subsection (1).

(3) In subsection (3)—

(a) after "Rules" insert "of court", and

(b) in paragraph (a), for the words from "by means of—onwards, substitute "in accordance with the rules".

(4) Sub-paragraph (3) does not extend to Northern Ireland.

(1) Amend section 28(1) (interpretation) as follows.

(2) In the definition of "collecting officer", after "officer"," insert "in relation to a court of summary jurisdiction in England, means the designated officer for the court, and".

(3) In the definition of "prescribed", omit—

(a) "England or",

(b) "by rules made under section fifteen of the Justices of the Peace Act 1949, or", and

(c) "as the case may be,"."

Page 81, line 25, after "executive for" insert "the magistrates' court acting for the petty sessions area"
Page 81, line 26, after "officer for" insert "the magistrates' court acting in the local justice area"
Page 82, line 15, leave out paragraph 47 and insert—

"(1) Amend section 18 (powers of magistrates to renew commitals) as follows.

(2) For "justices' chief executive for" (in each place) substitute "designated officer for".

(3) In subsections (2) and (4), for "acting for the same petty sessions area" substitute "acting in the same local justice area"."

Page 82, line 22, at end insert—
"In section 21(1) (interpretation), omit the definition of "rules of court".
Manoeuvres Act 1958 (7 & 8 Eli:. 2 c. 7)

(1) Amend section 3 (power to close highways) as follows.

(2) In subsection (1), omit "sitting in petty sessions in the petty sessions area within which that highway or part of a highway is situated".

(3) In subsection (2), omit ", being a highway or part within the jurisdiction of those justices".

(4) For subsection (5)(c) substitute—

"(c) the references to justices of the peace shall be construed as references to the district court for the area in which the highway or part of a highway is situated."
Obscene Publications Act 1959 (c. 66)

(1) Amend section 3 (powers of search, seizure and forfeiture) as follows.

(2) In subsection (1), omit "in the petty sessions area for which he acts," and "in that area".

(3) In subsection (3)—

(a) for "for the same petty sessions area as the justice who issued the warrant, and the justice before whom the articles are brought" substitute "in the local justice area in which the articles were seized, who";

(b) for "for that petty sessions area" substitute "acting in that local justice area".

Road Traffic Act 1960 (c.16)
In section 243(a) (proof in summary proceedings of identity of driver), for "rules made under section fifteen of the Justices of the Peace Act 1949" substitute "Criminal Procedure Rules"."
Page 82, line 31, at end insert—
"Administration of Justice Act 1960 (c. 65)
In section 2(3) (power to extend time for applying for leave to appeal to House of Lords), omit "Except in a case involving sentence of death,".
Omit section 3 (special provision as to capital cases)."
Page 82, line 42, at end insert—

"(1) Amend Schedule 1 (bookmaker's permits, betting agency permits and betting office licences) as follows.

(2) In paragraph 1(a)—

(a) for "petty sessions" substitute "local justice", and

(b) for "acting for" substitute "acting in".

(3) In paragraph 2—

(a) in the definition of "appropriate authority", for "petty sessions" substitute "local justice", and

(b) in paragraph (a) of the definition of "the proper officer of the appropriate authority", for "chief executive to" substitute "designated officer for".

(4) In paragraph 20A(5), for the words from "for a petty" onwards substitute "in a local justice area, is a justices' clerk designated by the Lord Chancellor in relation to the committee"."

Page 83, line 8, at end insert—
"In section 26 (Inner and Middle Temples), omit "commissions of the peace,".
Backing of Warrants ( Republic of Ireland) Act 1965 (c. 45)
In section 1(1) (endorsement of warrants issued in Republic of Ireland)—

(a) in paragraph (b) after "within the area" insert "in or", and

(b) for "comprising the area for" substitute "which consists of or includes the area in or for".

In section 4(1) (issue of provisional warrant), in paragraph (c), after "within the area" insert "in or".
In section 6(2) (discharge of persons where police of Republic no longer require his delivery into their custody), after "justice of the peace acting" insert "in or".
In section 8(1) (rules of court) for paragraph (a) substitute— "(a) in England and Wales, Criminal Procedure Rules;".

(1) Amend the Schedule (supplementary provisions as to proceedings under section 2) as follows.

(2) For paragraphs 2 and 2A substitute—"2 The court shall sit in open court and shall consist of—

(a) at least two justices, or

(b) a District Judge (Magistrates' Courts)."

(3) In paragraph 3, for "paragraphs 2 and 2A" substitute "paragraph 2".

Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 (c. 56)
Omit section 1(5) (jurisdiction of justices of the peace)."
Page 83, line 12, at end insert—
"Criminal Procedure (Attendance of Witnesses) Act 1965 (c. 69)
In each of the following provisions, for "Crown Court rules", in each place it occurs, substitute "Criminal Procedure Rules"—

(a) section 2(7), (8) and (9) (issue of witness summons on application to Crown Court),

(b) section 2B(2) and (3) (summons no longer needed),

(c) section 2C(2), (3), (5), (6) and (7) (application to make section 2 summons ineffective), and

(d) section 2E(3) and (4) (application to make section 2D summons ineffective)."

Page 83, line 20, leave out "31A" and insert "31C"
Page 83, line 27, at end insert—
"Gaming Act 1968 (c. 65)

(1) Amend Schedule 2 (court order cancelling licence) as follows.

(2) In paragraph 1(1)(a), for "petty sessions" substitute "local justice".

(3) In paragraph 2(1), for "petty sessions" substitute "local justice".

(4) In paragraph 48(5), for "justices' chief executive" substitute "designated officer".

(1) Amend Schedule 3 (registration of members' clubs in England and Wales) as follows.

(2) In—

(a) paragraph 12(1) (in both places),

(b) paragraph 13(1),

(c) paragraph 15(1) (in both places),

(d) paragraph 16(1),

(e) paragraph 17(3) (in both places),

(f) paragraph 23, and

(g) paragraph 24(1) and (2), for "chief executive to" substitute "designated officer for".

(3) In paragraph 17(4), for "justices' chief executive" substitute "designated officer".

In Schedule 7 (registration for gaming by means of machines), in—

(a) paragraphs 3(1) and 4(1),

(b) paragraph 11(1) (in both places),

(c) paragraph 11(2),

(d) paragraphs 13(1) and 14,

(e) paragraph 20(1) (in both places), and

(f) paragraphs 24 and 25(1) and (2), for "chief executive to" substitute "designated officer for"."

Page 83, line 28, at end insert—
"In section 23AA (electronic monitoring of conditions of remand), in each of subsections (4)(a) and (9), for "petty sessions area" substitute "local justice area"."
Page 83, line 35, at end insert—
"Administration of Justice Act 1970 (c. 31)
In section 41(5) (enforcement of orders for payment of costs and compensation made before the appointed day), for "the magistrates' court for the petty sessions area" substitute "a magistrates' court acting in the local justice area"."
Page 84, line 5, at end insert—
"In section 52(3) (award of costs where information or complaint is not proceeded with)—

(a) in paragraph (b), for "acting for any area" substitute "acting in any local justice area", and

(b) for ''for that area" substitute "acting in that area".

" Page 84, line 20, at end insert-—
"In section 25(1) (interpretation), omit the definition of "rules of court" and "and" before it."
Page 84, line 23, at end insert—
''Immigration Act 1971 (c. 77)
In section 25D(6)(a) (court to which application may be made following detention of ships, aircraft and vehicles), for subparagraphs (i) and (ii) substitute—
"(ia) if the arrested person has not been charged, or he has been charged but proceedings for the offence have not begun to be heard, a magistrates' court;".

(1) Amend section 28K (execution of search warrants issued to immigration officers) as follows.

(2) For subsection (9)(a), substitute—

"(a) if issued by a justice of the peace in England and Wales, to the designated officer for the local justice area in which the justice was acting when he issued the warrant;".

(3) In subsection (10), for "justices' chief executive" substitute "designated officer".

(1) Amend Schedule 2 (administrative provisions about control on entry) as follows.

(2) In paragraphs 23(1A)(a) and 31(3A)(a), for "justices' chief executive" substitute "designated officer".

(3) In paragraphs 23(3) and 31(4), for "purposes of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997 and, in particular section 60 of that Act, as being" substitute "purposes of section 33 of the Courts Act 2003 (application of receipts of designated officers) as being".

(4) In paragraphs 24(2)(a) and 33(2)(a), after "hours, before" insert "in England and Wales, a justice of the peace, in Northern Ireland,".

(1) Amend Schedule 3 (supplementary provisions about deportation) as follows.

(2) After paragraph 6(2) insert— "(2A) Where the Crown Court directed release, the appropriate court is that court or a magistrates' court."

(3) In paragraph 6(3), omit "the Crown Court or" and "commission area or".

(4) In paragraph 8(1)—

(a) for "England or Wales or" substitute "England or Wales in pursuance of paragraph 7 above shall be brought as soon as practicable and in any event within twenty-four hours after his arrest before a justice of the peace in England or Wales, and a person arrested in";

(b) omit "area or"."

Page 85, line 11, at end insert—

"(1) Amend section 18 (provision that may be made by magistrates' courts rules) as follows.

94

(2) In subsection (1)—

(a) for the words preceding paragraph (a) substitute "Rules of court may make provision with respect to—";

(b) in paragraph (a), for "for a particular petty sessions area" substitute "in a particular local justice area", and for "for such other petty sessions area" substitute "in such other local justice area".

(3) In subsection (1A), for "rules made under section 144 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980" substitute "rules of court".

In section 21(1) (interpretation of Part 1), in the definition of "prescribed", omit—

(a) "in England and Wales or",

(b) "by rules made under section 144 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 or", and

(c) "as the case may be,"."

Page 86, line 19, at end insert—
"Civil Evidence Act 1972 (c. 30)
Omit section 2(8) (power to make rules of court under section 2 is without prejudice to other such powers)."
Page 86, line 24, at end insert—
"Administration of Justice Act 1973 (c.15)
In section 5 (consequential) omit "Paragraph 7 of".
In Schedule 1 (justices of the peace: consequential reenactments and amendments), omit paragraphs 7 to 7B and 10(1)."
Page 86, line 25, at end insert—
"In section 35(3) (jurisdiction to hear application for alteration of maintenance agreement), for "at least one of the parties is resident within the commission area for which the court is appointed" substitute "the court acts in, or is authorised by the Lord Chancellor to act for, a local justice area in which at least one of the parties is resident"."
Page 86, line 37, at end insert—
"In—

(a) section 9(3) (appeal against refusal to excuse from jury service), and

(b) section 9A(3) (appeal against refusal to defer jury service), for "Crown Court rules" substitute "Criminal Procedure Rules".

In section 14 (views by jurors), for "Crown Court rules, and rules of court for civil cases," substitute "Criminal Procedure Rules and Civil Procedure Rules"."
Page 86, line 39, at end insert—
"Friendly Societies Act 1974 (c. 46)
For section 102 (jurisdiction of magistrates' courts) substitute—
"102 JURISDICTION OF MAGISTRATES' COURTS IN NORTHERN IRELAND

(1) In Northern Ireland, a registered society or branch or any officer thereof may be prosecuted for any summary offence under this Act before a magistrates' court acting for the county court division in which the registered office of the society or branch is situated.

(2) Subsection (1) is without prejudice to the provisions of the Magistrates' Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 as to the jurisdiction of a magistrates' court.""

Page 87, line 12, at end insert—
"Evidence (Proceedings in Other Jurisdictions) Act 1975 (c. 34)
In section 7 (rules of court)—

(a) for the words from "The power" to "1981 or" substitute "Civil Procedure Rules or rules of court under", and

(b) for "shall include power to make rules of court under" substitute "may make provision","

Page 87, line 20, leave out paragraph 89 and insert—
"In section 2 (definitions), omit the definitions of "Crown Court rules", "magistrates' courts rules" and "Supreme Court rules".
In section 3AA (electronic monitoring of compliance with bail conditions), in each of subsections (4)(a) and 12, for "petty sessions area" substitute "local justice area".
In section 5(10) (meaning of "prescribed" in section 5), for "Supreme Court rules, Courts-Martial Appeal rules, Crown Court rules or magistrates' courts rules" substitute "Civil Procedure Rules, Courts-Martial Appeal rules or Criminal Procedure Rules".

(1) Amend section 5B (reconsideration of decisions granting bail) as follows.

(2) In subsection (8), omit "for the petty sessions area in which he was arrested".

(3) In subsection (9), for "Magistrates' court rules" substitute "Criminal Procedure Rules"."

Page 87, line 27, leave out paragraph 92 and insert—

"(1) Amend section 8 (bail with sureties) as follows.

(2) In subsection (4)—

(a) in paragraph (a), for "magistrates' courts rules" substitute "Criminal Procedure Rules",

(b) in paragraph (b), for "Crown Court rules" substitute "Criminal Procedure Rules",

(c) in paragraph (c), for "Supreme Court rules" substitute "Civil Procedure Rules or Criminal Procedure Rules", and

(d) for "Supreme Court rules, Crown Court rules, Courts-Martial Appeal rules or magistrates' courts rules" substitute "Civil Procedure Rules, Criminal Procedure Rules or Courts-Martial Appeal rules".

(3) In subsection (5)(b), omit "for the petty sessions area in which he resides"."

Page 87, line 35, at end insert—
"Administration of Justice Act 1977 (c.38)
Omit section 22 (membership of rule committees).
" Page 88, line 20, leave out "1959" and insert "1984"
Page 88, line 23, at end insert—
"In section 48(1) (power to make rules as to furnishing of information by prosecutor in criminal proceedings), for the words from "The power" to "include power to" substitute "Criminal Procedure Rules may"."
Page 88, line 24, at end insert—
"In section 6(9) (restrictions on power to make order where respondent not present at hearing), for "rules" substitute "rules of court"."
Page 88, line 32, at end insert—
"( ) In subsection (10), for "the clerk to the justices" substitute "a justices' clerk"."
Page 88, line 35, leave out paragraph 97 and insert—
"In section 30(1) (jurisdiction to hear application for order under Part 1 of the Act)—

(a) for "a magistrates' courts committee" substitute "the Lord Chancellor", and

(b) for the words from "at the" onwards substitute "it acts in, or is authorised by the Lord Chancellor to act for, a local justice area in which either the applicant or the respondent ordinarily resides at the date of the making of the application".

(1) Amend section 32 (enforcement of orders for payment of money) as follows.

(2) In subsection (2), for "a justices' chief executive" substitute "the designated officer for a magistrates' court".

(3) In subsection (6), for "rules" substitute "rules of court".

"Page 89, line 4, leave out paragraph 99 and insert—

"(1) Amend section 88 (interpretation) as follows.

(2) In subsection (1), omit the definition of "rules".

(3) In subsection (4), for "for the same petty sessions" substitute "in the same local justice".

Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978 (c. 23)

(1) Amend Schedule 1 (appeals to House of Lords in certain criminal matters) as follows.

(2) In paragraph 1(2), omit "Except in a case involving sentence of death,".

(3) Omit paragraph 2.

Protection of Children Act 1978 (c. 37)

(1) Amend section 4 (entry, search and seizure) as follows.

(2) In subsection (1), omit "in the petty sessions area for which he acts".

(3) In subsection (3), for "for the same petty sessions area as the justice who issued the warrant" substitute "in the local justice area in which the articles were seized".

In section 5(1) (forfeiture of seized articles), for "for that petty sessions area" substitute "acting in that local justice area".
Licensed Premises (Exclusion of Certain Persons) Act 1980 (c.32)
In section 4 (supplemental), in subsection (4)(a), for "justices' chief executive" substitute "designated officer"."
Page 89, line 26, at end insert—
"In section 43(2) (enforcement of recognizance of a surety for person granted bail), for "for the petty sessions" substitute "acting in the local justice".
In section 47 (service of summons out of time after failure to prove service by post) for "the rules" (in the first place where it occurs) substitute "rules of court"."
Page 90, line 34, leave out from beginning to end of line 38 and insert—
"(1) Amend section 59B(5) (interpretation of provisions relating to penalty for failing to comply with maintenance order) as follows.
(2) For the definition of
"the relevant court" substitute— the relevant court", in relation to an order, means—

(a) in a case where payments under the order are required to be made to or through the designated officer for a magistrates' court, that magistrates' court:

(b) in a case where such payments are required to be made by any method of payment falling within section 59(6) and the order was made by a magistrates' court, that magistrates' court: and

(c) in a case where such payments are required to be made by any method of payment falling within section 59(6) and the order was not made by a magistrates' court, the magistrates' court in which the order is registered;".

(3) In the definition of "relevant justice" for "for the petty sessions area for" substitute "acting in the local justice area in".
(1) Amend section 60 (revocation, variation, etc. of orders for periodical payment) as follows.
(2) In subsection (4), omit "the clerk of".
(3) In subsection (5)—

(a) for "the clerk" substitute "a justices' clerk", and

(b) for "to the justices' chief executive for the court" substitute "to the designated officer for the court".

(4) In subsection (10), for "the clerk of the court" substitute "a justices' clerk".
(1) In section 61(1) (periodical payments payable by one person under more than one order) for "The power to make rules conferred by section 144 below shall, without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) of that section, include power to" substitute "Rules of court may".
(2) In paragraph (b) of section 61(1)—" Page 90, line 44, at end insert—
"(1) Amend section 65(1) (proceedings which are family proceedings for purposes of Act) as follows.
(2) After the paragraph (n) inserted by paragraph 8(a) of Schedule 11 to the Children Act 1989 (c. 41), insert—
"(na) section 30 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 (c. 37);".
(3) Renumber the paragraph (n) inserted by paragraph 60 of Schedule 2 to the Social Security (Consequential Provisions) Act 1992 (c. 6) as paragraph (nb)."
Page 90, line 47, at end insert—
"(1) Amend section 70 (jurisdiction of magistrates' courts in inner London for family proceedings) as follows.
(2) In subsection (1)—

(a) for "for an inner London petty sessions" substitute "acting in an inner London local justice",

(b) for "for that" substitute "acting in that",

(c) for "for any" substitute "acting in any", and

(d) for "magistrates' courts committee whose area consists of or includes that petty sessions area" substitute "Lord Chancellor".

(3) In subsection (2)—

(a) for "for an inner London petty sessions" substitute "acting in an inner London local justice", and

(b) for "magistrates' courts committee whose area consists of or includes that petty sessions area so determine" substitute "Lord Chancellor so determines".

(4) In subsection (3), in the definition of "inner London petty sessions area", for ""inner London petty sessions area" means any petty sessions" substitute ""inner London local justice area" means any local justice".
In section 74(1) (reasons for decisions in family proceedings) for "The power to make rules conferred by section 144 below shall, without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) of that section, include power to" substitute "Rules of court may"."
Page 91, line 7, at end insert—
"In—

(a) section 78(4) (offence of removing impounded goods marked in accordance with rules), and

(b) section 79(2) (reduction of period of detention on payment being made in accordance with rules), for "the rules" substitute "rules of court"."

Page 91, line 10, at end insert—
"In section 84(1) (power to require statement of means) for "for the same petty sessions" substitute "in the same local justice"."
Page 91, line 22, leave out paragraph 115 and insert—
"(1) Amend section 89 (transfer of fine order) as follows.
(2) In subsection (1)—

(a) after "Where a magistrates' court" insert "in a local justice area",

(b) for "in any petty sessions area other than that for which the court acted" substitute "in England and Wales", and

98

(c) for "the petty sessions area in which it appears to the court that he is residing;" substitute "another local justice area".

(3) In subsection (2)—

(a) for "justices' chief executive for" (in both places) substitute "designated officer for", and

(b) for "for the petty sessions area" substitute -in the local justice area".

(4) For subsection (3) substitute— "(3) A court by which functions in relation to any sum are for the time being exercisable by virtue of a transfer of fine order may make a further transfer of fine order with respect to that sum.""
Page 91, line 26, leave out paragraph 117 and insert—
"(1) Amend section 91 (transfer of fines from Scotland and Northern Ireland) as follows.
(2) In subsection (1)—

(a) for "in a specified petty sessions area in England and Wales, a magistrates' court acting for that area," substitute "by a magistrates' court in England and Wales, a magistrates' court acting in the area in which the person subject to the order resides,", and

(b) for "justices' chief executive for" substitute "designated officer for".

(3) In subsection (3)—

(a) for "in a petty sessions area" substitute "by a magistrates' court", and

(b) for "acting for that area" substitute "acting in the area in which the person subject to the order resides".

In section 93(5) (issue of warrant to arrest person defaulting on maintenance order) for "for the same petty sessions" substitute "in the same local justice"."
Page 92, line 4, at end insert—
"In section 107 (false statements in declaration proving service) for "the rules" substitute "rules of court".
In section 109(2) (notice to abandon an appeal), for "Crown Court rules" substitute "rules of court"."
Page 92, line 5, after "stated)" insert "—

(a) for "the clerk of a magistrates' court" substitute "a justices' clerk", and

(b)"

Page 92, line 24, at end insert—
"In section 125(1) (warrants) for "the rules" substitute "rules of court"."
Page 93, line 9, at end insert—
"In section 126 (execution of certain warrants outside England and Wales)—

(a) for "Sections 12 to 14" substitute "Section 13(1) and (2)", and

(b) in paragraph (a), for "those referred to in the said sections 12 to 14" substitute "indictable offences"."

Page 93, line 15, at end insert—
"Omit section 141 (clerks to justices)."
Page 93, line 17, leave out sub-paragraph (2) and insert—
"(2) In subsection (1) after "prescribing" insert "except in relation to—

(a) any criminal cause or matter, or

(b) family proceedings,", and for "and justices' chief executives" substitute "and designated officers for magistrates' courts"."

Page 93, leave out lines 22 to 24 and insert "Court, the Senior District Judge (Chief Magistrate )".
(4) In subsection (3), before paragraph (a) insert— "(za) one District Judge (Magistrates' Courts);".
(5) Omit subsection (5).
(1) Amend section 145 (rules: supplementary provisions) as follows.
(2) In subsection (1), omit paragraphs (aa), (f) and (i).
(3) Omit subsection (4)."
Page 93, line 29, leave out paragraph 134 and insert—
"134 (1) Amend section 150(1) (interpretation) as follows.
(2) Omit the definitions of "petty-sessional court-house", "the register" and "the rules".
(3) In the definition of "prescribed" for "the rules" substitute "rules of court".
134A In section 152 for "the rules" substitute "rules of court"."
Page 93, line 31, at end insert—
"In section 155(4) (extent of section 126 of 1980 Act) for "sections" substitute "section"."
Page 93, line 32, at end insert—
"criminal Appeal (Northern Ireland) Act 1980 (c. 47)
Omit—

(a) section 48 (appeal in capital cases), and

(b) Schedule 3 (procedural and other modifications for capital cases)."

Page 93, line 34, leave out paragraph 137 and insert—

"(1) Amend section 47 (power of magistrates' court to declare that an unnecessary highway is not maintainable at public expense) as follows.

(2) In subsection (5), for "acting for the petty sessions for" substitute "assigned to the local justice area in".

(3) In subsection (6), for "chief executive to" substitute "designated officer for".

(1) Amend section 116 (power of magistrates' court to authorise stopping up or diversion of highway) as follows.

(2) In subsection (8)(b), for "for the same petty sessions" substitute "in the same local justice".

(3) In subsection (9), for "the clerk of the court" substitute "a justices' clerk"."

Page 93, line 38, leave out "18(1)(a)" and insert "18(1)"
Page 94, line 11, leave out "", 31ZA"" and insert"", 31B, 31 C""
Page 94, line 26, at end insert—
"Betting and Gaming Duties Act 1981 (c. 63)
In paragraph 15(4A) of Schedule 1 (betting duties: notification of forfeiture and cancellation of betting office licence), in paragraph (a) of the definition of "proper officer of the court", for "justices' chief executive" substitute "designated officer".
In paragraph 15(3)(a) of Schedule 4 (gaming machine licence duty: registers of permits), for "for a petty sessions area, the chief executive to the justices" substitute "in a local justice area, the designated officer for the committee"."
Page 94, line 38, at end insert—
">Administration of Justice Act 1982 (c. 53)
In section 23(6)(a) (fees for deposit of wills), for "section 130 of the Supreme Court Act 1981" substitute "section 87 of the Courts Act 2003.""
Page 97, line 21, at end insert—
"In section 81(1) and (2) (advance notice of expert evidence in Crown Court), for "Crown Court Rules" substitute "Criminal Procedure Rules"."
Page 97, line 29, at end insert—
"( ) Omit subsection (5)."
Page 97, line 37, leave out paragraph 166 and insert—

"(1) Amend section 23 (discontinuance of proceedings in magistrates' courts) as follows.

(2) In subsections (3), (7) and (8), for "justices' chief executive for" substitute "designated officer for".

100

(3) In subsection (10), for "rules made under section 144 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980" substitute "Criminal Procedure Rules"."

Page 101, line 24, at end insert—
"In section 7(3) (rules as to service of documents), for "Rules under section 144 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980" substitute "Criminal Procedure Rules"."
Page 101, line 32, at end insert—
"In section 13(5)(a) (return to foreign states-supplementary), for "rules under section 84 of the Supreme Court Act 1981" substitute "Criminal Procedure Rules".
In section 14(2) (simplified procedure)—

(a) for "rules under section 144 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980" substitute "Criminal Procedure Rules", and

(b) for the words from "without" to "include power to" substitute "those rules may"."

Page 101, line 41, at end insert—
"( ) In paragraph 9(2), for "rules under section 144 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980" substitute "Criminal Procedure Rules"."
Page 102, line 3, at end insert—

"(1) In paragraph 5 of Schedule IA (adaptation of Act where 1995 Convention applies), amend inserted section 14A as follows.

(2) In subsection (4), for "rules under section 144 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980" substitute "Criminal Procedure Rules".

(3) In subsection (5)—

(a) for the words from "Without" to "includes power to" substitute "Criminal Procedure Rules may", and

(b) for "a Senior District Judge (Chief Magistrate) or another District Judge (Magistrates' Courts) designated by him" substitute "a District Judge (Magistrates' Courts) designated by the Lord Chancellor"."

Page 102, line 5, leave out paragraph 203 and insert—

(1) Amend section 7 (disqualification for membership of scheme) as follows.

(2) In subsection (7)(b), for "justices' chief executive for" substitute "designated officer for".

(3) In subsection (10), omit paragraph (c) and the word "and" preceding it."

Page 102, line 11, leave out paragraph 205 and insert—

"(1) Amend section 18 (information) as follows.

(2) In subsection (1), for "justices' chief executive for" substitute "designated officer for".

(3) In subsection (2), for "clerk or' substitute "designated officer for".

(4) Omit subsection (4)."

Page 102, line 22, at end insert—

"(1) Amend section 97 (privacy for children involved in certain proceedings) as follows.

(2) In subsection (1), for "Rules made under section 144 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980" substitute "Family Procedure Rules".

(3) Omit subsection (7)(a).

(1) Amend paragraph 6A of Schedule 1 (variation of orders for periodical payments etc. made by magistrates' courts) as follows.

(2) In sub-paragraph (2), for "the clerk to the justices for the petty sessions area for which the court is acting" substitute "a magistrates' court acting in the same local justice area as the court which made the order".

(3) In sub-paragraph (3)—

(a) for "the clerk" substitute "a justices' clerk", and

(b) for "to the justices' chief executive for the court" substitute "to the designated officer for the court".

101

(4) In sub-paragraph (9), for "the clerk to the justices" substitute "a justices' clerk".

In paragraph 10(6) of Schedule I (jurisdiction to hear application for alteration of maintenance agreement), for "at least one of the parties is resident in the commission area for which the court is appointed" substitute "the court acts in, or is authorised by the Lord Chancellor to act for, a local justice area in which at least one of the parties is resident"."
Page 103, line 12, at end insert—
"In section 10(2) (family proceedings in magistrates' courts), for "Rules made under section 144 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980" substitute "Family Procedure Rules"."
Page 103. leave out lines 29 to 34 and insert—

"(a) in subsections (5)(c) and (9), for "the clerk to the justices for the petty sessions area for which the court is acting" substitute "a justices' clerk",

(b) in subsections (5) and (11), for "to the justices' chief executive for the court" substitute "to the designated officer for the court", and

(c) in subsection (15), for the definition of "court" substitute—

""court" (where it occurs other than in the expression "magistrates' court") means in England and Wales a magistrates' court. and in Scotland the sheriff;".
In section 121(1) (unpaid contributions - supplementary)—

(a) in paragraph (a), for "rules under section 144 of that Act" substitute "Criminal Procedure Rules", and

(b) in paragraph (b), for "justices' chief executive for" substitute "designated officer for"."

Page 103, line 36, at end insert—
"Friendly Societies Act 1992 (c. 40)
For section 110 (jurisdiction of magistrates' courts) substitute—
"110 JURISDICTION OF MAGISTRATES' COURTS IN NORTHERN IRELAND

(1) In Northern Ireland, a friendly society or an officer of a friendly society may be prosecuted for a summary offence under this Act before a magistrates' court acting for the county court division in which the registered office of the society is situated.

(2) Subsection (1) is without prejudice to the provisions of the Magistrates' Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 as to the jurisdiction of a magistrates' court.""

Page 104, line 16, at end insert—
"Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 (c. 22)
In—

(a) section 51(3)(b)(i) (meaning of "appropriately proved"), and

(b) section 55(2)(a)(ii) (meaning of "appropriately proved"), for "rules under section 144 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980" substitute "Criminal Procedure Rules"."

Page 104, line 20, at end insert—
"Drug Trafficking Act 1994 (c. 37)
In section 55(7) (power to make rules about orders under section 55), for "Crown Court Rules" substitute "Criminal Procedure Rules"."
Page 105, line l5, at end insert—
"criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 ( c. 25)

(1) Amend section 19 (rules of court) as follows.

(2) In subsection (1), for the words from the beginning to "sections" substitute "The power to make Criminal Procedure Rules".

(3) In subsection (3), for "Rules made under section 144 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980" substitute "Criminal Procedure Rules made".

In section 20(3) (rules as to disclosure), for the words from "Without" to "that section" substitute "The power to make Criminal Procedure Rules".
In section 33 (Crown Court Rules)—

(a) in subsections (1) and (2), for "Crown Court Rules" substitute "Criminal Procedure Rules", and

(b) for the section heading, substitute "Criminal Procedure Rules".

In paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 (rules about statements and depositions), for the words from "Without prejudice" to "includes power to" substitute "Criminal Procedure Rules may".
In paragraph 13(2) of Schedule 4 (modification of section 20(3) in relation to Northern Ireland), for "that section" substitute "Rules"."
Page 105, line 19, at end insert—
"In each of the following provisions, for "rules of court" substitute "Criminal Procedure Rules"—

(a) section 20(6) (applications about special measures directions);

(b) section 27(4)(b) (video recorded evidence in chief);

(c) section 28(2) and (4) (video recorded cross-examination or re-examination);

(d) section 29(3) and (5) (examination of witness through intermediary);

(e) section 37(5) (applications about directions under section 36);

(f) section 38(6) and (7) (defence representation for purposes of cross-examination);

(g) section 43(3) (procedure on applications under section 41);

(h) section 65(1) (power to make rules for purposes of Act)."

Page 105, line 20, at end insert—
"In section 44(11) (restrictions on reporting of offences), for "rules of court" substitute "Criminal Procedure Rules in England and Wales, or rules of court in Northern Ireland".
Omit section 65(2) (meaning of "rules of court")."
Page 105, line 29, at end insert—

"(1) Amend Schedule 5 (terrorist investigations: information) as follows.

(2) In paragraph 10(2), for "Crown Court Rules" substitute "Criminal Procedure Rules".

(3) In paragraph 18, after paragraph (d) insert— "(dd) the reference in paragraph 10(2) to "Criminal Procedure Rules" shall be taken as a reference to Crown Court Rules,".

(1) Amend paragraph 4 of Schedule 6 (procedure on application for provision of financial information) as follows.

(2) In sub-paragraph (1), for "Crown Court Rules" substitute "Criminal Procedure Rules".

(3) After sub-paragraph (2) insert— "(3) Crown Court Rules may make provision about the procedure for an application under paragraph 1.""

Page 106, line 28, leave out "for" substitute "designated officer for"" and insert "for the petty sessions" substitute "designated officer for the local justice""
Page 106, line 30, leave out "executive" substitute "designated officer"" and insert "executive for a petty sessions" substitute "designated officer for a local justice""
Page 107, line 1, at end insert—
"In—

(a) section 7(3) (form of consent to surrender), and

(b) section 13(3) (form of waiver of right to review),

for "rules under section 144 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (c. 43)" substitute "Criminal Procedure Rules"."
Page 107, line 3, at end insert—
"In paragraph 5(2) of Schedule 5 (orders under Part I), after "by" insert "Criminal Procedure Rules or, in Northern Ireland,".
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (c. 29)
In—

(a) section 24(1)(b) (application to discharge confiscation order: inadequacy of available amount), and

(b) section 25(1)(b) (application to discharge confiscation order: small amount outstanding), for "a justices' chief executive" substitute "the designated officer for a magistrates' court".

In section 54(6) and (7) (payments by enforcement receivers), for "justices' chief executive" substitute "designated officer".

(1) Amend section 55 (sums received by justices' chief executive) as follows.

(2) For "justices' chief executive", in each place (including the section heading) substitute "designated officer".

(3) In subsection (2), for "chief executive's" substitute "designated officer's".

(4) In subsection (6), for "section 60 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997 (c. 25)" substitute "section 33 of the Courts Act 2003".

In section 67(5) (payment of seized money), for "justices' chief executive" substitute "designated officer".
In section 91 (Crown Court Rules) for "Crown Court Rules or (as the case may be) Criminal Appeal Rules" substitute "Criminal Procedure Rules".
Adoption and Children Act 2002 (c. 38)
In section 13(2) (requirement to provide information relating to adoption), for "justices' chief executive" substitute "designated officer".
In section 55(2) (interpretation of section 55(1)), for "petty sessions" substitute "local justice".

(1) Amend section 141 (rules of procedure) as follows.

(2) In subsection (1), for "The Lord Chancellor may make rules" substitute "Family Procedure Rules may make provision".

(3) Omit subsection (2).

In section 144(1) (interpretation), for the definition of "rules" substitute—
""rules" means Family Procedure Rules made by virtue of section 141(1),"."
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 7 [Repeals]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendments Nos. 262 to 303:
Page 107, line 12, after "4," insert ""under the hand and seal" and"
Page 107, line 19, at end insert—

"Railway Regulation Act 1842 (c. 55)

In section 17, ", in the like discretion of such justice, shall" and the words from "and every such penalty" to the end.

Defence Act 1842 (c. 94)

In section 24, "of the county, riding, city, or place".

Companies Clauses Consolidation Act 1845 (c. 16)

In section 3, the words from "The word "justice- to "acting together in petty sessions".

104

Lands Clauses Consolidation Act 1845 (c. 18)

In section 3, the words from "The word "justices- to "acting together".

Railway Clauses Consolidation Act 1845 (c. 20)

In section 3, the words from "The word "justice"" to "acting together".

In section 46, "in petty sessions".

In section 59, ", and assembled in petty sessions,".

Markets and Fairs Clauses Act 1847 (c. 14)

In section 3, the words from "The word "justice- to "acting together:".

Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act 1847 (c. 27)

In section 3, the words from "The word "justice"" to "acting together:".

Towns Improvement Clauses Act 1847 (c. 34)

In section 3, the words from "The word "justice"" to "acting together:".

Cemeteries Clauses Act 1847 (c. 65)

In section 3, the words from "The word "justice"" to "acting together".

Town Police Clauses Act 1847 (c. 89)

In section 3, the words from "The word "justice"" to "acting together".

Indictable Offences Act 1848 (c. 42)

In section 13, "any county, riding, division, liberty, city, borough, or place in" (in both places).

Defence Act 1860 (c. 112)

In section 47, the words from. "The word -justices"" to "acting together:".

Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (c. 100)

In section 44, "under their hands".

In section 65, "under his hand and seal".

Poaching Prevention Act 1862 (c. 114)

In section 1, the words from and the words "justice" and "justices"" onwards.

In section 2, "England and".

In section 3, "in England in the same manner as penalties under the Game Act 1831 and".

Dockyard Ports Regulation Act 1865 (c. 125)

In section 2, the words from "The term "justice"" to "arises:".

Newspapers, Printers, and Reading Rooms Repeal Act 1869 (c. 24)

In Schedule 2, in section 34 of the Unlawful Societies Act 1799, "or sued" and ", or such action shall be brought", and sections 35 and 36 of the 1799 Act.

Explosive Substances Act 1883 (c. 3)

In section 6(1), "for the county, borough, or place in which the crime was committed or is suspected to have been committed," and "sit at a petty sessional or occasional court- house, or police station in the said county, borough or place, and"."

Page 107, line 26, at end insert—

"Criminal Justice Act 1925 (c. 86)

In section 33(4), ", except in so far as such provision may be made by rules under section 144 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980"."

Page 107, line 28, at end insert—
"Public Offices (Site) Act 1947 Section 7. (c. 45)
National Assistance Act 1948 Section 65(c)." (c. 29)
Page 107, line 36,at end insert—
"Maintenance Orders Act 1950 Section. 25(1) (c. 37)

In section 28(1), in the definition of "prescribed", "England or", "by rules made under section fifteen of the Justices of the Peace Act 1949, or" and "as the case may be,"."

Page 107, line 41,at end insert—

"Maintenance Orders Act 1958 (c. 39)

In section 21(1), the definition of "rules of court".

Manoeuvres Act 1958 (7 & 8 Eliz. 2 c. 7)

In section 3, in subsection (1) "sitting in petty sessions in the petty sessions area within which that highway or part of a highway is situated" and in subsection (2) "being a highway or part within the jurisdiction of those justices".

Obscene Publications Act 1959 (c. 66)

In section 3(1), "in the petty sessions area for which he acts "and "in that area".

Game Laws (Amendment) Act 1960 (c. 36)

In section 3(2), the words from "and in section one" onwards."

Page 108, line 8, at end insert—

"Administration of Justice Act 1960 (c. 65)

In section 2(3), "Except in a case involving sentence of death, ". Section 3."

Page 108, line 12, at end insert—

"Administration of Justice Act 1964 (c. 42)

In section 26, "commissions of the peace,".

Science and Technology Act 1965 (c. 4)

In Schedule 2, the entry relating to section 6 of the Geological Survey Act 1845.

Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 (c. 56)

Section 1(5)."

Page 108, line 18, column 2, at beginning insert—

"In section 31A(2), at the end of paragraph (b) "and"."

Page 108, line 20, column 2, at beginning insert—

"In section 36(1), at the end of paragraph (f) "and".

In section 36A( 1), at the end of paragraph (a) "and"."

Page 108, line 26, leave out "paragraph" and insert "paragraphs 17 and"
Page 108, line 26, at end insert—

"Attachment of Earnings Act 1971 (c. 32)

In section 25(1), the definition of "rules of court" and "and" before it.

Armed Forces Act 1971 (c. 33)

In Schedule 2, paragraph 1(8)."

Page 108, line 29, at end insert—

"Immigration Act 1971 (c. 77)

In Schedule 3, in paragraph 6(3) "the Crown Court or" and "commission area or" and in paragraph 8(1) "area or"."

Page 108, line 30, column 2, at beginning insert—

"In section 21(1), "in England and Wales or", "by rules made under section 144 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 Or", and "as the case may be,","

Page 108, line 32, at end insert—

"Civil Evidence Act 1972 (c.30)

Section 2(8)

Administration of Justice Act 1973 (c.15)

In section 5, "Paragraph 7 of".

In Schedule 1, Paragraphs 7 to 7B and 10(1)."

Page 108, line 42, column 2, at beginning insert—

"In section 2, the definitions of "Crown Court rules" "Magistrates' courts rules" and "Supreme Court rules"."

Page 109, line 5, at end insert—

"Administration of Justice Act 1977 (c.38)

Section 22."

Page 109, line 6, column 2, at beginning insert—

"In section 88(1), the definition of "rules"."

Page 109, line 6, after "2" insert ", 6 "
Page 109, line 13, at end insert—

"In Schedule 1, in paragraph 1(2) "Except in a case involving sentence of death," and paragraph 2."

Page 109, line 15, at end insert—

"Protection of Children Act 1978 (c. 37)

In section 4(1), "in the petty sessions area for which he acts"."

Page 109, line 18, at end insert—

"In section 60(4) "the clerk of."

Page 109, line 38, at end insert—

"Section 141."

Page 109, line 39, leave out from beginning to end of line 40 and insert—

"In section 144, in subsection (2) "the President of the Family Division of the High Court, the Senior District Judge (Chief Magistrate)" and subsection (5)."

Page 109, leave out line 41 arid insert—

"In section 145, in subsection paragraphs (aa), (1) and (i) and subsection (4)."

Page 109, line 44, leave out "definition of "petty-sessional court-house"" and insert "definitions of "petty-sessional court-house", "the register" and "the rules""
Page 109, line 47, at end insert—

"In Schedule 7, paragraphs 5, 8, 101(a), 106, 107, 113, 131 and 151.

Criminal Appeal (Northern Ireland) Act 1980 (c. 47)

Section 48 and Schedule 3."

Page 109, line 48, leave out "18(1)(a)" and insert "18(1)"
Page 109, line 50, at end insert—

"Section 76(4)."

Page 110, line 10, at end insert—

"In Schedule 5, paragraph 1 of the entry relating to the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1933, the entry relating to the Criminal Justice Act 1948, and paragraph 2 of the entry relating to the Evidence (Proceedings in Other Jurisdictions) Act 1975."

Page 110, line 16, at end insert—

"In Schedule 2, paragraph 43."

Page 110, line 17, at end insert—

"In Schedule 1, paragraph 13(b)."

Page 110, line 28, at end insert—

"Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 (c. 23)

Section 20(5)."

Page 111, line 2, column 2, at beginning insert—

"Section 7(10)(c) and the word "and" immediately preceding it. Section 18(4)."

Page 111, line 7, column 2, at beginning insert—

"Section 97(7)(a)."

Page 111, line 29, at end insert—

"Maintenance Enforcement Act 1991 (c. 17)

In Schedule 2, paragraph 11(2)."

Page 111. line 35, leave out "paragraph 41(2)(a)" and insert "in paragraph 41(2), paragraphs (a) and (e)"
Page 111, line 37, at end insert—

"Friendly Societies Act 1992 (c. 40)

In Schedule 16, paragraph 44."

Page 111 line 48, at end insert—

"In Schedule 6, paragraph 14(5) and (7)."

Page 112, line 2, after "paragraphs" insert "29, 30"
Page 112, line 34, at end insert—

"In Schedule 10, paragraphs 1 to 5, 6, 7, 9 to 12, 14 to 16, 18 to 20, 21(a), 30(4)(b), 32, 35 36, 39, and 47 to 53.

In Schedule 11, paragraphs 3, 6(a), 12, 18, 28, 29, 30, 32, 36(3) and (4)(a), and 43 to 50."

Page 112, line 35, at end insert—

"In Schedule 13, paragraphs 1, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 13(2), 14, 15, 25 to 31, 59(2), (3)(a) and (4), 60, 65, 66, 68, 69, 72, 73(4), 74, 77, 78, 81,82,89 to93,96 to 112, 114 to 118, 122(2), 126, 127, 129 to 131, 135 to 138, 147 to 149, 150(3),

108

153(a), 154 to 156, 159 to 162, 165, 167 to 169 and 171."

Page 112, line 36, at end insert—

"Section 65(2)."

Page 113. line 17, at end insert—

"Adoption and Children Act 2002 (c. 38)

Section 141(2).

In Schedule 3, paragraph 44.

Enterprise Act 2002 (c. 40)

Section 265."

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 100 [Commencement]:
Lord Bassam of Brightonmoved Amendment No. 304:
Page 53, line 21, after "37," insert "(Award of costs in appeals under Proceeds of Crime Act 2002),"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 101 [Extent]:
Lord Bassam of Brightonmoved Amendment No. 305:
Page 53, line 27, leave out "or 96" and insert "96, (Extension of time for criminal appeals to House of Lords: Northern Ireland). (Fees: Northern Ireland) or 99"
On Question, amendment agreed to.

European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an Association between the European Communities and their Member States and the Arab Republic of Egypt) Order 2003
7.39 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Deanrose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 28th April be approved [18th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I wish to speak to the two Motions standing in my name on the Order Paper. These are two European Union external agreements, one between the EU and Chile and the other between the EU and Egypt. With your Lordships' agreement, I intend to discuss the orders together because so much of the ground covered in both agreements is of a similar nature. Similarly, with your Lordships' agreement, I also intend to take questions on the two agreements together.
I will start with the agreement in relation to Egypt. The importance to the UK and the EU of stability in the Middle East has rarely been more apparent or acute. Today, we have an opportunity to take an important step in promoting that stability.
The association agreement between the EU and Egypt aims to promote economic and social development in Egypt, and in the region. It creates a partnership, underpinned by an ongoing, wide-ranging dialogue and cemented through increased trade liberalisation. It envisages co-operation on a

109
spectrum of issues of mutual concern, ranging from tourism to terrorism and from immigration to investment.
The agreement supports UK interests in a variety of ways. First, and most broadly, it will encourage economic and political reform in the Arab world's most populous nation, providing a key plank in the United Kingdom's policy to promote reform across the Arab world. It creates opportunities for increased UK exports through the progressive reduction of Egyptian tariffs on EU industrial products and through increased agricultural liberalisation. That dovetails with the wider UK aim of promoting global trade liberalisation and economic integration.
Equally importantly. the agreement gives the UK new means for promoting human rights in Egypt—through regular dialogue and, ultimately, the sanction of suspending the agreement due to human rights' violations.
The agreement forms part of a broader relationship between the EU and 12 Mediterranean countries, known as the Euro-Med Partnership. This new chapter in EU-Mediterranean relations was opened at Barcelona in 1995 and continues to grow and develop. Its overarching goal is to ensure peace, stability and security in the Mediterranean region. To this end, it aims to create a Euro-Med free trade area by 2010. Combining an enlarged EU of 25 countries with our Mediterranean partners will create one of the world's largest trading blocs.
Association agreements are the main instrument for achieving that target. Agreements that are similar to the one before us have already been signed with Tunisia, Israel, Morocco, Jordan, the Palestinian Authority, Algeria and Lebanon. The first four of those have been ratified and are in force—noble Lords may recall debates on them. An agreement with Syria is currently being negotiated.
Egypt shares the UK and EU aims of promoting regional stability and prosperity through dialogue, cooperation and trade. Its association agreement was signed on 25th June 2001, but until the agreement has been ratified by all parties, Egypt will not enjoy its benefits. It will not enjoy the benefit of increased agricultural liberalisation, increased EU investment or wide-ranging co-operation; nor will it be able to capitalise on the fresh impetus those provisions will bring to its economic reforms.
To date, the European Communities and four EU member states—France, Germany, Sweden and Ireland—have ratified the agreement. A further three member states will ratify within a matter of weeks. More importantly, Egypt itself ratified the agreement last month. It is an important agreement, supporting key long-term UK, EU and Egyptian objectives. The UK should ratify the agreement as soon as possible. I commend the order to the House.
I turn now with your Lordships' agreement to the EU-Chile association agreement, which takes previous agreements negotiated in the 1990s to a new level. It shows we can bring together the EU and Chile to agree an updated set of commitments, giving us the
110
opportunity to find ways that our relationship can deliver more benefits for all of us. The agreement represents the next step in our continuing attempts to strengthen the EU's relations with Latin America. It follows the lead of Mexico in 2000 and precedes a similar agreement currently nearing completion with Mercosur. We hope that the Andean community and Central America will follow suit after the Doha WTO round.
Chile is one of the most stable emerging markets in the world and that is due, in no small part, to its decision to participate fully in world trade. 1 t is a strong commitment to this belief in free trade which allows the EU and Chile to come together to design and implement an agreement that gives the most benefit to both parties.
There are other dimensions to the relationship too. Through mutual co-operation, the agreement will build and strengthen institutions and help reinforce and support democratic principles, the rule of law and good governance. We must support and encourage that in a maturing democracy such as Chile. The EU can share its experience and expertise in a wide number of areas in the technical, trade, economic and social spheres—and we can help to build social cohesion and fight poverty, marginalisation and exclusion.
Most of the EU-Chile association agreement deals with a new set of trading arrangements. As a part of the EU's ongoing programme of negotiating bilateral free trade agreements, the agreement shows us what can be done when two parties set out to achieve an ambitious result for mutual benefit. The agreement is one of the most liberal of all the EU's trade agreements and provides the model from which other trade agreements follow. It fully liberalises more than 97 per cent of all goods traded between the EU and Chile over the next 10 years, easily surpassing the level needed for WTO compatibility. Specifically, it delivers tariff-free access for all industrial goods and trade in services. Those are measures from which UK exporters stand to benefit greatly. The gains from dismantling trade barriers will continue to accrue to firms year after year, giving a substantial boost to growth and prosperity. Those benefits have already come on stream, with both sides agreeing that they should start on 1st February 2003.
On top of tariff reductions, the agreement establishes for the first time preliminary rules governing investment, competition and government procurement, in line with our objectives in the WTO round. We have also agreed a wines and spirits agreement, which will bring in more Chilean wine at cheaper prices, and allow us to export even bigger quantities of our spirits, particularly Scotch whisky and vodka.
Turning to the political elements of the agreement, we can see the benefits of an ongoing open dialogue on world events. The agreement commits the EU and Chile to regular meetings at various levels, including heads of government and ministerial level. Those meetings give us a chance to exchange views on a wide range of matters and to find areas of mutual agreement

111
where we might work together to achieve a common aim. Areas specified in the agreement include fighting terrorism, international crime and the trafficking of illegal drugs. Indeed, that dialogue has already begun. By way of the UK's commitment to the process, my honourable friend the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs, Bill Rammell, participated in the inaugural association council established under the agreement in Athens earlier this year.
Further to this political dialogue, the agreement commits the EU to supporting Chile in other ways. Technical assistance and co-operation is something that the EU member states do well. Chilean policy makers, business community and civil society, can learn much from us, and likewise us from them. The agreement pushes our relationship to new heights and helps to cement relationships at all levels.
As a result of the Order in Council discussed today, the UK will be among the first member states to ratify the agreement. This sends a strong and clear signal of the UK's close relationship with Chile and the importance we attach to it. For this reason, I ask your Lordships to support the important objectives by approving the principles behind the agreement. I commend that order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 28th April be approved [18th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean.)
7.45 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, the Minister referred briefly to the human rights implications of the two agreements. I want to concentrate on those, if I may, and not to speak in general about the liberalisation of trade, of which we of course strongly approve. We hope that that leads to greater trade between our country and the two that are mentioned in the agreements.
In respect of human rights, there is a standard clause in the association agreement which has always been used up until now. It is that in the agreement with Egypt:
"Relations between the Parties, as well as the provisions of the Agreement itself, shall be based on respect of democratic rights and fundamental human rights as set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which guides their internal and international policy and constitutes an essential element of this Agreement".
The Minister said that that clause enables us, in the event of serious default, to annul the association agreement, but she did not say what steps would be taken in the period leading up to any such drastic decision. Any such decision by the European Union to cancel the agreement would surely not come out of the blue and without some previous very careful consideration of the violations of human rights that were said to have occurred in Egypt. There is no mechanism in the agreement for doing that.
112
We believe that the EU should consider, through some kind of mechanism, the fact that in Egypt, for example, there has been a state of emergency since 1981 when President Sadat was murdered, and the fact that, under a decree by President Mubarak in October 1992, civilians can be tried by military courts, against which there is no right of appeal. The state of emergency comes up for renewal every three years. As it happens, I understand that the next renewal is due in June. Have we made any representations to Egypt to the effect that it is inappropriate to continue those arrangements once the association agreement and its commitments have entered into force?
The ruling National Democratic Party in Egypt has a tight grip on the media and control over other political parties, NGOs, the unions and the large public sector, so that the people have no right in practice to change their government. In the 2000 elections to the People's Assembly, the opposition made small gains despite widespread arrests of activists, particularly those of the Muslim Brotherhood, which advocates the creation of an Islamic state by peaceful, democratic means. The EU and member states must make up their minds about whether the respect for democratic rights in the association agreements extends to full participation by Islamist political parties in the electoral process and in public debate on the policies of their governments. If so, as I would expect, how are they going to use the association agreements to further that principle?
If the international community is incapable of making a distinction between those who use the ballot box to further what they see as Islamic principles of government, and others who choose the path of violence for those purposes, the effect will be to cause some Islamists to think that, as an Irishman once put it, violence is the only way of securing a hearing for moderation. In Algeria—I do not need to remind noble Lords of this—the army-backed coup of 1991 inaugurated more than a decade of bloodshed and reciprocal terrorism between the state and the Islamists. That process was tolerated by Europe, but we now must face the same question across the whole region: do the various brands of Islamism constitute ideologies that compete for peoples' allegiance within a framework of democracy, or are some of them using the levers of democracy to gain power and put an end to the freedom of their people to exercise choice? If it is the latter, should the people be trusted with the preservation of their own freedom or, as in the case of Egypt, are governments justified in imposing certain limitations on human rights to prevent the loss of most of them, notwithstanding the commitments that they enter into in agreements of this sort
We should discuss these questions. According to the Explanatory Memorandum, there is, in Article 3 of the agreement, provision for a political dialogue, albeit only at ministerial and senior official level. In our opinion, there should be a much wider review mechanism, including annual reports to the Egyptian parliament and the European Parliament on the performance of the obligations under Article 2, based on material that is already in the public domain, such

113
as the US State Department country reports on human rights practices and reports by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and Fédération Internationale des Droits de l'Homme. Wherever possible, that should be supplemented by reciprocal visits, such as those undertaken by the noble Lords, Lord Alton and Lord Ahmed, both of whom have visited Egypt in recent years.
In the case of Chile, in addition to respect for democratic principles and human rights, the rule of law is said to underpin the policies of the parties. It would be useful if the Minister could explain why that is not in all the association agreements. Chile is a democratic country and held free and fair elections for the presidency in 2000 and the congress in December 2001. However, with regard to the rule of law, there are still military courts which deal with crimes by military personnel against civilians, and military tribunals also have the power to deal with ordinary offences, such as terrorism, sedition and defamation of military personnel by civilians. The criminal law still prohibits the insulting of state institutions.
There are also problems concerning the human rights violations that occurred during the period of military government under Pinochet. Pinochet's immunity was lifted, but he was found unfit to stand trial. We hope that wherever there is enough evidence against leading members of the former regime and against military personnel who committed acts of torture, there will be prosecutions. It would be useful if, in the EU-Chile dialogue, the cases of victims who are EU nationals could be pursued. Such cases include British citizens. I refer, for example, to Dr Sheila Cassidy, who spoke at the first meeting of the Parliamentary Human Rights Group in 1976—1 remember chairing it—and Father Michael Woodward, in whose torture and murder Foreign Office Ministers always take a close interest.
Amnesty International says that although the amnesty for torturers and murderers provided by decree law 2.191 of 1978 has been partially suspended as a result of decisions by the supreme court, it is still contrary to international law and should be repealed altogether. That opinion has been echoed by the Inter-American Commission for Human Rights and other authoritative international bodies.
The argument that crimes against humanity, such as extra-juridical execution, disappearances and torture—which took place during the Pinochet regime—cannot be subject to any statute of limitations and that the Chilean Government have an obligation to investigate those crimes and punish the offenders, whatever the time that has elapsed since they were committed, has some force. Unlike the case of Egypt, there are institutional mechanisms within the framework of the association council, described in Part II of the agreement, for political dialogue, but nothing is said there about how the parliaments of the two states can be involved, still less the people of Chile and Britain.
114
I hope that those questions can be considered, not necessarily this evening but at some time before we get down to work on implementing the two association agreements so that we can see how the Government intend to monitor and watch them over the years and take steps that are short of the drastic steps mentioned by the noble Baroness in cases in which those violations continue to occur.
8 p.m.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I believe that I am right in saying that we are taking these orders before another place. In a sense, we are pace setting— as in many other areas—on these issues.
The time that we have allotted for the orders is short, and we are dealing with them in a sensible and expeditious way, but I note in passing that the agreements are colossal. The agreement for Egypt contains 92 articles and has a mass of annexes and protocols, and the association agreement for Chile has 206 articles and is accompanied by five volumes, each of which has about 700 or 800 pages. So vast is the documentation that when it came to my office it was marked with a label that said, "Heavy package: lift with caution: price £ 176". We can touch on only the edges of these matters and deal with the most general points. No human mind—certainly no legislature—could grasp all of the detail. In an earlier debate today, noble Lords were worried about taking 135 amendments to a Bill en bloc and maintained that they were not adequately explained. That applies just as much to taking an order en bloc that has attached to it five volumes—each of which has 800 pages—206 articles and heaven knows how many annexes and protocols.
Why do we need to put ourselves through this process at all? After all, these are Community documents and the Explanatory Memorandum states that, under Community law, they can he directly effective in the United Kingdom so long as they are sufficiently clear, precise and unconditional. The implication of the Explanatory Memorandum is that to get these matters right in our own courts and to enable rights and obligations arising from the agreement to be given effect in the United Kingdom, we must also give it our approval. Other reasons are given for dealing with the matter, but it is admitted that in legal, political and technical terms these orders are vastly complex and cover a huge range of issues.
The order establishing agreement between the European Communities and the Arab Republic of Egypt is, as the Minister made clear, part of the EU's Mediterranean policy. It is a most ambitious and worthwhile policy and it concentrates on expanding the free-trade area throughout the Mediterranean basin. I support that; it has our full approval.
The noble Lord, Lord A vebury, raised a different dimension and I want slightly to part company with him. One must ask to what extent the trade agreements can sustain all the political problems which arise in the

115
modern world where the society of modern states is imposing standards on sovereign nations and requiring patterns of behaviour which I welcome and which are far more rigorous. One cannot separate politics and trade, but we must ask how much we must seek to use such instruments and association agreements for pursuing the utterly worthwhile and noble ends that the noble Lord outlined. It is a matter of opinion, but I question whether, if one builds too much politics into trade, one will get into the kind of trouble the World Trade Organisation got into, particularly at the famous Seattle gathering where there was a total breakdown. When looking at such complex issues and at the number one priority in each of them—in both agreements it is for a regular political dialogue—I cannot help having some degree of agreement with my noble friend Lord Hurd when he said in an interesting speech last week:
"I would rather we talked less about the EU's global pretentions and concentrated on making a success of enterprises closer to hand".
There is a lesson to be kept in mind about weaving too many of our political ambitions, and our ambitions for greater stability and a better world order, into the more humdrum but vitally important matter of expanding our trade and reducing barriers, quotas, tariff and non-tariff obstructions to the free movement of goods and services.
I want to make a few brief comments on each of the orders. As the Minister reminded us, Egypt is the most populous Arab nation. Its population has been growing at a staggering rate. When I first visited Cairo 30 or 40 years ago, the population was 15 million, which seemed incredible. I am told that it is now probably nearer 30 million—and that is one city inside Egypt. We are looking at a nation of a colossal population which is rapidly growing and raising colossal problems and challenges for development and political organisation, at which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, hinted.
It is utterly in our interest that this huge Arab nation should be stable; should be more prosperous; should have faster economic growth; and should be an effective player not only in the Middle Eastern arena but in the world community. It is certainly of a size to do so and in history it has done so. Egypt is a major beneficiary of EU aid and I understand that there are current commitments from the EU of about 850 million euros and many programmes in addition.
I would like to know—it may be impossible in the time we have today—a little more about how that interacts with UK bilateral aid and direct links with Egypt; that is, UK/Egyptian affairs and UK/Egyptian aid and technical assistance. It is a bit of a hobbyhorse of mine to know how the whole EU aid programme in all its aspects interrelates with those parts of aid activities that remain with the nation states. I confess that I am in a constant state of unhappiness about the
116
linkages between the EU programmes and the national programmes. I share a bias, which was shared by the outgoing Secretary of State for International Development, that the EU programmes leave a very great deal to be desired and that we rue the day when so much authority was handed from nation states, with their highly efficient programmes, to the EU organisations. We were in favour of more coordination but creating a gigantic fifth wheel to the pattern of aid programmes in Europe may not have been such a marvellous idea as many people argued at the time.
I would also like to know how the measure sits alongside the large volume of United States aid which I understand goes to Egypt. It is important to make judgments when we are trying to work out positive moves to assist the development of poorer countries around the edges of the Union, or in the Mediterranean area, and assess how our efforts coordinate with or contradict the efforts of the other major aid donors and trade partners of, in this case, Egypt. How do such issues fit in? It would be useful at some time—perhaps not today—to have a clearer picture.
Nor is it totally clear why Egypt is so poor. Why has its rate of growth been so inadequate, despite the colossal aid it has received over the years? I suspect that we should be looking at different criteria for stimulating growth and development; perhaps at ideas such as those of Hernandez de So to, who says that the real reason for a vast city such as Cairo, teaming with enterprise and skill, still being poor lies in the total lack of property rights and not in lack of aid or anything else. If one can somehow raise the standards of good governance that underlie property rights, particularly the rule of law, one will begin to see Egypt again prosper as a mighty nation. It could well do so, but is not at the moment. That is one of the greatest human rights and our efforts should be enabling and encouraging that. I hope we can bear that thought in mind.
I turn briefly to the Chilean agreement. It is a vast series of agreements and a huge document. It begins once again with the emphasis on a political dialogue. It makes one feel a little uneasy about who is held to account for implementing all of the agreement. I suppose we have an adequate opportunity at national level. I suppose that the European Parliament does its job, but I have no idea because I do not have the time or resources to catch up with the full combing through of all the texts. I ruminate—there will be debates to come on this—that if the convention draft constitution proposals go forward and give the EU as a legal entity even more power to make agreements and settle issues without involving the national parliaments, that will be an even more serious challenge to accountability and to trying to catch up with what is going wrong.
Frankly, the explanatory memorandum for the Chilean agreement does not tell us much, so one has to turn to the press release which goes with the signing of the agreement last November in Brussels. On that occasion the EuroChile prize was awarded to Mr Soledad Alvear, the senior Chilean: Mr

117
Christopher Patten, commissioner, and Mr Pascal Lamy, also a commissioner. On that occasion Mr Lamy said that it was a model of 21st century relations. They did not mention what I believe the noble Baroness rightly mentioned and what all of us have in mind, which is the excellent wine from Chile and the really remarkable story of lifting Chilean wine exports into the highest level of world quality in a matter of a few decades.
The agreement also mentions that we shall be able to talk about various developments, both political and other kinds, of the kind mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and that there will be consultation with the EU Parliaments on the Euro-Chilean dialogue. I would love to know how those consultations will go forward, whether they add up to genuine discussion or whether it is just a matter between the European Parliament and various Chilean bodies.
Does the order cover European Union aid to Chile? From reading the documentation I think not but I may be wrong about that. Overall, we take the matter on trust rather as your Lordships were taking on trust earlier debates and propositions from Governments because we cannot absorb all the detail. But these are two nations which we want to prosper which have made great strides. After a stormy political period, Chile has done particularly brilliantly in many areas in very recent years. Egypt has yet to prosper in the way I believe it should and could do in which open societies, free trade and good governance really prevail and allow the Egyptian people to play their full part in world politics.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, has correctly identified the lack of solid property rights as a brake on Egypt's development. It may be also that the United States aid to Egypt has been less effective because it has been largely military in character. When the Minister replies on Chile I hope that she will be able to say whether she can foresee similar trade improvements being extended to Argentina? If that could be done in the fairly short or medium term it might help Argentina to recover somewhat more rapidly from its recent serious economic problems and that in turn might help Mercosur, the South American cone of economic cooperation to become more of a reality than it is at present.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, three of your Lordships have raised quite a lot of questions, which I shall do my best to answer. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, is right in saying that the agreements are lengthy. Indeed, they took quite some time to negotiate. However. I am sorry to say that I was staggered to learn that the cost of a copy of the Chilean agreement to the general public is £ 176. I think that that is a very heavy price.
118
However lengthy and long these negotiations were, I do not think any of your Lordships believe that they are fundamentally contentious agreements, although the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, raised some particular questions about human rights. As I said in my opening remarks, the agreements on which we have to focus are principally about trade. None of us operates on trade without reference to what is happening in international relationships. In human rights terms, we expect certain standards of those with whom we conclude these kinds of agreements.
Perhaps I may say to your Lordships that—and. this touches to a certain extent upon what the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, said—in the EU we are now concentrating our trade negotiations through the WTO. Commissioner Lamee has said that EU resources should he put behind trying to liberalise trade internationally through the WTO and particularly in building up for the discussions we shall be having in Cancun in Mexico in September.
I have a certain sympathy with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, about bilateral agreements and their importance. I think that to set bilateral agreements entirely on one side in the European Union would be a mistake. I hope that in the longer term that is not a path down which the European Union is trying to tempt us to go. although I can see the sense in concentrating our resources in the way that we arc at the moment.
I turn first to Egypt. It already enjoys duty and quota-free access to the EU for its industrial products under the 1977 co-operation agreement. However, by liberalising trade in agricultural products and increasing EU/Egyptian co-operation in economic areas the agreement will promote Egyptian exports into the EU. The noble Lord raised an important question about what he perceived to be a lack of prosperity on Egypt's part. It is important to see that this is opening up those markets for Egypt in a way that we hope will consolidate its position
Of course the agreement will cover 90 per cent of EU/Egyptian trade. The United Kingdom supported better and faster market access for EU exports. Perhaps it is disappointing that more was not achieved. I am bound to say to your Lordships that in acknowledging that, I hope that we will also acknowledge the positive side of the agreement.
I turn to the very interesting point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, as to the human rights issues around the Egyptian agreement. It is important that the articles on political dialogue provide for regular exchanges on subjects of common interest, such as peace, democracy and regional development. Human rights will be a part of that dialogue, as under the association agreements with other countries in the region. The noble Lord will be familiar with those agreements.

119
In addition, the European Union can take what are described as "appropriate measures"—including of course, as I mentioned, the suspending provisions in the agreement—if it considers that Egypt is failing to meet its obligations. The noble Lord asked quite rightly: how is that done? Monitoring through the heads of mission will continue. That will trigger, if necessary, an ability to raise the matter at association council and committee. There will be a continuing dialogue after ratification.
We always have very senior ambassadorial representation in Cairo. I was there recently. We have an exceptionally good mission in terms of the numbers of British diplomats. So we are able to monitor the situation and to bring matters to the attention of our colleagues should that be necessary.
The monitoring of human rights concerns by Parliament is an important point, not just for Parliament in this country but for parliaments in other European Union countries. But of course the competence, as the noble Lord will know, rests at European Council level. The Council will consider the views of national parliaments and, quite rightly, the views of the European Parliament itself.
As I understand the situation, either party can take appropriate measures if it considers that the other side is failing to fulfil its complete obligations under the agreement, including in respect of the principles of fundamental human rights. Therefore, I believe that there are many mechanisms which can be triggered should we feel that Egypt is not living up to its obligations.
I turn to the interesting questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Howell. as to aid. He was particularly worried about what he saw as the failings of European Union aid towards Egypt. It is a UK priority to support reforms aimed at improving the effectiveness and management of European Union aid, including the MEDA programme which provides aid to Egypt. We support the European Commission in taking forward this reform agenda and I think that we are reasonably happy with progress to date.
I understand that the United States is also looking to pursue a free trade agreement with Egypt. However, that ambition is in its early days and no negotiations have actually started. Last week President Bush also spoke of a US/Middle East free-trade area. That is still very much a German idea, but none the less it is interesting that he is thinking in that way.
I stress to noble Lords that the investment pattern between this country and Egypt is interesting. For example, the noble Lord may like to know that United Kingdom companies invest into Egypt six times
120
the volume of money of United States companies. That is a quite remarkable figure. It is one in which this country can take a certain amount of pride, and perhaps one upon which others should reflect.
I turn to issues concerning Chile. As I said, the agreement is part of strengthening bilateral relations in Latin America following the EU-Mexico agreement concluded in 1997. Both the EU and Chile view the agreement as strengthening political links and building on co-operation and assistance projects while giving our economies a real chance to benefit from trade liberalisation. The points made by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, emphasising issues concerning Chilean wine and our whisky are most important. Those are huge products for both economies and it is good to see progress in that respect.
I turn again to the important points made by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, about human rights. Let us consider the question of the rule of law. The agreement reiterates our commitment to strengthening the rule of law in Chile, which is an integral part of the political and co-operation parts of the agreement. Since the earlier framework agreements concluded in 1991 and 1996, that has been our aim.
The noble Lord is concerned about the working of the military courts. We support the correct use of judicial procedures, according to the nature of the case in question. With regard to the use of military courts, we would use the agreement to influence the Government of Chile to follow what we believe to be the correct internationally recognised procedures. Of course, that means that civilians should be tried in civilian courts.
I turn to the issue of peace law 2.191. We have always been concerned that human rights abuses committed during the military dictatorship are thoroughly investigated by the Chilean authorities, and that those found responsible are brought to justice. We support the repeal of the 1978 amnesty law. I am of course aware of the abuses relating to Father Michael Woodward and William Beausire. We formally registered with the Chilean Government our continuing interest in the cases of both those individuals. As I said, we have always been concerned that human rights abuses be properly investigated and President Lagos has said that his government is committed to ensuring that the courts have the necessary independence to advance the process of human rights cases. So we have received those assurances from the Chilean President.
Article 9 of the agreement provides scope for parliamentary co-operation between the Chilean Congress and the European Parliament. However, no article covers co-operation between national parliaments. That is for the consideration of national parliaments individually, rather than as part of the agreement.

121
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, asked whether the Chilean agreement was to be a precursor for one with Argentina or, indeed, Mercosur. As I said, we are not entering into heavy bilateral negotiations with other countries at present, because the Council is concentrating on Cancun and the WTO. Negotiations on association agreements with Chile and Mercosur started together in 1999, but negotiating with a regional bloc is necessarily more complex than with a single country. As I know from discussions that I have had when in Chile and elsewhere—certainly in Brazil—frankly, it can be very difficult to press ahead with such negotiations. However, we hope to conclude the EU-Mercosur association agreement in line with the Rio Work Programme agreed in 2002. We hope to approach the final round of negotiations later this year.
I hope that I have answered your Lordships questions to your satisfaction, and that you will now feel able to pass both of the orders.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Agreement establishing an association between the European Community and its Members States and the Republic of Chile) Order 2003
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 28th April be approved [18th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean).
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-four minutes past eight o'clock.

  North/South Language Body
  North/South Language Body
  North/South Ministerial Council
  North/South Ministerial Council
  Government of the Republic of Ireland: Budget-setting
  Government of the Republic of Ireland: Budget-setting
  China: Family Policy
  China: Family Policy
  Colombia: Children
  Colombia: Children
  Afghanistan: Opium Poppy Cultivation
  Afghanistan: Opium Poppy Cultivation
  Nigeria: Case of Amina Lawal
  Nigeria: Case of Amina Lawal
  Northern Ireland: Jurors
  Northern Ireland: Jurors
  Law Commission: Quinquennial Review
  Law Commission: Quinquennial Review
  Cyprus
  Cyprus
  Iraq: Antiquities
  Iraq: Antiquities
  Global Opportunities Fund
  Global Opportunities Fund
  Emergency Services Radiocommunications Systems
  Emergency Services Radiocommunications Systems
  Unlawful Sex with Minors
  Unlawful Sex with Minors
  National Firearms Licensing Management System
  National Firearms Licensing Management System
  Driving on a Prohibited Road: Prosecutions
  Driving on a Prohibited Road: Prosecutions
  NHS: Quality of Clinical Service
  NHS: Quality of Clinical Service
  Ionising Radiation
  Ionising Radiation
  Antenatal Screening, Eugenic Abortion and Pre-implementation Genetic Diagnosis
  Antenatal Screening, Eugenic Abortion and Pre-implementation Genetic Diagnosis
  Euthanasia
  Euthanasia
  Suicide
  Suicide
  Child Abuse
  Child Abuse
  Emergency Hormonal Contraception
  Emergency Hormonal Contraception
  Mobile Phones: Possible Health Effects
  Mobile Phones: Possible Health Effects
  Abortion
  Abortion
  Reproductive Health: DoH Funding
  Reproductive Health: DoH Funding
  Female Circumcision
  Female Circumcision
  NHS: Cardiac Care
  NHS: Cardiac Care
  NHS Patients: Treatment Abroad
  NHS Patients: Treatment Abroad
  Mortality and Morbidity
  Mortality and Morbidity
  TB Sufferers
  TB Sufferers
  Teenage Pregnancy Strategy
  Teenage Pregnancy Strategy
  Post Mortem Removal of Organs: Report into case of Mr Cyril Mark Isaacs
  Post Mortem Removal of Organs: Report into case of Mr Cyril Mark Isaacs
  Ofsted: Registration of Childminders
  Ofsted: Registration of Childminders
  Non-residential Property
  Non-residential Property
  Stamp Duty Exemption
  Stamp Duty Exemption
  Competition Law: Definition of "Market"
  Competition Law: Definition of "Market"
  Prescription-only Veterinary Medicines
  Prescription-only Veterinary Medicines